"Choose the Right Jesus" Examined Exegetically
I recently came across a blog post by a Reformed Baptist/anti-Mormon activist from England, Bobby Gilpin entitled, “Choose the Right Jesus.” In this article, he critiques Latter-day Saint Christology on two fronts:
1. The alleged biblical evidence in favour of his Trinitarian perspective of the person and work of Jesus and against the “Mormon” view and
2. The priesthood of Christ in light of the New Testament evidence which, in his view, contradicts LDS teachings on the priesthood.
I will review his arguments in this paper, showing that Gilpin is guilty of biblical eisegesis and actually uses arguments and texts that refute, not support, his Reformed soteriology and Trinitarian theology; furthermore, as with many Evangelical critics of the LDS Church, his presentation of LDS theology is flawed. When Gilpin is quoted, it will be indented and appear in blue. As many of his arguments are mirrored in similar other works against LDS theology, I believe this will be of some benefit to readers.
In the Bible we see that eternal life comes from knowing Jesus.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Already, Gilpin has used a text that refutes, not supports, his Christology Why? Firstly, one should note that in Trinitarian theology, there is an allowance (albeit, ambiguously) for a distinction between the “persons” of the Godhead (the Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father), as modalism would arise if no distinction was permitted between them; however, there is no allowance for a distinction between “God” or any of the divine titles (e.g., Yahweh; Adonai) and the persons, that is, the Father is “God” but so is the Son and Spirit. However, in many key “creedal” texts in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Tim 2:5 [discussed below]), there is a distinction, not just between the persons of the Father and the Son, but also between “God” and the Son, which is very non-Trinitarian. This is the case in John 17:3. The Greek reads:
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
"Now this is life of the age to come that they may know you the only one who is the true God and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (my translation).
The title, τον μονον αληθινον θεον (“the only one who is the true God”), is predicated upon a single person, not a “being” composed of three “persons” (however one wishes to define “person”), and such is predicated upon the singular person of the Father, with Jesus himself distinguishes himself in John 17:3 from “the only true God.” Absolutising this verse, this is a strictly Unitarian verse as only a singular person is within the category of being the “only true God.” However, in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "Midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].
Funnily enough, Gilpin quotes Heb 1:3 later in his article a verse Latter-day Saints are known to appeal to frequently in support of our theology:
Hebrews 1:3 says Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
Unfortunately for Gilpin, this verse doesn't serve his theology well. Not only does the Christology of the entire epistle to the Hebrews pose many insurmountable problems for the more "traditional" (read: Trinitarian) views of Jesus, as the author clearly held to a post-ascension subordination of the Son to the Father, he also held to a theology of "divine embodiment" of God the Father, flying in the face of the doctrine of "divine simplicity" (God is without parts), an important building block for the Trinity!
A careful, succinct exegesis of this text from the Greek was presented by D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text"
There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.
Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.
Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek και kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.
Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”
In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.
Returning to John 17:3, while much more would be said, it is clear from this verse that Jesus is the agent/apostle of the Father (cf. Heb 3:1). Further, John 17:3 is a problematic text for those who, like Gilpin, hold to creedal/metaphysical Trinitarianism, but not to Latter-day Saint theology, as the latter holds to "Kingship Monotheism," wherein there is one Most High God (the Father), but the Son and Spirit are also divine persons whose actions and glory have the ultimate telos of the glorification of the Father Himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6; 15:22-28; Phil 2:5-11, etc).
Blake Ostler summed up succinctly the LDS position (“Kingship Monotheism”) rather cogently:
There are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).
One wishing to pursue the biblical and historical evidence for the LDS understanding of the "number" of God should consider this scholarly volume.
Examination of Latter-day Saint Soteriology
If we do not truly know Jesus even good works that we do are nothing to Christ. Isaiah 64:6 says we are ALL unclean and our good works are like filthy rags to God. Knowing Jesus is what truly saves, not anything that we can do.
It should be noted that the term translated as “filthy rags” in Hebrew (כְבֶ֥גֶד עִדִּ֖ים) is more potent within its Old Testament context--it means “like/as menstrual garments.”
Gilpin’s comments notwithstanding, this is a prime example of how Reformed theology is built upon eisegesis, not exegesis, of the biblical texts. Firstly, Isaiah is speaking of the condition the people of Israel became as a result of infidelity to God and His covenant, not about the “natural” abilities of man (per Total Depravity of the TULIP). This can be seen in the previous verse which Calvinists tend not to quote when abusing this text, one that speaks of the natural abilities of man and one’s ability to please God with their good works:
Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wrote; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved.
To blatantly ignore the previous verse is to engage in the same type of Scripture-wrenching Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty of in attempting to "prove" that Jesus and the archangel Michael are one and the same person.
Psa 18:20-28 speaks of meritorious good works and, based on one’s covenantal fidelity, God accepts that person. There is no hint at alien imputed righteousness, any variation of “faith alone” theology wherein good works is merely the fruit of salvation:
The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my heart hath he recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all his judgements were before me, and I did not put away his statutes from me. I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore, hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight. With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself upright; With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the forward thou wilt shew thyself forward. For thou wilt save the afflicted people; but wilt thou bring down high looks. For thou wilt light my candle; the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness.
Compare the above with a text written about David himself:
For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all his judgments were before me: and as for his statutes, I did not depart from them. I was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore, the Lord hath recompensed me according to my righteousness; according to my cleanness in his eye sight. With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou silt shew thyself upright. (2 Sam 22:22-26)
This is the polar opposite of much of historical and modern Protestantism—not a hint of alien imputed righteousness; not a hint of the total depravity of man; not a hint of our works being menstrual rags in the eyes of God. Instead, David, due to his keeping the statutes and commandments of God, Yahweh will reward him, not based on an alien imputed righteousness which is the only ground of one’s salvation, per Reformed commentators, but due to David’s own righteousness (Hebrew: צְדָקָה; LXX: δικαιοσύνη).
On the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, let us examine briefly a commonly-cited and abused text in Rom 10:9-13:
That is thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, though shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
This pericope is often touted as “proof” for Sola Fide, as it stresses confessing and calling upon the name of the Lord and the importance of believing in Jesus. Of course, Latter-day Saints agree in the total necessity of confessing Jesus and calling upon his name (επικαλεω is often a technical term in the LXX and NT for an act of prayer) and the importance of belief in Jesus (cf. Articles of Faith 3, for e.g.). However, notice that things like repentance are not mentioned in this text, notwithstanding its importance in salvation (e.g. Matt 3:2; Acts 2:38-39), and baptism is not mentioned, again notwithstanding its salvific importance in the New Testament (cf. Rom 6:1-4 earlier in Paul’s letter). Moreover, Paul is using Deut 30:6-16, a pericope that stresses the importance of obedience, not simply faith alone, when one is within God’s saving covenant (“covenantal nomism” for those familiar with terminology used within biblical studies), refuting the appeal to Rom 10:9-13 as “proof” of Sola Fide:
And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. And the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day. And the Lord thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the Lord will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers: If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is 1 not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
I am sure Gilpin and other Reformed individuals will claim that Eph 2:1, which speaks of unregenerate man being "dead" in their sins is "proof" of their anthropology; however, such would 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 the likes of RC Sproul (Chosen by God) are forced to from a metaphor, one would be engaging in very questionable biblical interpretation, to say the very least.
