A Protestant critic of LDS theology recently wrote:
I would like to take a quick detour to define sanctification and justification as I believe the LDS definition of grace confuses the two. (source [update: articles doesn't seem to be available online anymore])
Such is a rather common (though misinformed) apologetic against LDS theology. Fred Anson, hardly well-known for his theological and exegetical abilities, once wrote:
What followed in the initial article was eisegesis of Eph 2:8-9 (see below); ignorance of the meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23 and the phrase, “after all we can do” (answered by James Stutz here), as well as ignoring the overwhelming evidence for baptismal regeneration, such as Acts 2:38 which refutes Reformed soteriology.
As for the topic of the relationship between justification and sanctification, if Latter-day Saints are guilty of confusing justification and sanctification, so is the Apostle Paul:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 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 (ἀπελούσασθε), you were sanctified (ἡγιάσθητε), you were justified (ἐδικαιώθητε) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11 NRSV)
The verbs απολουω (to wash), αγιαζω (to sanctify), and δικαιοω (to justify) 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 affected 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. If one wished to absolutise this verse (as some like to do for other passages), 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).
As with many passages in First Corinthians (e.g., 1 Cor 3:15), Paul’s theology is antithetical to Reformed theology.
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.
One final nail in the coffin of Reformed theology would be that justification is transformative, something consistent with the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and other doctrines incompatible with the author’s Calvinistic soteriology.
That δικαιοω can and does have a transformative, not just a declarative, meaning, can be seen in many passages. For instance, notice Psa 73:13 (LXX 72:13):
Verily I have cleansed (δικαιοω) my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.
Similarly, the Hebrew term “to justify” (צדק), which is the word usually translated with δικαιοω in the LXX, can also mean “purify”:
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (צדק).
As Derek Flood, in his book, Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2012), pp. 103-104 notes:
Even where dikaioo appears to mean “declare righteous” linguistically in Romans, I would argue that it nevertheless always includes the restorative sense of God making-righteous the unrighteous in Paul’s thought. We can see this connection explicitly drawn out in Romans 5 where Paul juxtaposes two parallel formulations:
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification (dikaoisis) and life for all people. (v.18)
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (v. 19)
Here we can see that, whatever Paul understands dikaioo to mean, he directly connotes that meaning with our being “made righteous” in this parallel verse. The NET renders the Greek dikaiosin zoes (literally “the making right of/from life”) as “righteousness leading to life” (v. 18). Justification is an act of God that results in life because it “makes righteous.”
When Paul says that “God justifies the ungodly,” he is not proposing [that] God is a participant in the kind of legal fiction that the Old Testament expressly condemns [Isa 5:23; Exo 23:7]. Indeed, one of Pau’s central points in Romans is to demonstrate that God was not unjust in showing mercy to sinners rather than punishing them. The way that God demonstrates justice is not by acquitting the unrighteous, but by making them good. It is a gospel of God’s act of restorative justice in us. God’s actions are life-giving and transforming.
Reformed Presbyterian Phillip Schaff, author of the impressive 8-vol. History of the Christian Church, while often defending the Reformed understanding of soteriology and other issues, eventually admits the fact that –οω verbs in Greek have a transformative, not only a mere declarative, sense behind them, in vol. 7, p. 104 n. 139, states (italics in original; comment in square brackets my own for clarification):
Modern exegesis has justified this [declarative] view of δικαιόω and δικαίωσις, according to Hellenistic usage, although etymologically the verb may mean to make just, i.e., to sanctify, in accordance with verbs in όω (e.g. δηλόω φανερόω, τυφλόω,(i.to make manifest, etc.)
A study of these verbs Schaff references supports this admission. The word δηλοω appears seven times in the epistles, always denoting a recognition of an actual manifestation (1 Cor 1:11; 3:13; Col 1:18; Heb 9:8; 12:27; 1 Pet 1:11; 2 Pet 1:14); φανεροω appears fifty times in the Greek NT, denoting the same (e.g., 1 Cor 4:5; 1 Tim 3:16); τυφοω appears three times in the NT, always denoting actual blindness (John 14:40; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 John 2:11).
Another verb, among many, one could add to Schaff’s list that also supports this meaning is the verb τυφοω, meaning “to be puffed up”—it is used three times in the NT, and always refers, not merely to the declared state of a person, but their intrinsic qualities, too (1 Tim 3:15; 6:4; 2 Tim 3:4).
