Top 17 Reasons Bill McKeever Doesn't Understand the Latter-day Saint Faith

 I was recently sent an article by Bill McKeever of Mormonism "Research" Ministry entitled Examining the "17 Points of the True Church." This is a response to a popular tract. While I am not a big fan of the apologetic, McKeever’s responses to the 17 points reveals how false and anti-biblical his Protestant theology is, as well as his overall ignorance of “Mormonism” truly is—see, for instance, my review of his debate on salvation with James Holt.

Here are the 17 Points of the True Church (found online here and many other places on the Internet):

1.     Christ organized the Church (Eph 4:11-14)

2.     The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Eph 5:23)

3.     The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets (Eph 2:19-20)

4.     The true church must have the same organization as Christ's Church (Eph 4:11-14)

5.     The true church must claim divine authority (Heb 4:4-10)

6.     The true church must have no paid ministry (Acts 20:33-34; John 10:11-13)

7.     The true church must baptize by immersion (Matt 3:13-16)

8.     The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17)

9.     The true church must practice divine healing (Mark 3:14-15)

10.  The true church must teach that God and Jesus are separate and distinct individuals (John 17:11; 20:17)

11.  The true church must teach that God and Jesus have bodies of flesh and bone (Luke 23:36-39; Acts 1:9-11; Heb 1:1-3)

12.  The officers must be called by God (Heb 4:4; Ex 28:1; 40:13-16)

13.  The true church must claim revelation from God (Amos 3:7)

14.  The true church must be a missionary church (Matt 28:19-20)

15.  The true church must be a restored church (Acts 3:19-20)

16.  The true church must practice baptism for the dead (1Cor 15:16&29)

17.  "By their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt 7:20)

McKeever’s comments will appear in red while my responses will appear in black.

1. Christ Organized the Church.

This argument is purely subjective as most organizations claiming to be Christian feel Christ organized their church. This would include the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and others that deny sound biblical doctrine. People make the Church. Because Christ’s Church is made up of many individuals who have trusted in Christ totally for their salvation, it would be erroneous to view any particular building, organization, or denomination as the “true church.”

One has to understand the anti-biblical presuppositions informing McKeever’s rejection of the true Church being a visible structure, not just an invisible structure of "true believers," as preached by much of modern Evangelicalism. We hold, as did Paul, that the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth, not the Bible or any other text (1 Tim 3:15; cf. Matt 16:18-19; 18:18; Eph 4:5-7, etc), and it was the Church and its leadership that explicated the teaching that Gentile converts would not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant (Paul’s letters were not inscripturated at the time, so Romans and Galatians cannot be logically used to nullify this [discussed below]).

If there is more than one denomination, there are too many. If you depart from the one true church (and there can only be one true church) then you are not in the true church. It is as simple as that. As a result of a sub-biblical ecclesiology, coupled with sola scriptura, there are about 10,000 different Protestant denominations, as admitted by Evangelical apologist, Eric Svendsen (see my post, "How many Protestant Denominations are there?”)

One also has to understand one of the presuppositions McKeever, a Protestant, holds to--the formal sufficiency of the Protestant Bible which is the doctrine of sola scriptura. I have discussed this issue in great detail already on my blog, including providing an exegesis of the key verses used to support this (click here for pages that discuss sola scriptura), including 2 Tim 3:16-17; Matt 4:1-11 and 1 Cor 4:6, so I won't rehash things here. However, for McKeever et al, as there is no greater authority than the Bible (all other authorities are to be subordinated to it), appealing to a source that has equal authority to the Bible is not allowed in such an epistemological framework.

Update: See my lengthy essay, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura, showing the overwhelming exegetical case against the formal doctrine of Protestantism.

However, that such is the biblical model is without dispute where it is the authorised leadership of the Church that makes a doctrinal decision, even if scant or actually no meaningful biblical evidence is available to them (from the historical-grammatical method of exegesis). For instance, in Acts 1:20, we read:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick (επισκοπη [office]) let another take.

If one examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and 109:8. However, nothing in these two verses says anything about Judas, apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles. If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement (v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.

Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)

This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).

Furthermore, Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.

Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.

This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.

Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God choose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace, not works of law, and only after that, does James stand up, as bishop of Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. There is nothing in Acts 15 to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

Unlike McKeever, the Bible affirms a much higher view of the "Church" than he will allow. Latter-day Saints are reflective of "Biblical Christianity" on this point; McKeever is not.