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"), 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 Reformed Baptists like Gilpin! Other texts could be cited, such as Phinehas being “credited with righteousness” due to his meritorious good works in Psa 106:30-31 (cf. Num 25:2-8; Gen 15:6) and the clear teachings of the New Testament on the salvific importance of baptism, such as Acts 2:38; John 3:1-7; Titus 3:3-5; and Rom 6:1-4. As a Reformed Baptist, Gilpin would hold to the ahistorical and anti-biblical view that baptism is merely a symbol of one being "saved" prior to baptism; that such a view is contrary to the "unanimous consent" of early Christian authors is admitted by other Reformed apologists, such as William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Banner of Truth, 1995), pp. 95-96.
So for number 1 We see that Biblically Jesus is completely and utterly God.
Colossians 1:16 says For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him
Gilpin only quotes v.16, but this is part of a “Christological hymn,” spanning vv.15-20.
The Greek reads:
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, [δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
The NRSV renders it as follows:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers -- all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in1 him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
There are a couple of things one has to consider to engage in any meaningful exegesis of this pericope:
1. There is a differentiation, not just between the persons of the Father and the Son, but between “God” (ο θεος) and Jesus (vv. 15, 19), something which is inconsistent with Trinitarianism (see discussion above)
2. That the “all things” that are created do not include the spirits of man can be seen in v. 21 where there is a differentiation between the things created in vv.15-20, “And you (και υμας), that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled," something said to then-believing Christians. Does Paul here include Satan and demons among this "creation" when he says Jesus has reconciled "all things" in heaven and earth to Himself? Highly unlikely. Paul could not have included unbelievers in this "reconciliation"; otherwise, he would not have qualified the prospects of reconciliation for his audience: "If ye continue in the faith" (v. 23). I mention this point as some Evangelicals (incorrectly) cite this pericope as "proof" of how allegedly anti-biblical LDS Christology is (e.g. Ron Rhodes, "Christ," in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism).
3. Relying upon the faulty translation of the preposition εν in the KJV, Gilpin harps on the English preposition, "by." Most modern translations, including the NRSV quoted above, translate the preposition as "in," not "by" (it is possible this is a "causal εν," with "because of him" being a plausible translation of the construction ἐν αὐτῷ--see the discussion of this preposition in Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, as one example). This is further strengthened by the fact that v.16 is part of a οτι-clause in Greek (οτι meaning "for" or "because of").
4. The text states that thrones, principalities, and powers were created “in Jesus.” These are hierarchies of angels that are in view in this pericope (cf. Rom 8:38), That this is the case can be further seen in the fact that Col 1:15ff places this creation within the realm of all those things that God the Father is reconciling to Himself (Col 1:20), clearly placing a limit to the "all things" spoken about in Col 1:16.
5. The voice of the verbs used in v.16 when speaking of the creative role of Jesus are passives, not actives--ἐκτίσθη is the indicative aorist passive of κτίζω while ἔκτισται is an indicative perfect passive. This would be consistent with LDS theology. Note the following from Bruce R. McConkie in vol. 3 of his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary: "16-17. Christ created the universe and all things that in it are, but in doing so he acted in the power, might, and omnipotence of the Father. 'Worlds without number have I created,' is God's language, 'and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.' (Moses 1:33.) 'By him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.' (D. & C. 76:24; John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:2.)" Such is reflective of the function of divine passives, where the Father is the ultimate creator, but it was done through the Son (and, in LDS theology, other figures, too [cf. Abraham 4:1ff]). As N.T. Wright writes in his commentary on Colossians, part of the Tyndale Commentary series: "All that God made, he made by means of him. Paul actually says 'in him,' and though the word εν can mean 'by' as well as 'in,' it is better to retain the literal translation than to paraphrase as NIV has done. Not only is there an intended parallel with verse 19, which would otherwise be lost: the passive 'were created' indicates, in a typically Jewish fashion, the activity of God the Father, working in the Son. To say 'by,' here and at the end of verse 16, could imply, not that Christ is the Father's agent, but that he was alone responsible for creation."
6. Blake Ostler wrote the following about this text (and Heb 11:3, a related verse) showing it does not support creation out of nothing:
The view that the “invisible things” are not absolute nothing is also supported by Colossians 1:16–17:
The view that the “invisible things” are not absolute nothing is also supported by Colossians 1:16–17:
For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible, thrones, ruling forces, sovereignties, powers—all things were created through him and for him. He exists before all things. (NJB)
In this scripture it seems fairly evident that the “everything invisible”
includes things that already exist in heaven, such as thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. Further, the invisible things are also created by God; yet the fact that they are invisible means only that they are not seen by mortal eyes, not that they do not exist. The reference to invisible things does not address whether they were made out of preexisting matter. However, 2 Corinthians 4:18 states that “the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (KJV). It is not difficult to see that Hebrews 11:3 neither expressly mentions creation out of nothing nor implicitly assumes it. The argument that the text must somehow implicitly assume creation out of nothing misinterprets the text and forces it with assumptions that are contrary to the meaning of “invisible things.” If anything, Hebrews 11:3 implicitly assumes creation of the earth out of a preexisting substrate not visible to us.
7. It should be noted that LDS theology does state that Christ is the creator, and often borrows the verbiage of this Christological hymn when speaking of His role in the creation (e.g., D&C 93:10; 3 Nephi 9:15; the 1916 First Presidency statement, "The Father and the Son”), and such is not limited to the "New Creation," but also to the Genesis creation, contra "Biblical Unitarians." I raise these issues, however, as many critics of LDS Christology have falsely stated that Col 1;15ff refutes "Mormon" theology which states that "biblical theology" presents Jesus as being the creator of the spirits of man as well as fallen angels (a category clearly not being reconciled to God, unless one wishes to embrace Origen's eschatology!)
8. In Col 1:19, we read: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." Two aorists are used in this verse (ευδοκησεν [thought/pleased] and κατοικησαι [dwell]; cf. Col 2:9). If we go along with the trinitarian view, then at what wpoint in time was God the Son filled with God's fullness, and was he God before this happened in their view? As we have seen in our discussion of Phil 2:5-11, such is consistent with LDS theology, but at odds-end with Trinitarian theology.