In both soteriological and non-soteriological contexts, -οω verbs do not have a mere declarative sense; only by engaging in special pleading can one claim that such is the case when δικαιοω is used in soteriological contexts. This is just another piece of evidence against various Protestant understandings of Sola Fide and the forensic nature of justification.
In his seminal Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 1:340-42, Ceslas Spicq wrote the following which agrees with what Schaff wrote:
Several times St. Paul uses dikaoō in its forensic OT sense, “declare or acknowledge to be just,” especially when he is quoting the OT, but it would be wrong to extend this meaning to all the texts. In the first place, this would be to forget that “verbs in –oō mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaoō should properly mean ‘make just.’ This meaning is not found in secular Greek for rather natural reasons.’”[86] In the second place, it would overlook the fact that St. Paul, as a converted Pharisee, perceived as no one else did the opposition between the new covenant and the old covenant, law and grace, circumcision and baptism, and perhaps especially the inefficacy of the old legal dispensation compared to the efficacy and realism of the dispensation of salvation centered on the cross of Jesus. The consequence is a radical change in ideas concerning righteousness/justification, as is seen in the frequent linking of the verb “justify” with faith in Christ and in the explicit contrast between justification and the works of the law; there is a different scheme or process for attributing justice/righteousness in the new covenant than in the old covenant. The apostle gives dikaoō a causative sense, as appears from Rom 3:24—“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:30; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:21); (henceforth) they are justified (present passive participle, dikaioumenoi) freely by his grace, through the redemption (apolytrōsis) that is in Jesus Christ.” God has shown his mercy, but not by pronouncing acquittal pure and simple; through Christ a price was paid, a ransom (lytron) with expiatory value (cf. verse 25: hilastērion), so that “sinners” have become just, have been made truly righteous.[87] Another clear text is Rom 3:26-“to show his justice/righteousness (his salvific action), so that (it might be established that) he himself is just and that he justifies (present active participle, dikaiounta) the one who has faith in Jesus”: the just God communicates his justice/righteousness and makes just.[88]
Notes for the Above
[86] M.J. LaGrange, La Justification selon saint Paul, Revue Biblique 1914, p. 121
[87] “The sacrifice of Christ has satisfied once and for all the demands for outward justice which God had deposited in the Law, and at the same time it has brought the positive gift of life and inward justice which the latter was unable to give” (P. Benoit, Exégèse et théologie, vol. 2 p. 39 n. 2); c. Rom 5:18—“justification gives life.” The best commentary is the Trinitarian baptismal text on the “bath of regeneration and renewal” (Titus 3:7), “so that having been justified by the grace of this (Jesus Christ) our Savior (ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι), we might become . . . heirs . . . of eternal life”: the aorist passive participle denotes the present state of this new and internal righteousness that permits entry into heaven, where nothing impure may go in. C. H. Rosman, “Iusticicare (δικαιουν) est verbum causalitatis,” in Verbum Domini, 1941, pp. 144-147.
[88] Cf. Rom 4:5—“The one who has no works but who believes in the One who justifies (δικαιουντα) the ungodly, will have his faith counted as righteousness.” M.J. Legrange (on this verse) comments: “δικαιοω in the active cannot mean ‘forgive’: it has to be ‘declare just’ or ‘make just.’ That God should declare the ungodly righteous is a blasphemous proposition. But in addition, when would this declaration be made?” H.W. Heidland (TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 288-292) explains λογιζεσθαι: “Justification is not a fiction alongside the reality. If God counts faith as righteousness, man is wholly righteous in God’s eyes . . . He becomes a new creature through God’s λογιζεσθαι.”
In Rom 6:7, the KJV reads:
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Many other translations (e.g., NRSV; NJB; LEB) uses "freed." However, the Greek of this verse reads:
ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας
The term δεδικαίωται is the third person indicative perfect passive of δικαιοω, the verb meaning "to justify," meaning "justified" in this verse. In Paul's theology, God not only simply "frees" a person from sin, but they are "justified/made righteous" therefrom. In effect, the apostle Paul has no issue with using the term "justification" (δικαιοω) in reference to sanctification (cf. the comments about 1 Cor 6:9-11 above)
As with many doctrines (e.g., sola scriptura), the biblical evidence, when viewed through the lens of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, Reformed theology is an exegetical failure, and Latter-day Saint theology is supported rather soundly.