2. The true church must bear the name of Christ.

If Mormons wish to use this argument, they must answer as to why their own church was called merely “The Church of the Latter-day Saints” from 1834-1838. By their reasoning their own church must have been in apostasy for at least four years. Those who belonged to the early Christian church were known more by their geographic location rather than an “organizational” name. In I Thessalonians 1:1 Paul addresses “The church of the Thessalonians.” Are we to assume that Paul was addressing a false church?

With respect to 1 Thess 1:1 (cf. 2 Thess 1:1), the phrase τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων ("to the church of the Thessalonians" [NRSV]) is a reference to the congregation in Thessalonica; it is not about the name of the organisation/denomination, so it is entirely neutral to LDS claims--it would be the equivalent of a modern Prophet/Apostle writing to "the Church of those in Tralee, Ireland." In Rom 16:16, we read of "the Churches of Christ" (αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ Χριστου); using McKeever's "logic," this proves that the name of the Church should be called "the Church[es] of Christ" (and various denominations argue thusly), or at the very least, have "Christ" in the name of the denomination.

Catholic theologian Michael Schmaus wrote the following vis-a-vis the use of the genitive ("church of God" [toυ θεου]) in the Pauline Epistles:

In the Pauline epistles we meet the expression ekklesia in the same sense as in Acts. Paul also uses it for the local congregation and the whole Church. Frequently the two meanings are interwoven. Thus Paul speaks, for instance, of the Church of God which is in Corinth or in Thessalonica or in Galatia (see the titles of the letters to these communities; also Rom. 1,7; Col. 1,2; Phil. 1,1). There are consequently, according to Paul, many churches (1 Thess. 2,14; 1 Cor. 4.=,17; 11, 16; 16, 1; 2 Cor. 8,1). Although numerically this application to the individual churches predominates, the primary meaning for him is of the whole Church as a unity (Gal. 1,13; 1 Cor. 10,32; 12,28; 15,9; Phil. 3,6). This is evident especially in the letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians. The universal Church is made manifest in the individual churches (cf. 2 Cor. 11,2). Many times also Paul adds the genitive tou theou and thereby makes clear that he understands the Church as the successor to the Old Testament People of God (1 Thess.2,14; 2 Thess.1,4; 1 Cor.1,2; 10,32; 11,16.22). He goes beyond the terminology of Acts insofar as he frequently applies he formula “in Christ” or the genitive “of Christ,” which for him says the same thing as the characteristic formula en Christo (1 Thess. 1,2; 2, 14; 2 Thess 1,2; Gal. 1,22; Rom. 6,16). This nuance brings out more clearly than in Acts the progress from the Old Testament to the New Testament People of God, without losing the continuity. It is Christ who forms the new People of God and impress on it its special character. (Michael Schmaus, Dogma, volume 4: The Church—Its Origin and Structure [London: Sheed and Ward, 1972], 5, emphasis added)

In other words, Paul is not providing the name of the Church; instead, he is drawing a parallel between the New Testament Church and Old Testament People of God.

With respect to the name of the Church in this dispensation, McKeever's argument, in many respects, mirrors that of Floyd McElveen, in his book, The Mormon Revelations of Convenience, has an appendix entitled, "The Church of the Uncertain Name":

According to the Mormon assertion, Christ “restored” His church using the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, as the instrument through whom this was accomplished. The “precise day” for the organization of the church was supposedly revealed, along with the name by which it was to be called. The name given by “divine revelation” was THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. However, four years later, in 1834, the name of the church was changed to THE CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. Then another four years later, in April of 1838, the name was again changed. This time it became THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTERDAY [sic] SAINTS.

Does it not seem strange that it took eight years and three “revelations” to name the “true church”? (“Changes in Mormonism” from Utah Christian Tract Society, as cited by Floyd McElveen, The Mormon Revelations of Convenience [Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1978], 103. Capitalisation in original.)

There are many problems with the above paragraph; for instance, the  name of the Church from 1834 until 1838 (“Church of Latter Day Saints”) was proposed by Sidney Rigdon; there is no evidence that such was credited to divine revelation. Furthermore, there was much elasticity of the name of the Church during this time-period (discussed below).