8. In Col 1:19, we read: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." Two aorists are used in this verse (ευδοκησεν [thought/pleased] and κατοικησαι [dwell]; cf. Col 2:9). If we go along with the trinitarian view, then at what wpoint in time was God the Son filled with God's fullness, and was he God before this happened in their view? As we have seen in our discussion of Phil 2:5-11, such is consistent with LDS theology, but at odds-end with Trinitarian theology.
9. Verse 18 reads; "And he is the head of the body, the church is the beginning of the firstborn of the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence." This is nonsense in light o the hypostatic union which states that Christ was "fully God" while incarnate, but only "veiled" his divinity (more on this later when we discuss Phil 2:5-11). However, this is part of a ινα clause in Greek, meaning that Christ became the "firstborn of the dead" in order that he might have the preeminent, or "supreme" (πρωτεύων).
On a related issue, it is often argued by Trinitarians such as James White (see his debate with subordinationist Unitarian, Patrick Navas, in 2012) that Paul exhausts all the prepositions in Koine Greek to describe Jesus as the creator. However, this is not true--strikingly missing is the phrase εξ ου ("from whom"), used of the Father in 1 Cor 8:6, but never of Jesus. To understand the full force of the anti-Trinitarian implications of this issue for New Testament Christology, one will also have to exegete 1 Cor 8:4-6.
Here is the Greek followed by the NRSV translation (emphasis added):
Περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς. καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really exists," and that "there is no God but one." Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as in fact there are many gods and many lords -- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
There are a number of important points here—
Firstly, the term “God” is predicated of the Father, and it is to the exclusion of the Son. Trinitarianism, the significance of which was discussed earlier in this post.
Secondly, the “number” of God is said to be “one” (εἷς). In light of how the Father has θεος predicated upon his person to the exclusion of the Son, absolutising this verse as critics of LDS theology wish to do (e.g., Ron Rhodes; James Whit) et al. wish to do, this is a strictly Unitarian text, not Trinitarian. However, this is not an issue for Latter-day Saint Christology, as the term “God” is multivalent, as we recognise that the Father is the “one true God,” but there are (true) deities who can properly be called “God” (cf. Deut 32:7-9 [Dead Sea Scrolls]; Psa 29; 89; etc), something neither Unitarianism nor Trinitarianism in their various forms can tolerate.
Another refutation of the Trinity comes from that of logic. In 1 Cor 8:6, creation is said to be εκ (from) the Father, while it is said to be δια (through/by) the Son. Again absolutising this pericope in the way Trinitarians wish to do, let us examine how this pericope is another nail in the coffin of the claim that "the Trinity flows from every page of the Bible":
First Premise: If Jesus is God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology, all things would be made from (εκ) him.
Second Premise: All things were not made from (εκ) Jesus.
Conclusion: Jesus is not God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology.
This is perfectly logical reasoning, called modus tollens. Not only do Trinitarians have to go against careful, scholarly exegesis of the Bible, but also logic.
It should also be noted that many Trinitarian scholars argue that this text is not Trinitarian, but binitarian, with this pericope “proving” that Paul did not believe when he wrote 1 Cor 8:4-6, in the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit(!)
Daniel Wallace, a leading Greek grammarian who is also Reformed/Trinitarian, in an interview in favour of the Trinity (which can be found here) admitted this:
He also wrote something very similar in an article published in an Evangelical journal, "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13/1 (2003), pp. 97-125 (online here):
Paul says, ‘Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live’ …What Paul does…I call it a primitive binitarian viewpoint. It’s not even quite trinitarian…I should probably clarify this for the listeners. I think there’s a progressive understanding in the New Testament about who Jesus is; and when Paul writes 1 Corinthians in the early 50s, I think he’s very clearly binitarian. I don’t know yet if he has understood the Trinity. My guess is he probably does not and those things get revealed a little bit later on. But here’s the thing.
He also wrote something very similar in an article published in an Evangelical journal, "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13/1 (2003), pp. 97-125 (online here):
There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds. This does not mean that in the NT the Spirit is a thing, any more than in the OT the Spirit (רוּחַ —a feminine noun) is a female! Grammatical gender is just that: grammatical. The conventions of language do not necessarily correspond to reality . . . One implication of these considerations is this: There is often a tacit assumption by scholars that the Spirit's distinct personality was fully recognized in the early apostolic period. Too often, such a viewpoint is subconsciously filtered through Chalcedonian lenses. This certainly raises some questions that can be addressed here only in part: We are not arguing that the distinct personality and deity of the Spirit are foreign to the NT, but rather that there is progressive revelation within the NT, just as there is between the Testaments . . . In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit's personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course, but I am arguing that we need to ground our beliefs on a more solid foundation.
Unitarian apologist, Jaco Van Zyl, summed up the implications of this admission rather well in his response to Wallace's interview:
For Wallace to admit that NT writers did not understand the Trinity implies that later Fourth- and Fifth-Century Christians discerned and believed what “inspired” bible writers failed to believe. This argument is therefore no different from the claims made by the very ones Wallace and others are trying to help since the Jehovah’s Witnesses also proclaim that Jesus and the apostles didn’t know that Jesus would return in 1914 C.E., or that the first Christians did not know that the “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9 would be a second class of Christians gathered since 1935 with a different hope than the literal 144 000 anointed class of Revelation 14, etc.; there is absolutely no difference in argumentation. At least it can be safely said, considering Wallace’s admission, that the first Christians did not believe in the Trinity formulated in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries – that who and what God was to them was different from who God was to these first Christians. The implications of this admission are rather significant.
While much more could be said, the purpose of Col 1 is the preeminence and superiority of Jesus above everything else. Since the Christ-event was understood to be the ultimate purpose of all creation, all things were created and intended with the Christ-event in mind. Jesus' pre-eminence is shown in that he was intended before creation and demonstrated to be the firstborn of everything through His glorious resurrection. This could be seen in the locution in v.16, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως "firstborn of all creation," could be rendered as a genitive of subordination, "firstborn above all creation," as proposed by Daniel Wallace and other Greek grammarians (see Wallace's discussion of the genitive case in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament).
For more, see Notes on Colossians 1:15-20.
For more, see Notes on Colossians 1:15-20.
With reference to Isa 43:7, Gilpin writes:
We see that this old Testament God that created man for His glory, this Jesus in the New Testament created all things for Himself. If Jesus was not God He would be subject to the wrath of this Old Testament God as we see here:
Firstly, one should note that Gilpin's comment, which is tied into his butchering of Col 1, has already shown to be without any meaningful exegetical foundation. Secondly, if Gilpin, as a Trinitarian, will use this as a proof-text in favour of his theology, it proves too much--both the Hebrew and the LXX uses singular personal pronouns for Yahweh in this, and related texts (e.g., Isa 44:24), but in Trinitarian theology, God is not a singular person, but that the Father, Son, and Spirit, while each being numerically identical to Yahweh, are three separate "persons." Absolutising this verse, Gilpin will have to embrace, not Trinitarianism, but a form of Unitarianism.
