I just listened to the debate/dialogue between Bill McKeever and James Holt, a long-standing anti-Mormon Evangelical and an LDS scholar on religion, respectively (see here). I would actually recommend everyone to listen to it (it is about 80mins in length). Personally, I think James Holt did a good job but found that McKeever was very weak (one will notice that McKeever provided scant exegesis of any texts he raised from the Bible). In this post, I will just interact with some of the points McKeever tries to raise against LDS soteriology and his attempted defence of his Protestant theology, as they are the common (false) presuppositions that permeates much of Protestant thinking on this central issue.
Firstly, while it is true, as McKeever points out, that some LDS are more informed about “Mormon” theology than others, McKeever should be careful about throwing stones in his theological glasshouse—after all, I myself have come across dozens upon dozens of Protestants in person who are grossly ignorant of Trinitarianism, the formation of the biblical canon, Christian history, the basics of exegesis, etc.
Secondly, it is true that Gordon B. Hinckley stated that the conception of the person and work of Christ in LDS theology is different than “mainstream” or “Orthodox” Christologies, one must note that Hinckley and others are clearly commenting on qualitative differences, not quantitative differences (James Holt “caught” this one in his opening statement). While related to soteriology, Christology will not detain this discussion; for an exegetical defence of LDS Christology, see my post here.
McKeever references and cites Rom 10:10 which reads:
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
To use this verse as “proof” of sola fide is eisegesis. Firstly, one should read the pericope in full (vv.9-13):
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou 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.
There are a number of important points one has to keep in mind when exegeting this text. First and foremost, Paul is utilising Deut 30:6-16, which reads as follows:
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 this 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 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 not hidden from thee, neither is 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 dealth and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep and 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.
This pericope stresses, not just faith, but obedience to the commandments. By reading into Rom 10:9-13 sola fide is to claim that Paul is guilty of scripture-wrenching of the worst variety, as it necessitates Paul utilising an Old Testament pericope that stresses good works to maintain one’s covenantal status (a la covenantal nomism) and instead, to present sola fide is eisegesis to the extreme!
Furthermore, note that v.9 speaks of calling upon the name of the Lord; this is probably a liturgical text for baptism, as seen in the parallel in Acts 22:16:
And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
When raising Rom 10:10, McKeever says that justification is “to be made right with God.” However, what is not discussed, let alone proven by McKeever, is that, in his theology, justification is a forensic event, external to the person, wherein one is labelled (not made/changed in any intrinsic sense) “righteous” but, in reality, they are intrinsically sinful based on an imputation of an alien righteousness (that of Christ’s). However, this is nothing short of a blasphemous legal fiction—in such a view, God, who has infallible knowledge and cannot lie, legally declares someone to be “righteous” when, in reality, the opposite is true. Furthermore, Paul in this very same epistle (6:1-4) taught that baptism was salvific, not merely symbolic, something one also finds in Acts 2:38 and other key texts, but a view McKeever (and Eric Johnson) have tried to refute (poorly) in works such as Mormonism 101.
Furthermore, the concept of δικαιοω being “merely” declarative and not transformative is alien (pun intended) to the Greek New Testament when the term is used in soteriological contexts. As one example, take 1 Tim 3:16 which reads as follows in the NRSV:
Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, Believed on the world, taken up to glory.
The underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also has a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life.
Many Protestants harp on Gen 15:6 and the phrase, “and it was credited to him [Abraham] as righteousness.” Many Protestants view this as “proof” of the concept of imputation. For a refutation of this, and an exegesis of Psa 106:30-31 which disproves the thesis, see here.
Lynn Wilder is quoted to the effect that, when one becomes a Christian (by faith alone, of course), one passes from death unto eternal life, a reference to John 5:24. However, this represents eisegesis yet again. Let us quote the entirety of the relevant pericope, not just v.24:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:24-29)
Notice that good works are the criterion, not simply of heavenly rewards, but of one’s final destiny (eternal life vs. eternal death). Such is part-and-parcel of New Testament soteriology, such as 2 Cor 5:10:
For we must all reappear before the judgement seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Such texts, which could be multiplied, proof that good works are not merely the fruits of one being in a “saved” state, but decide one’s eternal destiny. For a detailed discussion of this and other key themes in Pauline soteriology, see Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006). Sola Fide is not in view in John 5:24-29 and other similar texts when read in their context.