Walter Martin, in his The Maze of Mormonism (2d ed.; 1978) forwarded a similar argument:

Much is made of the name of the Church by its missionaries, who claim that there was no church on the face of the earth called "The Church of Jesus Christ" when the "church" was restored in 1830.  What is the explanation for the fact that the Church changed its name twice in the first eight years of its existence?  According to The Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 27:7-8) it was to be called after Christ's name; and for the first four years, it was called "Church of Christ."  In 1834 the name was changed to "Church of the Latter-day Saints."  Finally, in 1838, it became "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."  Wouldn't one think that there is a serious problem of contradiction here, because Jesus made a point to instruct the Nephites on what the Church should be named, and one should reasonably assume that Christ would have informed Joseph in 1830 exactly what he wanted the Church to be called, yet He didn't speak to the point until 1838--after two different names had been used already?

LDS scholar, John A. Tvedtnes, dealt with this argument here, from which I will quote:

The “Church of Christ” was incorporated in New York State in 1830, and employed that name for the first several years of its existence. A letter of the First Presidency of the Church, dated 22 January 1834, noted “the organization of the Church of Christ, or the Church of the Latter-day Saints, on the 6th of April, 1830” (History of the Church 2:22). The following month, we read the “Minutes of the Organization of the High Council of the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints, Kirtland, February 17, 1834” (History of the Church 2:28), employing a name nearly identical to the one used today. On 3 May 1834, Kirtland was the scene of “a Conference of the Elders of the Church of Christ” at which “a motion was made by Sidney Rigdon, and seconded by Newel K. Whitney, that this Church be known hereafter by the name of ‘The Church of the Latter-day Saints.’ Remarks were made by the members, after which the motion passed by unanimous vote” (History of the Church 2:62-63). This name change did not come as a result of revelation, but by vote. Significantly, when the Lord finally did speak in 1838, it was the name he gave the church that became official and has remained so ever since. “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (D&C 115:4).

The question itself distorts what the Book of Mormon says, by leaving out the context of 3 Nephi 27:7-8. Reading from the beginning of the chapter, we note that the Nephite disciples had already been traveling about, preaching and baptizing, and that when they “were gathered together and were united in mighty prayer and fasting” (vs. 1), Jesus came to them and they asked him “Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter” (vs. 3). From this, it is clear that Christ did not name the Church he established among the Nephites until after the Church had already begun growing in numbers. This is parallel to what happened in the latter-day Church, when different names were applied until the Lord himself revealed precisely how the Church should be named. In the case of both the Nephite and latter-day Churches, the question of the name was not settled until Christ revealed his will.

Two other points should be made:

1) Even before the Nephite disciples prayed to know how they should call the Church, “they who were baptized in the name of Jesus were called the church of Christ” (3 Nephi 26:21). For some reason, there were disagreements about the precise name that should be used.

2) Latter-day Saints look to the scriptures, not to missionaries, as the final source of truth. Moreover, the name of the Church, while important, is not what makes the Church true or false. When answering the Nephite disciples’ questions about the name of the Church, Christ said, “but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel” (3 Nephi 27:8). Being built on the gospel of Christ and having authority from him is far more important than the name of the Church.

3. The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets.

The true church has as its foundation Jesus Christ. He is the Chief cornerstone and/or foundation. I Corinthians 3:11 reads, “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Deuteronomy 18:15 makes it clear that Jesus Christ Himself is “the Prophet” who guides His Church today. (See also John 5:46; 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:22-23.)

Yes, Christ is the foundation of the Church—Latter-day Saints agree 100% with that. However, to read into that statement a cessation of the offices of prophet and apostles is eisegesis.

The New Testament affirms true prophets after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus:

And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11:27-28)

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul (Acts 13:1)

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (Acts 15:32)

And God hath sent some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12:28)

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge . . . And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (1 Cor 14:29, 32)

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his apostles and prophets by the Spirit. (Eph 3:5)

Even in the teachings of Jesus, there is an expectation of true prophets that would come after Him:

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city . . . (Matt 23:34; cf. Luke 11:49)

Additionally, Christ not only would send/commission prophets, but His followers were to accept them as true prophets of God:

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. (Matt 10:40-41; cf. John 13:20; 15:20)

While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matt 7:15), this only makes sense is there would be true prophets that would have to be distinguished from false prophets (cf. Matt 7:15-20).