Continuing his eisegesis, Gilpin then ties Isa 43:7 with 42:8, where Yahweh states that He will not share His glory with a "graven image" or idol (Heb:פָּסִיל). However, Gilpin's comments about Jesus being under the wrath of "this Old Testament God" reveals, not only a gross ignorance about the context of Isaiah (see my discussion here and here), but also New Testament texts that speak of the nature of the rewards of believers in the life to come. Note John 17:22 where Christ requests the Father to give his followers the same glory the Son has, an impossibility in Gilpin's unbiblical theology:
The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one. (NRSV).
Absolutising this verse using the Gilpin's (flawed) hermeneutic, John 17:22 is in conflict with Isa 42:8 and 43:7 as believers, and not the persons who are numerically identical to the "being" of God, to borrow Trinitarian terminology, are heirs to the same glory Jesus Christ received from the Father.
Furthermore, note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21:
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Bowman, Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God. (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are said to be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, all other instances it is used elsewhere in the book of Revelation, it is always used within a religious context (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question-begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9 (cf. my discussion on whether Jesus receives λατρευω in the New Testament).
Phil 2:5-11 Considered
Gilpin uses an analogy from one of the Batman films(!), to "prove" that Jesus' glory in his pre-mortal existence is the same as he now possesses post-ascension.. He also takes umbrage with a comment from Joseph Fielding Smith:
Here is a quote from 10th Mormon President Joseph Fielding Smith showing something of the LDS view of the nature of Christ.
“CHRIST GAINED FULNESS AFTER RESURRECTION. The Saviior did not have a fulness at first, but after he received his body and the resurrection all power was given unto him both in heaven and in earth. Although he was a God, even the Son of God, with power and authority to create this earth and other earths, yet there were some things lacking which he did not receive until after his resurrection. In other words he had not received the fulness until he got a resurrected body, and the same is true with those who through faithfulness become sons of God. Our bodies are essential to the fulness and the continuation of the seeds forever” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:33).
The problem is not between biblical and Latter-day Saint Christologies; it is between Gilpin’s anti-biblical Christology and the authors of the New Testament. Let us do something Gilpin doesn’t do, and exegete the text; and afterwards, out of theological necessity, one will have to discuss, albeit briefly, the overwhelming logical and scriptural problems with the “hypostatic union.”
Phil 2:9 states that “God also hath highly exalted [Christ], and given him a name which is above every name.” Here, we read that the Father gave to Christ, at the moment of his exaltation of the Son, a name above every other name (Yahweh). This shows that the son did not possess this name until his exaltation, showing the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father; also, it speaks of Christ being “exalted,” which is nonsense in light of much of Trinitarian theologies that state that Jesus was not void of his deity, but instead decided to voluntary “shield” it to most people (in effect, ridding Phil 2:5-11 of the concept of kenosis, self-emptying, and instead, perverting the Christology of the text to speak of an endusasthai or a “clothing up”). Furthermore, we know that this name could not be “Jesus,” as He possessed this name prior to his exaltation.
This can also be seen in John 17:11-12:
And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. (NRSV)
In the above pericope, using prolepsis (cf. v.22), Christ speaks of how the Father “gave” him the Father’s name (Yahweh); it was not something Christ intrinsically possessed until after his exaltation.
Even after his exaltation, the telos of all glory and honour Christ receives are that of the further glorification of the Father:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-10; cf. 1 Cor 15:22-28)
One should also point out the term, sometimes translated as “exploited” in Phil 2:6 αρπαγμος. Again, this points to something that Jesus did not have, as its predominant meaning in Koine Greek literature means “to plunder” or “to steal.” Notice how Louw-Nida define the term in their work, Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed.:
ἁρπάζω ; ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m ; ἁρπαγή, ῆς f: to forcefully take something away from someone else, often with the implication of a sudden attack - 'to rob, to carry off, to plunder, to forcefully seize.' ἁρπάζω: πῶς δύναταί τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἁρπάσαι 'no one can break into a strong man's house and carry off his belongings' Mt 12.29 . . . ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m: that which is to be held on to forcibly - 'something to hold by force, something to be forcibly retained.'
Liddell-Scott, in their Greek Lexicon (abridged), offers a similar definition of this term:
Such a Christology, apart from being one that permeates the entirety of the New Testament, can also be seen in the revelations of Joseph Smith, such as D&C 93:16-17:
ἁρπαγμός
ἁρπαγμός, ὁ, (ἁρπάζω) a seizing, booty, a prize, N.T.
Such a Christology, apart from being one that permeates the entirety of the New Testament, can also be seen in the revelations of Joseph Smith, such as D&C 93:16-17:
And I, John, bear record that he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.
If Gilpin and other Trinitarians are correct, Phil 2:9 is utter nonsense, for how can the Father glorify Jesus and give Christ the name that is above every name, if Christ had this glory before the incarnation and even had it during his 33 years of mortality? The Trinitarian understanding of this verse is incoherent. In reality, post-ascension, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily in Jesus (Col 2:9), something we are also said to strive for (Eph 3:19). However, Christ is still subordinate to God the Father (1 Cor 11:3; 15:22-28 [exegeted below]). Furthermore, Gilpin is guilty of begging the question: what type of equality is in view? Functional? Ontological? Again, no meaningful exegesis is offered, this time of the phrase ισα θεω (“equal to God”).
That Paul held to a subordinationist Christology can be seen in other places in his epistles, most notably his Midrash of Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX) in 1 Cor 15:22-28.
The Hebrew of Psa 110:1 reads:
נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי שֵׁב לִימִינִי עַד־אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ
Yahweh said to my lord, “sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (my translation)
The LXX (109:1) renders the verse as follows:
εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου
The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (my translation)
Here, the first Lord (in the Hebrew, Yahweh) says to a second lord (אדֹנִי adoni in Hebrew, meaning “my lord”) to sit at his right hand. The only meaningful, and exegetically sound interpretation of this verse is that the second lord is sitting at the right-hand of God, making him distinct from "Yahweh," and not that he is numerically identical to the "One God," a la Trinitarianism, though he does indeed serve as God’s vizier, to be sure.
I am aware that some (e.g., James R. White) have tried to argue that the second Lord is Adonai, not Adoni, but the LXX, the Targums, and other lines of evidence support the Masoretic vocalisation; for instance, the Targums always interpreted the second lord to be a Davidic King, not "another" Yahweh. For more, see David M Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBL: 1973) and Jaco Van Zyl, "Psalm 110:1 and the Status of the Second Lord--Trinitarian Arguments Challenged," in An E-Journal from the Radical Reformation: A Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism, winter/spring 2012, pp. 51-60.