A key text on “works” that is never discussed is Jas 2:21-26:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
This pericope clearly proves that good works, when done under the auspices of God’s grace, can be meritorious. However, McKeever and other Protestants claim that James in v.24 is merely speaking of Abraham “proving” or “vindicating” his once-for-all justification from Gen 15:6. However, this is fallacious:
(1) If James were teaching a concept of vindication, he could have chosen a word that solely and clearly refers to a vindication or exoneration, rather than a word that is commonly used and understood in Scripture to refer to salvific justification. Such words are commonplace in Koine Greek. For example, James could have used such words as δοκιμαζο, δεικνυμι, παριστημι, περιαζω, συμβιβαζω, φανερος.
(2) The addition of “and not by faith [alone]” in Jas 2:24 introduces a specific element and direction to James’ argument, for it clearly shows that his primary concern is to show that faith alone cannot justify a man, not merely to suggest that Abraham was vindicated by works. If his concern were to teach that works are added to faith only as a demonstration of a previous justification, there would be no reason to add “not by faith only,” for “faith [alone]” is not demonstrating anything in order to be negated, and thus it would be unnecessary to eliminate it from the works that are demonstrating
(3) If James were arguing for Abraham’s vindication, this line of argumentation would only make sense if in the context of Jas 2 one of James’ opponents had claimed that Abraham was “vindicated by his faith only.” If so, James would have easily refuted the argument by saying something to the effect of “you see, a person is vindicated by his works and not by faith alone.” But this phraseology would have required James to use the notion of “vindicated” in the early part of his argument (vv. 14-23) in order for him to use it in the latter part (v. 24); otherwise, the concept of vindication would have no referent in the context. Moreover, the syntactical structure of Jas 2:24 would require that the phrase “not by faith only” have its referent in “is vindicated,” and thus the text would have to mean: “you see, a man is vindicated by works and not vindicated by faith only.” It would assert that one is vindicated not only by faith but also by works. Consequently, by injecting the concept of vindication into Jas 2:24, the Protestant argument has actually done more damage to its case than would have otherwise occurred, for the concept of vindication must then apply to both faith and works, which then destroys faith itself as being salvific.
(4) The Protestant argument must assume that Paul and James are using two entirely different definitions of justification, the former referring to a forensic and salvific justification, the latter referring to a demonstrative vindication of a prior justification. But two definitions are unsupported by the context. This is noted as James quotes from Gen 15:6 (“And [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness”) in Jas 2:23. Gen 15:6 is the same passage from which Paul quotes in Rom 4:3. The Greek word for “righteousness” in both passages is δικαιοσυνη. Since both James and Paul quote from Gen 15:6, both must have the same definition and understanding of the word δικαιοσυνη. That being the case, it would be totally incongruous for James to suddenly inject a different meaning of δικαιοσυνη’s verbal form, δικαιοω (“justified”), which appears in both Jas 2:21 and 2:24, and surrounds the reference to δικαιοσυνη in Jas 2:23. To support its thesis, the Protestant argument is forced to conclude that James begins with a definition of the δικαιοω word group which means vindication (Jas 2:21), switches to another meaning which refers to salvific justification (Jas 2:23), and then switches back to the meaning of vindication (Jas 2:24).
(5) That vindication cannot be James’ meaning of the word δικαιοω is proven further by his addition of Rahab to the discussion of justification. As James opens up the review of Rahab, he introduces her account by the phrase, “Likewise” or, alternatively, “in the same way” (Jas 2:25). By this wording, James is equating the justification of Abraham to the justification of Rahab and declaring that they are the same. We must conclude then, that there is no theological difference in the way these two people were justified in the eyes of God. If there were a difference, then God would have two systems of justification, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles, but this cannot be, for God shows no favouritism between Jew and Gentile, and there is only one name under heaven by which men and women are saved. The importance of understanding the correspondence between Abraham and Rahab’s respective justifications becomes clear when we consider that James certainly does not view Rahab’s justification as a vindication. Using Protestant terminology, we cannot say that Rahab was given a forensic imputation of justification prior to the hiding of the Israelite spies. Rahab was a prostitute who lived an immoral life until she encountered God through the Israelites. Her justification comes on the heels of her acceptance of the God of Israel and his laws, which would necessitate that she immediately repent of her evil ways and decided to live righteously. An active event took place in Rahab’s relationship with God, not a demonstration of a previous justification. Hence, if Rahab is not vindicated but is salvifically justified during her encounter with the Israelite spies, and since James insists that Abraham was justified “in the same way,” then we can only conclude that both Abraham in Gen 22 and Rahab in Josh 2 was salvifically justified before God, not vindicated.