Furthermore, in Rev 11:3-12, there is a promise of two eschatological prophets who would serve as two (true) witnesses of God against a fallen world and who would be killed.

Anti-Mormon and Reformed Baptist, James White, in his own interaction with the tract, “17 points of the True Church,” argues against the LDS use of Eph 2:20 in the following way:

#3. The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets. Ephesians 2:19-20. This, again, is true, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, the LDS Church takes it too far. The Mormons take this to mean that the true church must have official positions entitled "Apostle" and "Prophet," which, of course, they have. This is not what Ephesians 2:19-20 teaches. First, the context includes verses 21 and 22, and these must be read also. The text actually says that the church is built on a foundation. Stop there. The word "built" as translated in the King James Version translates the Greek participle epoikodomethentes, which, properly syntaxed is translated "having been built." It is an aorist passive participle. It refers to a past action, one that (in this case) has been completed. To say that today we must continue to build the foundation of apostles and prophets is to misunderstand the text. Next, we would like to point out that the Bible identifies Jesus Christ as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). The Church is built upon this foundation, and is continually growing unto an "holy temple in the Lord." The question must be asked, how many times does one lay a foundation? If one is continually laying a foundation, how will the house be built? The answer is obvious. The Mormon Church is still trying to lay a foundation that was laid two thousand years ago. Since this is so, it is obvious to see that in this passage Paul is referring to something other than a continuing office of apostle and Prophet.

Compare White’s comments about the aorist participle with a leading Greek grammar:

The assumption that the Aorist Participle properly denotes past time, from the point of view either of the speaker or of the principal verb, leads to a constant misinterpretation of the form. The action denoted by the Aorist Participle may be past, present, or future with reference to the speaker, and antecedent to, coincident with, or subsequent to, the action of the principle verb. The Aorist Participle, like the participles of the other tenses, may be most simply thought of as a noun or adjective, the designation of one who  performs the action denoted by the verb, and like any other noun or adjective timeless” (Ernest D. Burton, Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, Kregel Pub., 1978, pp. 59-60)

Much of White's interpretation of Eph 2:20 mirrors that of Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine's, in their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House, 1995). On p. 72, we find the following questions posted to Latter-day Saints:

What do you think Ephesians 2:20 means when it says that God's household is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles?

Once a foundation is built, does it have to be built again, and again, and again?

Perhaps it should be enough to note that, just as a building's foundations are not removed when construction of a building is completed, Christ's apostles and prophets were not meant  to be removed when the Church was established, but were meant to remain, as were the other offices mentioned in Eph 4:11. There are at least 15 and possibly as many as 22 apostles named in the New Testament, and no fewer than three prophets mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Unless one labours under the (false) a priori assumption of the formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon, nothing, exegetically, allows one to claim that these apostles and prophets were not "forth-telling" prophets and apostles as were Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, et al.

For the references to these apostles and prophets, see the following:

Apostles

Matthias (Acts 1:26)

Paul (Acts 13:2; 14:14; Rom 1:1)

Barnabas (Acts 13:2; 14:14)

Andronicus (Rom 16:7)

Junia (Rom 16:7)

Apollos (1 Cor 4:6-9)

James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19)

Silvanus (1 Thess 1:1; 2:4-6)

Timoteus (1 Thess 1:1; 2:4-6)

Jesus is also referred to as being an "apostle" (Heb 3:1)

Prophets

Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10)

Judas (Acts 15:22, 32)

Silas (Acts 15:22, 32)

Others (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 21:9; Rev 11:3-10)

Finally, note the following exegesis of Eph 2:20 from Harold Hoehner, a conservative Evangelical Protestant:

ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ, “having been built on the foundation.” Paul makes a transition in his metaphor from those who belong to a household (οικειος) in verse 19 to that of a building in which the Spirit of God dwells (εποικοδομηθεντες . . . οικοδομη . . . συνοικοδομεισθε . . .  κατοικητηριον) in verses 20-22. The aorist passive participle εποικοδομηθεντες may signify a temporal idea, indicating that the readers of this letter have already built on the foundation at the time of their conversion, or, more likely, it may denote cause, namely, the reason we are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household is because we have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The passive emphasises that foundation of the apostles and prophets. The passive emphasises that we who are in one body are recipients of the action. God is the subject of the building. The following preposition επι with the accusative would imply motion (1 Cor 3:12; Rom 15:20) but with the genitive or dative, as here, it denotes place—“on” or “upon” which the structure is built. The word θεμελιος means “foundation,” which speaks of the beginnings of something that is coming into being, a term that is synonymous to καταβολη in 1:4. (Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002], 397)

Again, McKeever's a priori assumption of sola scriptura comes to the fore in his eisgesis-driven appraoch to this issue.