I am aware that some (e.g., James R. White) have tried to argue that the second Lord is Adonai, not Adoni, but the LXX, the Targums, and other lines of evidence support the Masoretic vocalisation; for instance, the Targums always interpreted the second lord to be a Davidic King, not "another" Yahweh. For more, see David M Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBL: 1973) and Jaco Van Zyl, "Psalm 110:1 and the Status of the Second Lord--Trinitarian Arguments Challenged," in An E-Journal from the Radical Reformation: A Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism, winter/spring 2012, pp. 51-60.
In Trinitarian theology, as mentioned previously, there is an allowance (albeit, an ambiguous one) for a distinction between the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit (e.g. the Father is not the Son). However, there is no allowance for a distinction between “God” and any of the persons. However, the Christology of the New Testament tends to distinguish “God” (θεος) from the Son, not simply the “Father” from the Son, as it does here, differentiating between ο θεος (literally, the God) from Jesus. Indeed, the other instances of the New Testament’s use of Psa 110:1 differentiates, not just the persons of the Father and the Son, but θεος and the Son. For instance, consider 1 Cor 15:22-28 and Heb 10:12-13:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order. Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is expected, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (θεος) may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:22-28)
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (θεος); From henceforth expecting till his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet. (Heb 10:12-13)
In both these pericopes, Psa 110:1 (LXX, 109:1) is used and expanded upon, and clearly, a distinction is made between, not just the persons of the Father and the Son (which is accepted, albeit, ambiguously, as the definition of "person" is debated within Trinitarian circles, both historically and in modern times, by Trinitarian theology), but God (θεος) and Jesus, a distinction not tolerated by Trinitarianism, as well as showing the Son's subordination, even post-ascension, to God the Father.
Finally, another example of the exegetically an intellectually-weak arguments forwarded by Gilpin can be seen in his assertion that, in LDS Christology, Jesus did not "humble" Himself in any meaningful manner. The truth of the matter, however, is that in Latter-day Saint theology, the pre-mortal Jesus was the God of the Old Testament (Mosiah 3:8; 4:2; 3 Nephi 9:15; 11:17 as examples in the Book of Mormon). While Mormon theology does not recognise a species differentiation between deity and humanity, per any meaningful exegesis of Acts 17:29, LDS theology also recognises significant qualitative differences between us and Christ, even in his pre-mortal state before being exalted by the Father, as Phil 2:5-11 clearly states.
James D.G. Dunn, a leading contemporary Christologist, presents the following spot-on analysis of the issue on p. 110 of Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? (emphasis in original):
James D.G. Dunn, a leading contemporary Christologist, presents the following spot-on analysis of the issue on p. 110 of Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? (emphasis in original):
In various passages, Paul uses the formula, "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The striking feature is that Paul speaks of God not simply as the God of Christ, but as "the God . . .of our Lord Jesus Christ." Even as Lord, Jesus acknowledges God not only as his Father but also his God. Here it becomes plain that the kyrios title [Lord] is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, as a way of distinguishing Jesus from God.
Latter-day Saint Christology, as well as the statement from Joseph Fielding Smith, is reflective of true "biblical Christianity," not the post-biblical perversions that Gilpin and others, to their eternal detriment, embrace (cf. Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4, 13-14, etc).
The Hypostatic Union Examined
What Gilpin wants the text of Phil 2:5-11 to support is not a kenosis, self-emptying, but of clothing (an endusasthai); however, the text of Phil 2:5-11 state explicitly it was the former, not the latter (κενοω means “to empty”). According to Gilpin and other Trinitarians, Jesus retained the attributes of divinity (e.g., omnipotence; omnipresence, etc) and merely "clothed upon" himself humanity.
However, the message of the New Testament is that Jesus was truly human. That this is the case can be seen in Mark 13:32 (cf. Matt 24:36; see also Luke 2:52) where Jesus did not know when the Parousia (his coming in glory/"second coming") would be.
Interestingly, some scribes corrupted Matt 24:36 to excise the phrase οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός "nor the son," to downplay the Christological problems it would pose to their theology. The NET Bible, an Evangelical Protestant production, comments thusly:
Some important witnesses, including early Alexandrian and Western MSS (א*,2 B D Θ ƒ13 pc it vgmss Irlat Hiermss), have the additional words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός (oude ho huios, "nor the son") here. Although the shorter reading (which lacks this phrase) is suspect in that it seems to soften the prophetic ignorance of Jesus, the final phrase ("except the Father alone") already implies this. Further, the parallel in Mar 13:32 has οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, with almost no witnesses lacking the expression. Hence, it is doubtful that the absence of "neither the Son" is due to the scribes. In keeping with Matthew's general softening of Mark's harsh statements throughout his Gospel, it is more likely that the absence of "neither the Son" is part of the original text of Matthew, being an intentional change on the part of the author. Further, this shorter reading is supported by the first corrector of א as well as L W ƒ1 33 Û vg sy co Hiermss. Admittedly, the external evidence is not as impressive for the shorter reading, but it best explains the rise of the other reading (in particular, how does one account for virtually no MSS excising οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός at Mar 13:32 if such an absence here is due to scribal alteration? Although scribes were hardly consistent, for such a theologically significant issue at least some consistency would be expected on the part of a few scribes). Nevertheless, NA27 includes οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός here.
Such theologically-driven corruptions of the New Testament are common in early manuscripts, such as 1 Tim 3:16.
Some Trinitarian apologists (e.g. James White; Sam Shamoun) argue that this was the "human will/nature" of Jesus speaking or that Jesus "veiled," for a mysterious reason, his own omnipotence this one moment, but to claim such, and divorce such from the person of Jesus is actually counter to Trinitarian understandings of the hypostatic union and/or to make Jesus deceptive (the person knew when the second coming would be, but only allowed his human will/nature comment[?]); furthermore, it results in Nestorianism or Separationism, two early Christological heresies, even by Trinitarian standards, where the humanity and divinity of Jesus are, for all intents and purposes, two people, not one, again, antithetical to Trinitarian (as well as Latter-day Saint) Christologies.
The temptation scenes in the gospels (esp. Matt 4:1-11, the fuller version of this scene in the synoptic gospels) portrays Jesus as truly suffering and being truly tempted by Satan; if one holds to traditional Christologies, Jesus was not truly tempted, as there was no real chance of him sinning, which, however way one cuts it, is docetic (i.e., Christ appearing to be human; but in reality [at least with respect to being tempted] was not)--again, such runs in the claims of Heb 2:17-18, which necessitates Jesus' temptations to be real, but one that he overcame sinlessly. Interestingly, in Phil 2:5-11 [cf. D&C 93:1-20 in the LDS canon], after the ascension, Jesus is exalted and given a name above all other names (Yahweh [Phil 2:9]). However, if Trinitarian Christology is true, this is nonsensical, as Jesus was "fully divine" a la the Trinitarian understanding of this concept, merely "veiled" his divine attributes during mortality while still retaining them, and "unveiled" them post-ascension. Such results in an utterly deficient view of the humanity of Jesus, something which John warned against in 1 John 4:1-3, which Latter-day Saint Christology, especially in light of Joseph Smith's revelations and teachings, do not fall victim to.
