As with my previous post, this is a (slightly edited) note from my facebook account written in August 2013. As it touches upon some elements of LDS soteriology (a topic that, as with sola scriptura and Christology, has been discussed frequently), I think some will appreciate the following--
Answering a Silly Attack on LDS Soteriology and the Eucharist/Sacrament
I recently encountered an attempt to refute Mormon theology from the Bible from a Reformed/Calvinist critic of LDS theology. His argument is that, as Latter-day Saints believe that one renews their baptismal covenants when they partake of the Eucharist ("sacrament" in LDS nomenclature), it means that they have lost their covenantal standing with God before they partake thereof, and a Latter-day Saint who fails to partake of the sacrament on a given Sunday places themselves outside the covenant with God. This “argument,” however, is simply false. Firstly, it is to beg the question to claim that, as one renews a covenant, it means that they have lost their standing in the first place. Any critic who makes this claim (to be fair, this is the first time I have heard this argument; perhaps critics are more informed about the simple rules of interpretation to make this fallacious claim) will have to show me, from authoritative LDS sources, that one has, in between one Sunday and the next, has lost their covenantal standing before God.
In addition, with respect to those who fail to partake of the Sacrament/Eucharist on a Sunday, it does not mean that they lose their covenantal standing before God. (e.g., one being unable to do such due to illness hardly loses their salvation). Further, it is a well-known fact that there are four Sundays each year where LDS do not partake of the Lord's Supper (the first weekend of April and October for LDS General Conference and two Sundays for District or Stake Conference). This shows that the LDS Church does not hold the view this critic claims LDS theology teaches.
A related argument is that the phrase, “In remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) means that, during the celebration of the Eucharist, one does not ask for the forgiveness of their sins, but simply remembers the substitutionary atonement of Jesus.
Firstly, the “substitutionary atonement,” understood by Reformed/Calvinistic critics of Mormonism, has no biblical support, notwithstanding proof-texts to the contrary (which reflect, not exegesis, but eisegesis). One of the major problems with such is the fact that the New Testament is unequivocal that Jesus Christ, in His role as High Priest, is interceding to the Father at this very moment (e.g., Hebrews 7:24-25; Romans 8:34; cf. 1 John 2:1-2). If Christ suffered the legal punishment of sins on the cross, why the need for his intercession? This problem has not escaped Protestant critics of the Penal Substitutionary theory of atonement. , Darrin W. Snyder Belousek in his book, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012). has this to say on the issue:
To understand the heavenly intercession of the Son on our behalf as the propitiation of the Father, as Michael does, generates a significant problem of internal coherence for penal subsitution. 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 [a Reformed apologist the author is responding to] interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2, although given in defense of penal substitution, effectively undermines it.(Belousek, p.249 n. 13).
Furthermore, the phrase, “Do this in remembrance of me” is the Greek:
τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. (touto poiete eis ten emen anamnesin).
The term, αναμνησιν is the accusative of the term αναμνησις anamnesis. If one looks at the LXX usage of the term in a sacrifical context (which the Last Supper is, in light of other sacrifical language used in the various Last Supper accounts in 1 Cor and the Synoptic Gospels), it refers to a memorial sacrifice. For instance:
καὶ ἐπιθήσετε ἐπὶ τὸ θέμα λίβανον καθαρὸν καὶ ἅλα καὶ ἔσονται εἰς ἄρτους εἰςἀνάμνησιν προκείμενα τῷ κυρίῳ (Lev 24:7)You shall put pure frankincense with each row, to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering by fire to the LORD. (Lev 24:7 NRSV)
The term anamnesis translates the Hebrew אַזְכָּרָה 'azkarah, meaning a “memorial offering.”
Another instance includes the following:
καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς εὐφροσύνης ὑμῶν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ἐν ταῖς νουμηνίαις ὑμῶν σαλπιεῖτε ταῖς σάλπιγξιν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὁλοκαυτώμασιν καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς θυσίαις τῶν σωτηρίων ὑμῶν καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν ἀνάμνησις ἔναντι τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν (Num 10:10)Also on your days of rejoicing, at your appointed festivals, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of well-being; they shall serve as a reminder on your behalf before the LORD your God: I am the LORD your God. (Num 10:10 NRSV)
The term anamnesis here translates the same Hebrew word, again having the meaning of a “memorial sacrifice.”
The term appears twice more in a sacrifical context in the LXX (Psalm 38:1 [LXX 37:1] and 70:1 [LXX: 69:1]). The texts in Greek and the NRSV read thusly:
ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυιδ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν περὶ σαββάτου 2 κύριε μὴ τῷ θυμῷ σου ἐλέγξῃς με μηδὲ τῇ ὀργῇ σου παιδεύσῃς με (LXX Psa 37:1)O LORD, do not rebuke me in your anger, or discipline me in your wrath. (Psa 38:1 NRSV)εἰς τὸ τέλος τῷ Δαυιδ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν 2 εἰς τὸ σῶσαί με κύριον ὁ θεός εἰς τὴν βοήθειάν μου πρόσχες (LXX Psa 69:1)To the leader. Of David, for the memorial offering. Be pleased, O God, to deliver me, O Lord, make maste to help me! (Psa 70:1 NRSV)
Modern scholarly translations rightly translate the term anamnesis as a “memorial offering,” translating the Hebrew לְהַזְכִּֽיר, the pre-fixed preposition l (to) and zkr(remembrance/memory).
Anamnesis appears, outside the accounts of the Last Supper, in one pericope in the New Testament, Hebrews 10:3:
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν· (Heb 10:3)But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. (Heb 10:3 NRSV)
Anamnesis here refers to the sacrifices required by the Leviticial law which serve to bring to “remembrance” the sins of the people, thus not allowing a relief of the individual's conscience. Although the stress is on remembrance, it is the sacrifice offered by the priest that brings the sins to remembrance, not a reading of the law or the teaching from a prophet. In effect, the sacrifice possesses an inevitable result of bringing either the guilty of sin to remembrance, or, as in the case of Christ at the Last Supper, bringing the atonement and forgiveness (as with the past Levitical offerings, offered by ordained priests) His atonement and once-for-all-sacrifice. Hence, it is no surprise to discover the statement “This is my blood of the covenant” in Matthew 26:28 with “which is poured out for many for the remission of sins,” but followed in 1 Corinthians 11:25 with “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” The connection between the “the forgiveness of sins” and “remembrance of me” is quite apparent. In other words, during the sacrament, while we do remember what Jesus has done for us, there is more than one aspect of our “remembering” Christ, such as asking for the forgiveness of sins. Only by holding a false view of the atonement (viz. Penal Substitution) can one claim otherwise.
The words of 1 John 2:1-2 is rather appropriate here:
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; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
This fits with LDS theology, where when we sin, we go to our advocate, Jesus Christ, the "atoning sacrifice" (ιλασμος hilasmos) for our sins. If one wishes to criticise Latter-day Saints, one will have to criticise the author of this pericope. This simply shows how anti-biblical this Reformed apologist's theology is, as with other critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In closing, this “argument” against Mormon soteriology is based on a gross misrepresentation of Mormon theology and also biblical exegesis. The Latter-day Saint understanding of the Sacrament/Eucharist is not refuted by Christ's words at the institution of the Last Supper. Further, only through bald assertion can one claim that Mormon theology teaches one loses their salvation sometime before partaking the sacrament on a given Sunday, and loses their covenantal standing by failing to do such on any given Sunday. If anything, these arguments show the bankruptcy of many critical charges against Latter-day Saint theology.