Incidentally, 1 Cor 3:11 is part of one of the most anti-Protestant passages in the entirety of the Bible; see my paper, 1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse.

4. The true church must have the same organization as Christ’s church.

If the LDS Church follows Eph 4:11-14, why is the order of authority reversed? Paul says first in line come the apostles, next the prophets. Mormonism reverses this order. If Mormonism emulates the structure of the early church, where in the Bible is there any mention of multiple high priests, Relief Society presidents, Second Quorum of the Seventies, stake presidencies, ward bishoprics, etc.? Where are the Mormon’s pastors, and evangelists?

Actually, the LDS Church does follow Eph 4:11-14, and does not reverse the order of authority.

What distinguishes Joseph Smith and his successors is not the spirit of prophecy, or being a Prophet, but the apostleship. Wilford Woodruff explained that "anybody is a prophet who has a testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders of Israel are prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle" (JOD 13:165).

Brigham Young explained the differences between the titles "prophet," "apostle," and "president." In a conference address delivered April 6, 1853, he said:

Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question. Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, No! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President of the Church. Suffice to say, that Joseph was the President of the Church, as long as he lived; the people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing the President of the Church? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity, but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the Priesthood, independent of their voice. (JOD 1:113)

To Brigham Young, being a prophet was secondary to being an apostle and having keys from God. He explained the difference in these words:

Many persons think if they see a Prophet they see one possessing all the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. This is not so; many persons have prophesied without having any Priesthood on them at all . . . To be a prophet is simply to be a foreteller of future events; but an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ has the keys of the Holy Priesthood, and the power thereof is sealed upon his dead, and by this he is authorized to proclaim the truth to the people, and if they receive it, well; if not, the sin be upon their own heads. (JOD 13:144).

Interestingly, Eph 4:11-14 nullifies the common Protestant appeal to texts such as 2 Tim 3:16-17 that speak highly of the nature of "Scripture" (which Protestants, via eisegesis, read into such passages the formal sufficiency of the 66 books of the Protestant canon [sola scriptura]). How so? If one wishes to absolutise 2 Tim 3:16 in the way that Evangelicals and others wish to, as evidence of Sola Scriptura, then being consistent, the words of Paul in Eph 4:11-14 vis-à-vis the offices and officers in the Church “prove” that they are formally sufficient and there is no need for other authorities, or at least, these authorities are the final authority and all other authorities are subordinated thereto.

The pericope reads as follows:

And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

If one wishes to absolutise this pericope to “prove” that the offices and officers within the Church are sole (formally sufficient) authority, one would point out the use of προς, the preposition “toward” and the term καταρτισμος (KJV: perfecting) which means “to equip,” and how the offices within the Church are the instrumental means by which believers (or “the man of God” to borrow the language of 2 Tim 3) come to the unity of faith, and how it is part of a purpose or ινα- clause in the Greek, “that (ινα) [believers] be no more children” who are taken in my new, erroneous doctrines, but are stable in their faith.

Now, if such terms were predicated upon “Scripture,” I can see a defender of Sola Scriptura point to this pericope as definitive “proof” of the Bible teaching its own formal sufficiency. However, unfortunately for the defender of this doctrine, nothing of the kind is predicated upon Scripture in this pericope; instead, such terms are predicated upon the ecclesiastical offices and officers. Is such biblical proof of their being formally sufficient and the sole final authority? No, but it does highlight the special pleading and eisegesis proponents of Sola Scriptura are forced to engage in due to their man-made doctrine vis-à-vis 2 Tim 3:16 and other “proof-texts” used by Protestant apologists to defend this practice.