LDS philosopher, Blake Ostler, made a rather cogent observation on the logical problems of so-called Orthodoxy on the Lehi’s Library blog:
I'd say good post but . . . um . . . well, [it] just wouldn't be proper now, would it? To give an idea how this problem is problematic. Is Jesus, who is both omniscient as Son of God all knowing? If he isn't, then the divine nature isn't present in him since the Son of God is essentially omniscient. Yet Jesus doesn't know the date of his second coming. So there is, at least, one thing he doesn't know. It follows that Jesus isn't both fully divine and also human--for no human could be omniscient given traditional assumptions. If as a human he is omniscient but doesn't know it, then he isn't omniscient after all.
Is Jesus omnipotent? If he is, then he has properties that no human can have. If he isn't, then he isn't God. it won't do to say that Jesus is omnipotent he just can't exercise that power as a human, then he isn't omnipotent because he can't exercise his power--and he isn't omniscient because he has a power that he doesn't know how to exercise.
To say that Christ, as human, is created but as a divine person isn't, is like saying that Fido as a dog is uncreated but as a mammal isn't. It is a contradictory assertion because natures characterize the entire person.
Such a penetrating comment should be kept in mind when one encounters texts such as the following:
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2:52)
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." (Luke 13:32)
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb 5:9).
“I am He” (John 8:24)
Jesus said unless you believe that I AM He, you will die in your sins. (John 8:24) Do you really believe that Jesus is the great I am? The eternal glorious creator of all things who never needed anything, who never had need of anyone to give Him council, who is eternally glorious?
Latter-day Saints have no problem with acknowledging Christ as the Great “I am” (e.g., D&C 29:1), so this is not a bone of contention. One problem, however, I have with the appeal to John 8:24 is perhaps Gilpin believes this verse associates Jesus with Yahweh, which it does not, though v.58 could be plausibly interpreted thusly.
Most LDS exegetes understand John 8:58 and the term "I am [he]" (Greek: εγω ειμι) as evidence of Jesus being God (the current chapter heading of John 8 claims this has Jesus associating himself with Jehovah). However, I do wish to note that Gilpin's approach to this phrase in v. 24 is rather superficial. There are many instances of εγω ειμι in the LXX and NT that do not carry any significance (e.g., the words of the blind man in John 9:9), or even when used of Jesus, is used as a Messianic, not a divine, reference (e.g., John 4:25-26). This is more of a word of caution to LDS and non-LDS who employ the "I am" sayings in the New Testament without engaging in any meaningful exegesis.
Most LDS exegetes understand John 8:58 and the term "I am [he]" (Greek: εγω ειμι) as evidence of Jesus being God (the current chapter heading of John 8 claims this has Jesus associating himself with Jehovah). However, I do wish to note that Gilpin's approach to this phrase in v. 24 is rather superficial. There are many instances of εγω ειμι in the LXX and NT that do not carry any significance (e.g., the words of the blind man in John 9:9), or even when used of Jesus, is used as a Messianic, not a divine, reference (e.g., John 4:25-26). This is more of a word of caution to LDS and non-LDS who employ the "I am" sayings in the New Testament without engaging in any meaningful exegesis.
See this post for an analysis of John 8:58, responding to the claims of Unitarian apologist, Anthony F. Buzzard.
Gilpin, at the end of his article, wrote:
All things are upheld by His Word, by His word He calmed a storm (Mark 4:39), raised a dead man (John 11:43) forgave sin (Luke 5:20), healed the sick (Luke 5:24), and called Apostles (John 1:42) this Jesus word alone carried more power than any church governmental authority, He has all power and authority by vitrtue of His nature alone.
Again, without any meaningful exegesis, he leaves himself open to being easily refuted by an informed Christadelphian or another individual who rejects the deity of Jesus. Many of the miracles Jesus did, and many of the feats he performed, were mirrored by Old Testament prophets, but one would argue for their intrinsic deity; to simply say “Well, it is Jesus!” is to beg the question, thus the need for careful exegesis, something Gilpin seems incapable of performing, as this article proves. One example would be where Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:7), and the people recognise that it was God acting through Jesus, the Son of Man, whom he had commissioned, to forgive sins (Mark 2:12, where the Father is glorified, not Jesus). See this, for an informed Unitarian approach to the issue.
Again, this is more of a “friendly warning” to those who may end up interacting with Unitarians and others who reject the personal pre-existence and/or deity of Jesus.
Jehovah and Elohim in LDS Discourse
It is true that in modern LDS discourse, “Jehovah” is interchangeable with Jesus while “Elohim” is used of the Father. However, this has not always been the case. From the time of Joseph Smith onwards, there was a great level of fluidity in the use of these terms. For instance, in D&C 109:34, 68, the Father is called “Jehovah” (cf. v. 29, 47), but in D&C 110:3-4, “Jehovah” is predicated of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, the name of the Father, as revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants, is not Elohim, a Hebrew generic noun (D&C 78:20; 95:17).
In his diary for 23 August 1842, Joseph Smith used Elohim ("Eloheem"):
O, thou who seeeth, and knoweth the hearts of all men, thou eternal omnipotent, omnicient, and omnipresent Jehovah, God, thou Eloheem, that sitteth, as saith the psalmist, enthroned in heaven, look down upon thy servant Joseph, at this time, and let faith on the name of thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him, even the faith of Elijah. And let the Lamp of eternal life, be lit up in his heart, never to be taken away, and the words of eternal life, be poured upon the soul of thy servant, that he may know thy will, thy statutes, and thy commandments, and thy judgments to do them. As the dews upon Mount Hermon, may the distillations of thy divine grace, glory and honor in the plenitude of thy mercy, and power and goodness be poured down upon the head of thy servant.
Among other early LDS, there was a practice of predicating Lord/Jehovah on the person of the Father, such as the following:
The Lord (Jehovah,) hath spoken through Isa. (42, 1) saying. behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; evidently referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God chosen or elected by the Father, (1 Peter i, 20, who verily was fore ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God,) to serve him in the redemption of the world, to be a covenant of the people, (Isa, xlii, 6) for a light of the Gentiles, and glory of his people Israel; having ordained forgiveness of sins might be preached (Acts xiii, 38) unto all who would be obedient unto his gospel (Mark xvi, 16, 17) (Times and Seasons, vol. 2, no. 21, p. 524).
It is not the purpose of this response to delve into this issue, so readers wishing to delve further into this, see the following link and its corresponding bibliography:
The “Jehovah = Jesus; Elohim = the Father” approach in LDS terminology is a modern convention, often to avoid confusion, especially as there are some “Yahweh” texts where only the person of the Father is in view (e.g., Psa 110:1; Isa 52:13), though in some cases, they are predicated of Jesus (for a full discussion, see, as one example, David B Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul's Christology [Mohr Siebeck, 1992]).