For a recent scholarly examination of "grace" in theology, history, and scripture from an LDS perspective, see Brent J. Schmidt, Relational Grace: The Reciprocal and Binding Covenant of Charis.
With respect to the main theme of the blog post, the author’s arguments against physical temples relies upon a lot of special-pleading, eisegesis, and, as always, ignorance of LDS apologetics and scholarship addressing this issues. For one example, see this presentation by the late Matthew B. Brown:
Finally, with respect to Eph 2:8-9, such supports the LDS position and actually disproves Reformed theology. How so? Note the following comes from a Traditionalist Catholic apologist who raises a similar argument (1) in favour of water baptism being salvific and (2) that Eph 2:8-9 is not a valid "proof-text" for sola fide:
Ephesians 2:8-9. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
This argument also fails. As I will now show, this argument fails because this verse is specifically talking about the initial grace of receiving water baptism. Water baptism is not a work “of yourselves,” but a sacrament instituted by God. No work you can do can substitute for the power of water baptism. This is said to “save” because it removes man’s original sin and puts him into the initial state of justification. The proof that Ephesians 2:8-9 is actually referring to water baptism is found when one compares the passage to Titus 3:5, and then to 1 Peter 3:20-21:
Look at this:
Ephesians 2:8-9—“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
|
Titus 3:5—“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to the mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
|
Notice that the two passages are extremely similar. They are talking about the same thing. They both mention being saved, and not of works which we have done. Ephesians 2:8-9 describes this as being saved through “faith”; Titus 3:5 describes it as being saved through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. They are referring to the same thing.
Titus 3:5 is without doubt referring to water baptism. as even John Calvin and Martin Luther admitted. Ephesians 2:8-9 is also taking about water baptism is submitting to faith; it’s how one joins the faith, as Jesus makes clear in Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19: “Preach the Gospel to every creature . . .Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” Baptism is also described as “faith” in Galatians 3:
Galatians 3:26-27—“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
We see that receiving baptism is synonymous with receiving “faith” in Christ Jesus. To further confirm that Ephesians 2:8-9 is about being saved by baptism, let’s expand the comparison:
Ephesians 2:8-9—“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
|
Titus 3:5—“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to us mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
|
1 Peter 3:20-21: “ . . . when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saves you also . . .”
|
This demonstrates that Ephesians 2:8-9 is referring to the initial grace of baptism. Ephesians 2:8-9 is not talking about the ongoing justification of those who have already been baptized, but simply about how people were initially brought out of original sin and given the grace of justification. No work which anyone can do could replace or substitute for water baptism and the grace it grants: the first justification and removal of original sin. But once a person enters the Church through baptism (which is God’s work), his deeds and works indeed become part of the justification process, and a factor which will determine whether he maintains justification. This is made clear from the abundance of passages (e.g., James 2:24) . . . . [Thus] the Protestant argument from Ephesians 2:8-9 is another one which doesn’t hold up to the context of Scripture. (Peter Dimond, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church [Fillmore, N.Y.: Most Holy Family Monastery, 2009], 67-68; emphasis in original)
As an aside, Dimond noted that John Calvin understood "the washing of regeneration" in Tit 3:5 to refer to water baptism, which is true, although Calvin (going against any meaningful exegesis of Tit 3:3-5) argues it does not teach baptismal regeneration; in his commentary on the Titus 3:5, Calvin wrote:
By the washing of regeneration. I have no doubt that he alludes, at least, to baptism, and even I will not object to have this passage expounded as relating to baptism; not that salvation is contained in the outward symbol of water, but because baptism tells to us the salvation obtained by Christ. Paul treats of the exhibition of the grace of God, which, we have said, has been made by faith. Since therefore a part of revelation consists in baptism, that is, so far as it is intended to confirm our faith, he properly makes mention of it. Besides, baptism— being the entrance into the Church and the symbol of our ingrafting into Christ—is here appropriately introduced by Paul, when he intends to shew in what manner the grace of God appeared to us; so that the strain of the passage runs thus: —"God hath saved us by his mercy, the symbol and pledge of which he gave in baptism, by admitting us into his Church, and ingrafting us into the body of his Son."