As for the LDS Church having offices that were not either explicated in the Bible or part of the earliest strata of the New Testament Church (and even the earliest years of the Restored Church), such is answered in the following text:

. . . [I]t is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. (D&C 128:18)

This verse should read as a “controlling verse” of sorts in how Latter-day Saints approach biblical (and even Book of Mormon and other extra-biblical evidences for LDS theology [e.g., patristic literature]). We do not believe the Bible or any of our other scriptural texts are formally sufficient (per the Protestant understanding of the nature of scripture [per sola scriptura]). We should not expect those from previous dispensations to have believed, at least to the same degree we do, certain doctrines. For instance, while the New Testament teaches that there are varying degrees of rewards in the hereafter, outside a typological interpretation of 1 Cor 15:40-42 and Paul’s mention of the “third heaven” in 2 Cor 12:12, the New Testament Christians did not believe in the “three degrees of glory” as outlined in D&C 76. Our modern view of the hereafter is informed by explicit modern revelation. The same applies for our ecclesiology--as the Church grows, new offices and new functions to previous offices will occur. For a discussion, see John A. Tvedtnes, Organize my Kingdom: A History of Restored Priesthood (Bountiful, UT.: Cornerstone, 2000)

5. The true church must claim divine authority.

Again, this is purely subjective. Any organization can claim to be authoritative. Bible-believing Christians claim the authority of God’s Word, the Bible, not the words of mere men who contradict it.

I agree with McKeever that all groups claim authority. I would disagree that the LDS Church contradicts the Bible; instead, it is his flavor of Protestantism that does. Furthermore, he is simply begging the question vis-à-vis the Bible being the final authority for a Christian—the Bible does not affirm sola scriptura, and simply assuming such is fallacious.

6. The true church must have no paid ministry.

Mormons who believe their leaders are not paid are very misinformed. All the General Authorities in Salt Lake City receive remuneration for their services to the church and from the church. If they don’t believe it, they should call the LDS Church headquarters and ask. A paid ministry is not unbiblical. The entire Old Testament speaks of a paid ministry as well as I Corinthians chapter 9.

With respect to 1 Cor 9, Paul is speaking only of apostles and their assistants in 1 Cor 9:4: "Have we not power to eat and drink?" Such is strengthened in vv.5-6:

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

Such is hardly consistent with the Protestant practice of giving a salary to a congregation's local leaders.

Furthermore, in v. 18, we read:

What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Adding further strength to the LDS view is that the term translated as “reward” (μισθος) also means “wage” or "remuneration for work done" (per BDAG).

The Latter-day Saint model is consistent with passages such as Acts 20:33-34:

I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.

Other texts that either implicitly or explicitly support the LDS position include Matt 10:8 and 1 Pet 5:1-3.

7. The true church must baptize by immersion.

If baptism (a work) was necessary in order for a person to be saved, this could be a debatable subject. However, Ephesians 2:8,9 clearly states that we are saved by grace through faith, not works such as baptism. Baptism is merely an outside sign of an inner work of the Holy Spirit in an individual’s life. Believers should be baptized as a testimony of their faith in Christ; however, 

Again, we see the truly anti-biblical and perverse theology McKeever espouses, as well as his penchant for eisegesis, not exegesis.

Firstly, baptism is not a human “work” that forces God into giving us salvation nor is it a legal work that somehow “merits” or even “guarantees” one’s ultimate salvation. Admittedly, there are proponents of this view within the traditions that hold to the “salvific” view of baptism, but it is often out of ignorance of what their denomination teaches. In the case of Latter-day Saint soteriology, baptism (when coupled with confirmation) is the beginning of one’s justification and being “born-again”; however, we do know that genuine believers who have been justified have lost their salvation, and had to be restored (e.g. Heb 6:4-6; 10:26). If any Latter-day Saint looks at his baptism as a “guarantee” that, no matter how his lifestyle, he will be saved and go to the Celestial Kingdom, he is in opposition to the Church’s teachings.

For instance, in Titus 3:3-5, the synergy between our being washed by baptism and God’s grace is seen, something which sums up the LDS understanding:

For we ourselves were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But after the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Here, we read that the instrumental means of being saved by God was “by the washing of regeneration” (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας), which couples “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσία) with the term λουτρον, which is used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to being washed with literal water (Eph 5:26), and was unanimously interpreted by patristic authors as being biblical proof of this view (e.g. Cyprian, Epistle 83.6; Augustine, Chapter 34 of A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins; Ambrose, Dogmatic Treatises, 10.6; Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic Treatises, 2.8). In LDS soteriology, baptism (and confirmation) serves as the instrumental means through which the Holy Spirit cleanses us of all past and then-present sins and makes us "new creatures."