Other key texts that show the salvific importance of good works could be discussed, but here is just one more:
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. (Psa 18:20-28)
In this text, the author 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, and so forth:
McKeever parrots the traditional view of atonement within Protestantism (Penal Substitution) and claims that Christ’s atonement, when one is justified, must cover, not just one’s past and then-present sins, but also one’s then-future sins. To claim that this is anti-biblical is to put things mildly; McKeever presents no exegesis of any of the pertinent texts about the nature of Christ’s atonement.
As I discussed elsewhere:
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 (past, present, sins 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 the atonement of sins.
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 of 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
This demonstration of how anti-biblical Penal Substitution is, as well as the claim that, at justification, one’s then-future sins are also forgiven, is a nail in the coffin of another doctrine McKeever presents with, again, no biblical exegesis to support such a false doctrine that, in spite of some wishful thinking about 1 John 5:13, is disproven by sound exegesis of texts such as Heb 6:4-9.
Perhaps McKeever believes John 19:30 is “proof” of such a theology of the atonement; for a refutation of this view, see my blog post here.
Another text that further refutes McKeever’s claim that a believer has their then-future sins forgiven at justification is 1 John 2:1-2. The ESV renders the verse as follows (emphasis added):
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
In this verse, John is speaking to Christian believers of his time and states that not only was/is Christ an atoning sacrifice (ιλασμος) for their then-past sins, but is presently an atoning sacrifice for their then-future sins. Why is this problematic? In Reformed soteriology, when an individual is pronounced “justified,” all their past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven, a “blanket forgiveness,” if you will. However, the text is pretty clear that a true believer will not only sin, but such sins will have to be repented of, and forgiven by Jesus Christ. This is brought out when one looks at the Greek:
The phrase, “we have an advocate” translates παράκλητον ἔχομεν, where the present text of “to have” εχω coupled with the Greek term παρακλητος, which refers to an advocate, an individual who pleads another's cause in their place, which is related to the intercessory work of Jesus Christ being tied into the perseverance of Christians and their ultimate salvation, something we find in a host of biblical texts, such as:
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Rom 8:33-34)
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)
We see a very potent example of this in Rev 5:6:
And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
In this passage, John sees a vision of the heavenly tabernacle, where Jesus is presented as being a Lamb. The term “as it had been slain” translates the Greek term ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, where the term ως (like/as) coupled with perfect passive participle of the verb σφαζω (to slay), therefore, depicting Jesus, in His post-resurrection state, in a sacrificial role, paralleling the slaughter of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, Jesus is not sitting, but standing, indicating activity on his behalf (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1-3), namely, His intercessory work before God the Father, applying the benefits of His atoning sacrifice for His people until He comes in glory; further, as we learn in vv.8-9, the potency of the prayers offered by the disembodied elders have their basis on this intercessory work—similarly, the potency of our prayers have power due to the prayers and intercessory work of Christ, our mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).
The term “he is the propitiation for our sins” translates the Greek αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The ESV and other translations are correct in rendering Christ being a present atoning sacrifice (“propitiation”), as the verb “to be” (ειμι) is in the present tense (εστιν [“he is”]). This is commensurate with texts such as Heb 2:17 (discussed above), where the author of Hebrews presents Jesus as a present-propitiation, not merely a past-propitiation, for the sins of true believers.
1 John 1:5-10 confirms the focus on the present sins of the Christian that need forgiveness; verse 6 speaks of those who claim to have fellowship and yet walk in darkness (i.e. are engaged in unrepentant sin). In verse 7, the author provides the remedy to such, viz. the blood of Jesus Christ "that cleanseth us from all sin," allowing restoration of fellowship. This is reinforced in vv.8 and 10 that denies the claim that a Christian is without sin, while v. 9 encourages the sinner to repent, upon which God will "forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The pronouns used indicate that the author included himself in such warnings and as one who needs to engage in repentance and have his then-future sins forgiven, too.
When read exegetically, 1 John 2:1-2 shows that (1) Christ is a present propitiation for Christians; (2) the then-future sins of a Christian are not forgiven at justification, and, as a result, (3) repentance is not a once-off concept as some (not all) Evangelicals posit.