One should note the following paragraph from the 1916 First Presidency statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son (entitled, “The Father and the Son”):
4. Jesus Christ the "Father" By Divine Investiture of Authority
A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (Doc. & Gov. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.
We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that Angel the Lord said: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Exodus 23:21).
The ancient apostle, John, was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" (Revelation 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God" (Rev. 22:8, 9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (verses 12, 13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying "I come quickly," "I am Alpha and Omega," though he meant that Jesus Christ would come, and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.
The Logical and Mathematical Problem of Creedal Trinitarianism
One has to understand that traditional Trinitarian theologies require one to accept a logical and mathematical problem. Consider the following, which are accepted by the Trinitarians:
Jesus = God
Father = God
Spirit = God
Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son
Numerically, there is only one God
God = Father, Son, and Spirit
To put it the above in another way, to help people understand the illogical nature of creedal Trinitarianism (with "x" representing "God"):
Jesus = x
Father = x
Spirit = x
Numerically, there is only one x
God (x) = Father (x) plus Son (x), plus Spirit (x)
Only by using one definition of "God" when speaking of the tri-une "being" of God and another definition of "God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1 "x") or a form of Modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as the various person are said to be numerically identical to the "One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical, mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility. Only by engaging in logically and linguistically fallacious claims (e.g., the claim that אֶחָד echad "one" in Hebrew means "compound one") can one try (desperately) to get around these and many other problems.
For more, see this insightful essay ("Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity") by Blake Ostler, a leading LDS scholar who has focused a lot of his work on such issues. For a non-LDS perspective, see Richard Cartwright, "On the Logical Problem of the Trinity."
The Priesthood of Christ
Many of the arguments forwarded by Gilpin are reflective of the arguments from other Evangelical Protestant critics of LDS theology, so, for the sake of brevity, I will request the interested reader to pursue the following posts on my blog where his arguments, and those of other critics, such as Ron Rhodes, are answered:
There is no longer the need for human priests to mediate between God and man and here is why:
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
As with John 17:3, this poses a huge problem for Trinitarianism, as there is a differentiation, not just between the persons of the Father and the Son, but “God” (θεος) and the Son. Furthermore, let us examine this text and provide exegesis:
εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς.
There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (my translation)
The term translated as “mediator” is μεσιτης, and is used in the New Testament corpus to refer to an individual who inaugurates a covenant, which is what Jesus did:
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator [Moses] (μεσιτης). Now a mediator is not a mediator (μεσιτης) of one, but God is one. (Gal 3:19-20)
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator (μεσιτης) of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Heb 8:6)
And for this cause he is the mediator (μεσιτης) of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Heb 9:15)
And to Jesus the mediator (μεσιτης) of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. (Heb 12:24)
Louw and Nida (op cit.) offers the following definition of the term:
μεσίτης, ου m: (derivative of μεσιτεύω 'to bring about an agreement,' 31.21) one who causes or helps parties to come to an agreement, with the implication of guaranteeing the certainty of the arrangement - 'go between, mediator.' διαταγεὶς δι᾽ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου '(the Law) was put into effect through angels by a mediator'
What Gilpin wants to read into this verse is that there is no need for human instruments helping people come closer to God, similar to Luther’s claims in 1520 in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church against the sacerdotal priesthood of Roman Catholicism, and continuing to the present in many Protestant circles. The problem is that the New Testament evidences the use of such instrumentality, consistent with the LDS concept of priesthood (e.g., Matt 16:16-19; 18:18; John 20:23; also, note the rather potent words of Paul in 1 Cor 4:15, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"), and there are a plethora of Old Testament prophecies about the New Covenant having an ordained, ministerial priesthood (e.g., Isa 66:18-22; Jer 33:17-22, as discussed in my paper on the NT evidence of a New Covenant priesthood). Gilpin is in the unenviable position of having to reject an ordained, ministerial priesthood as part of the New Covenant which would mean if he was consistent, his rejecting Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Old Testament prophets as false prophets. For a fuller discussion, one should read the blog posts linked above.
With respect to Heb 7:23-28, this is how Gilpin presents the pericope:
Hebrews 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Old Testament High Priests daily offered sacrifices to seek to atone for the sins of themselves and Gods people. This was their most significant role. This role is now totally fulfilled and complete in Christ.
Hebrews 7:24-28 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
If Reformed theology is correct, and the penal substitution model of atonement, as understood by historical Protestantism is the "biblical" model, why does Christ have to intercede at all? (cf. Rom 8:34)? In this model, the sins, past, present, and future, of the elect are forensically imputed to Christ, resulting in Jesus paying the legal penalty for their sins, However, this would render any intercession by Christ superfluous if Calvinism is correct.
Note the following from Protestant theologian, Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), p. 249 n. 13, which captures how unbiblical Reformed soteriology truly is on this issue:
To understand the heavenly intercession of the Son on our behalf as the propitiation of the Father, as Michael [a Reformed apologist the author is responding to] does, generates a significant problem of internal coherence for penal substitution. According to penal substitution, the primary purpose and effect of the death of Jesus was to propitiate the wrath of God on account of the sins of humanity. As it is written elsewhere, because Christ is “a priest forever” in heaven, he “always lives to make intercession” and is thus “able for all time to save those who approach God through him” (Heb 7:24-25). Heavenly intercession on our behalf is thus the ongoing vocation of the risen and ascended Christ. So, if the purpose and effect of the Son's intercession is to propitiate the Father's wrath, then the Son is continually doing in heaven at the throne what was to have been fully accomplished on earth at the cross. The cross would thus seem to have been ineffective, or at least incomplete, in accomplishing its primary purpose of saving humanity from divine wrath. Michael's interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2, although given in defense of penal substitution, effectively undermines it.
Note the following from Swiss theologian and magisterial Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli that speaks of the propitiatory nature, not just of Christ’s death, but his intercession in heaven (1484-1531):
For as He [Christ] offered Himself once on the cross and again to the Father in heaven, so He won and obtained remission of sins and joy of everlasting happiness. (Macauley Jackson, trans. The Latin works of Huldreich Zwingli [2 vols.], 2:276).
A modern Protestant apologist also shows how easy it is for advocates of penal substitution to be inconsistent on this point (in the following case, a Calvinistic critique of the Catholic Mass):
He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption. Christ presents Himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of His people. His work of intercession, then, is based on His work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father . . . the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the fact that in His death He has taken away the sins of God’s people, and therefore, by presenting His finished work on Calvary before the Father, He assures the application of the benefits of His death to those for whom He intercedes. (James R. White, The Fatal Flaw [1990], pp. 133-134).