On Tit 3:3-5, note the following from Raymond F. Collins, I&II Timothy and Titus (New Testament Library; Louiseville, Ky.: 2002), 364-65 that supports the reading that Paul is speaking of water baptism/baptismal regeneration:

The ritual bath mentioned in the hymn is one of rebirth and renewal. The term palingenesia, “rebirth,” from palin “again,” and ginomai, “to come into being” (genesis, “birth,” being one of its cognates), occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matt 19:28. The term was commonly used in the Hellenistic world of a wide range of human or met human experiences, including the restoration of health, return from exile, the beginning of a new life, the restoration of souls, new life for a people, and the anticipated restoration of the world.

The Corpus Hermeticum, an Alexandrian text written sometime before the end of the third century C.E. and attributed to the “Thrice-Greatest Hermes” (Hermes Trismegistos), says that “no one can be saved before rebirth (Corp. Herm. 13.3). The thirteenth tract of the Corpus features a dialogue between Hermes and his son Tat on the subject of being born again. Speaking to his father in a manner that recalls Nicodemus’s question to Jesus (John 3:4), Tat inquires about rebirth. He understands rebirth to be accomplished in some physical manner and asks his father about the womb and seed. Hermes responds that these are respectively the wisdom of understanding in silence and the true good, sown in a person by the will of God. The child that results is a different king of child, “a god and a child of God” (Corp. Herm. 13.2). Rebirth enables a person to progress in the moral life, turning from twelve vices--ignorance, grief, incontinence, lust, injustice, greed, deceit, envy, treachery, anger, recklessness, and malice--to the opposite virtues (Corp. Herm. 13.7).

Many twentieth-century scholars, particularly those belonging to the history of religions school of New Testament research, attempted to clarify 3:5 in the light of this Hermetic tract. The tract is, however, much later than the Epistle to Titus and lacks any reference to a ritual washing. On the other hand, the late first-century canonical Fourth Gospel features a discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, a leader of the Pharisees (John 3:3-8), about being “born again” (gennéthe anóthen). The Johannine account does not employ the noun “rebirth” (palingenesia), as does the Corpus, but it does speak about a birth that takes place in water and the Spirit (gennéthé ex hydatos kai pneumatos). The substantive similarities between the Johannine text and 3:5d-e--the references to washing, new birth, and the Spirit--suggest that both of these late first-century texts describe the ritual of Christian baptism as bringing about a new life through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, the LDS model of baptising my immersion, not touched upon by McKeever, is supported by Rom 6:1-4, sadly for McKeever, it is a passage that also teaches baptismal regeneration:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grave may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν) were baptised into his death (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν)? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον): that like as (ὥσπερ) Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so (οὕτω) we also should walk in newness of life.

In the symbolic view, baptism is similar to the relationship a wedding ring has to being married—it is an outward sign of something that it did not effect. In the sense of their understanding of salvation, it is an outward sign of one having been saved and being incorporated “into Christ.” However, Paul’s theology of baptism in this pericope is antithetical to this perspective. The apostle speaks of one being baptised “into [εις—I will be discussing this preposition in my next post on Acts 2:38] Christ,” including being a partaker of his death and resurrection, with baptism being the instrumental means thereof (through use of the preposition δια). Furthermore, Paul, through his use of the conjunction ωσπερ and adverb ουτος, both meaning "just as," likens Christ’s being raised by the Father to our being given, by the Father, newness of life through the instrumental means of baptism. There is no exegetical wiggle-room, so to speak, for a purely symbolic view.

Furthermore, for the symbolism of our incorporation into the death/burial and resurrection/newness of life “in Christ,” only baptism by immersion would be acceptable, but that is a different topic for a different day.

That this is the view of baptism in Romans has strong scholarly support, too. For instance:

The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).