John McLeod Campbell, a 19th-century Reformed theologian who was critical of much of Penal Substitution, captured the extent and meaning of the atonement when he wrote:
And He is the propitiation: for propitiation is not a thing which He has accomplished and on which we are thrown back on as a past fact. He is the propitiation. Propitiation for us sinners,--reconciliation to God,--oneness with God abides in Christ. When we sin, and so separate ourselves from God, if we would return and not continue in sin we must remember this. For it is in this view that the Apostle, writing to us “that we sin not,” reminds us of the propitiation—not a work of Christ, but the living Christ Himself: and so he proceeds—“Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments;” the direct effect of knowing Christ the propitiation for sin being keeping Christ’s commandments. And because of the power to keep Christ’s commandments, which is ours in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, the Apostle, in words similar to those which he had just used with reference to the claim to fellowship with God who is light, adds, “He that saith I know him,” that is Christ the propitiation for our sins, “and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected,”—the end of this gift of love accomplished. “Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked.” (John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life [2d ed.: London: Macmillan and Co., 1867], 197-98; emphasis in original).
One final issue we will discuss in this review is the relationship between "justification" and "sanctification." We will do that my carefully considering 1 Cor 6:9-11.
1 Cor 6:9-11 reads:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, male prostitutes, sodmites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of god. And this is what some of you used to be. but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God.
The verbs απολουω, αγιαζω, and δικαιοω are all in the aorist. The term “washed” is clearly a reference to baptism (cf. Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5); indeed, this text shows that both justification and sanctification are effected through baptism, another biblical proof of baptismal regeneration. What is significant, however, is that, not only is δικαιοω in the aorist tense but so is the verb αγιαζω. Why? In Reformed theology, only justification is a once-for-all event; sanctification is an on-going process. However, Paul speaks of sanctification in the aorist. Absolutising this verse, as many do with Rom 5:1 means that one will have to hold that sanctification, too, is an external, once-for-all event that is static in the life of the believer (unless one wishes to hold to "Hyper-Calvinism").
Equally significant is that Paul treats "sanctification" and "justification" as virtually interchangeable--the context supports such an interchange since it deals exclusively with the conduct of the Corinthian congregation, not the appropriation of an alien righteousness. The pericope also refutes the Reformed ordo salutis as one would expect "justified" to precede "sanctified," but the opposite occurs in the text (in fact, in the New Testament, the verb form δικαιοω never precedes αγιαζω).
As a final note on 1 Cor 6:9-11, there are many texts in the New Testament where the word "sanctified" or "sanctification" are used when one would expect to see "justified" or justification" (e.g., Acts 26:18; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Thess 2:13; Heb 10:29).
Some Protestants cite Rom 5:1 (“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ") as “proof” justification is a once-for-all event, can never be lost, and so forth.
With respect to Rom 5:1, Protestant apologists are guilty of reading too much into the use of δικαιοω being in the aorist passive participle (δικαιωθέντες).
The purpose of the Greek aorist participle is not to make a definitive statement that the justification only occurs in the past, but to indicate that the justification precedes, not in time but logical order, the distribution of the "peace" that Paul says we attain as a result of this justification. This makes perfectly logical sense as one cannot have peace with God unless one is justified.
In Rom 5:5, we read the following:
And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Paul here uses the perfect passive tense for the verb εκχεω, which has strong sacrificial connotations in the LXX. The meaning of this tense is that the "pouring" is a completed act that has continuing effects in the future. When v. 1 is read in light of this verse, one can conclude that, just as God can perform an independent act of pouring love into our hearts in the past and continue to do such in the present and future, so God can begin our justification at a specific time in the past but continue to manifest and increase it throughout our lives.
Conclusion
Much more could be said, such as the discussion of 2 Nephi 25:23 and the meaning of the phrase “after all we can do,” but the above should be enough to show that McKeever’s theology is without any exegetical support. I do hope that this post will help people to see (1) the biblical basis for Latter-day Saint theology and (2) that Evangelical theology is not reflective of true “biblical Christianity.”
Update: To see further proof of McKeever's inability to engage in sound exegesis as well as his continuing lack of intellectual integrity, see my paper:
Top 17 Reasons Bill McKeever Doesn't Understand the Latter-day Saint Faith
Update: To see further proof of McKeever's inability to engage in sound exegesis as well as his continuing lack of intellectual integrity, see my paper:
Top 17 Reasons Bill McKeever Doesn't Understand the Latter-day Saint Faith