This text poses great problems for Reformed theology, as do so many pericopes in the Old and New Testament when read in light of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.
Why is this significant? In Reformed theology, when an individual is justified, it is an external, forensic event wherein the alien righteousness of Jesus is imputed to the individual, and one’s past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven. However, the New Testament clearly indicates that believer’s sins are to be atoned for even after their initial conversion. Consider the following text:
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation (Greek: ιλασμος [atoning sacrifice]) for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)
In this passage, Jesus is presented as a still-present source of atonement for sins.
Another significant text is Heb 2:17:
Another significant text is Heb 2:17:
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
There are a number of interesting things when one examines this verse. Firstly, there are two “purpose clauses” in this verse; the first (“that he might be a merciful high priest”) is the Greek ινα clause; the second is the use of the Greek preposition εις which means “into” or “with a goal towards” and this is coupled with the present infinitive form of the verb ιλασκομαι “to make atonement” (ιλασκεσθαι), and this present “making of atonement” is “for the sins of the people” (τας αμαρτιας του λαου). The author of Hebrews views Christ’s on-going office of heavenly intercessor as one that allows for the continuing appeasement of the Father to win the forgiveness of sins committed by believers, sins that were not forgiven at one’s conversion. In other words, this verse presents Jesus as the heavenly high priest who, even at present, makes atonement for sins; this is alien to many theologies that think of one's forgiveness as being once-for-all. The author of Hebrews says Jesus makes atonement for sins on an ongoing basis. If ones’ then-future sins were already atoned for when one appropriated Jesus (esp. if one holds to imputed righteousness), and their justification can never be lost, this verse and its theology is nonsensical. However, Christ's ongoing work as High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle is ongoing in reference to our own sins. Thus, the present infinitive form in Heb 2:17 conclusively demonstrate the continuing need for the application of Christ's work for our own salvation. Again, Gilpin and other Reformed Protestants are in the unenviable position of having to advocate a soteriology that is at odds with the witness of biblical exegesis.
Finally, Gilpin offers the following:
In the great commission we see Jesus say this, watch as this is massively significant!
Matthew 28:18-19 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto ME in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost:
Jesus said all power is given to ME therefore go! Do you want to know why
youNEVER see a Priesthood blessing in the New Testament? Its because its not the power or authority of the priesthood that the Church needs, but rather it is the power and authority of Jesus.
The only thing that is “massively significant” is the lack of meaningful exegesis offered for this pericope and any other text forwarded by Gilpin.
Gilpin in the following paragraph makes a number of exegetical and logical mistakes:
1. Even if, for the sake of argument, we allowed Gilpin’s contention there is no priesthood blessings in the New Testament to stand, to argue that this is evidence of there being no ordained, ministerial priesthood beyond the so-called “Priesthood of All Believers” is to engage in question-begging, as well as showing that he is presupposing something that must be proven, viz. the Protestant doctrine and practice of sola and tota scriptura and the formal sufficiency of the Protestant Bible (a topic that has been refuted many times on my blog). I will happily challenge Gilpin or any other Protestant apologist to produce an exegetically-sound case for sola scriptura, which Latter-day Saints reject, but which is the formal doctrine of the Reformation. It has never been done, even by the best apologists for the doctrine throughout the history of Protestantism (e.g., Francis Turretin; William Whitaker; Keith Mathison; William Webster), and will never be done as it is a man-made tradition.
2. The power an authority of the Priesthood is the power an authority of God in LDS theology. Gilpin creates a false dichotomy and then knocks down the strawman he erected. For a good exposition, see the article, "Priesthood" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (available online here).
3. Matt 28:18 states that Christ was given authority from God the Father. The Greek is εδοθη, the aorist of διδωμι, indicating that Christ was indeed given such authority, not that he possessed it eternally and there never was a time when he had it but "veiled" it, per the Hypostatic Union (discussed above). Yet again, we see Gilpin abusing the biblical texts that actually refute his post-biblical Christology. This fits the Christology of the apostolic preaching, as record in the Acts of the Apostles (e.g., Acts 2:32-33, 36; 5:31-32; cf. John 5:26), such preaching that is being commissioned in Matt 28:18-19 by Jesus Christ Himself.
4. In Jas 5:14, we read, "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." The term "elder" is πρεσβυτερος, which is an office in the New Testament (see Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle LXIX; Basil, Of the Origin, chapter XXVII; John Cassian, The Conferences, Part 3, chapter VIII for early Christian discussions of Jas 5:14-15 and this anointing with oil being a priestly function). This is evidence against Gilpin's contention, unless he wishes to argue that the exact phrase, "Priesthood Blessing" must appear in the Bible, in which case he is rejecting sol*a* scriptura in favour of sol*o* scriptura, putting him at odds with most Reformed Protestants, and also arguing like many popular Muslim apologists against the deity of Jesus ("Jesus never said 'I am God, worship me,' therefore, Jesus is not God and should not be worshiped!") Indeed, many recent works by apologists for sola scriptura have been written to offset this (mis)understanding of the doctrine, most notably Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Reformation Press: Moscow, Idaho.: 2001), which he labels “tradition type 0.”
5. Continuing with Jas 5:14-15, Latter-day Saints can turn the tables on Gilpin et al. as we can point to this text because James appears to be giving a clear and dogmatic injunction that the Church is to bring its sick and dying before the elders to be anointed with oil for the purpose of physical and/or spiritual healing, something that is rare in much of contemporary Protestantism. Why is this? On what sound, exegetical basis can this clear biblical teaching and practice be set aside? Only by privileging an external authority to the Bible itself can a Protestant meaningfully offer any response to this, showing that their claims to follow, authoritatively, sola scriptura to be questionable at the very least. This is yet another point where Latter-day Saint theology is more reflective of “biblical Christianity” than much of modern Evangelicalism.
6. Matt 28:18-19 is a surprisingly non-Trinitarian pericope. See my exegesis of the passage here in response to some Trinitarians who view it as “proof” of creedal Trinitarianism due to Matt 28:19 presenting a triad of Father, Son, and Spirit.
Conclusion
Many other issues could be discussed, including the topic of ecclesiology,, but the above should be enough to conclude that:
1. Latter-day Saint Christology and soteriology are consistent with the biblical texts using the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.
2. Reformed soteriology and Trinitarian theology, especially its Christology, as advanced by Bobby Gilpin and others (e.g., James White) are soundly refuted by meaningful biblical exegesis; instead, they are later developments reflective of a false gospel (cf. Gal 1;6-9)
3. In spite of the continued mantras one hears, Evangelical Protestantism, including its Reformed/Calvinistic flavour, is not reflective of "biblical Christianity"; instead, if any faith can be labelled "biblical Christianity" on the topics of Christology and soteriology it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I do recognise that this blog post has been rather lengthy, but I do hope that it will help some honest readers see the theological and biblical plausibility of "Mormonism."