In Romans 6:1-14 the ritual of baptism is explicitly interpreted as a reenactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus in which the baptized person appropriates the significance of that death for himself or herself. In this understanding of the ritual, the experience of the Christian is firmly and vividly grounded in the story of the death and resurrection of Christ. These qualities of reenactment of a foundational story and the identification of the participant with the protagonist of the story are strikingly reminiscent of what is known about the initiation rituals of certain mystery religions, notably the Eleusinian mysteries and the Isis mysteries.[71]

 One of the distinctive features of Roans 6 is that Paul avoids saying “we have risen” with Christ; rather he speaks of “newness of life.” The implication of Paul’s restraint is that the transformation is not complete. There is still an apocalyptic expectation of a future, fuller transformation into a heavenly form of life. This expectation fits with Paul’s use throughout the passage of the imperative alongside the indicative. “Newness of life” is a real, present possibility, both spiritually and ethically, but the actualizing of that possibility requires decision and commitment as well as grace.[72]

Notes for the Above:

[71] For the story or ιερος λογος of the Eleusinian mysteries, see the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. An English translation of this hymn, along with an introduction and bibliography has been published by Arvin W. Meyer, The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 17-30. For an account of the initiation into the mysteries of Isis, see Apuleius, The Golden Ass, Book 11. See also Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris. Meyer has include book 11 of the Golden Ass and selections from Plutarch’s work (ibid., 176-93 and 160-72).

 [72] Note that the author of Colossians does not hesitate to say that Christians have risen with Christ (2:12, 3:1). Baptism is also linked to the resurrection of Christ in 1 Pet 3:21. See also the related interpretation of baptism as rebirth in John 3:3-8 and Titus 3:5.

Source: Adela Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leidin, The Netherlands: Brill, 2000), 237.

 Commenting on Rom 6:5 (“For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" [NRSV]), one Protestant scholar wrote the following vis-a-vis its relationship to vv.1-4 and water baptism:

The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).

Another text refuting the purely symbolic view of water baptism McKeever espouses is that of Acts 2:38:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Outside of John 3:3-5, this is perhaps the favourite text used in support of baptism being salvific. Here, in this verse, we have a statement from Peter that seems to teach rather explicitly that the instrumental means of the forgiveness of sins is water baptism.

The Latter-day Saint interpretation of Acts 2:38 can found in a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1831:

Wherefore, I give unto you a commandment that ye go among this people, and say unto them, like unto mine apostle of old whose name was Peter: Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, who was on the earth and is to come, the beginning and the end; Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins: And whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of the church. (D&C 49:11-14).

Proponents of the symbolic view of baptism have made much about the preposition εις (“for” in Acts 2:38), which reveals much about the deceptive use of Greek many critics of the Restored Gospel engage in.

Some have argued, following the lead of J.R. Mantey, that εις in this verse as a “causal” or “resultant” meaning; namely, one is baptised because they had a remission of sins before baptism. An example from everyday English would be, “I took a tablet for my migraine”—one did not take the tablet to bring about a migraine, but because of one having a migraine, then they took a tablet.

However, this “causal” meaning of the Greek preposition εις can be refuted on many counts:

Firstly, both baptism and repentance are tied together, through the use of the coordinating conjunction και ("and"). If one wishes to suggest we are baptised because of our remission of sins, then the passage would also suggest that we must repent because of our remission of sins precedes repentance (in other words, our sins are forgiven, so as a result, we repent). I am unaware of any theological system that teaches such a view, and for good reason--it is a grossly unnatural, eisegetical reading of the construction.

Secondly, modern Greek grammarians (even those who, in their own personal theology, hold the symbolic view of baptism) have refuted Mantey’s comments about εις. For instance, Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, pp. 370-71, we read the following:

On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evi­dent in such passages as Acts 2:38.³⁹

On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation):

It is quite possible that εἰς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpre­tation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.⁴⁰

Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἰς fell short of proof. . . .In sum . . . his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction

Notes for the above:

³⁹ See J. R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70 (1952) 45-58 and “On Causal Eis Again,” JBL 70 (1952) 309-311.

⁴⁰ Ralph Marcus, “The Elusive Causal Eis,” JBL 71 (1953) 44. Cf. also Marcus’ first article, “On Causal Eis,” JBL 70 (1952) 129-130.

Another refutation of this argument comes from Matt 26:28. Speaking of the then-future shedding of his blood and its relationship to the Eucharistic cup, Christ says:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The Greek phrase, “for the remission of sins” is εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν; in Acts 2:38, it is exactly the same, except in Acts 2:38 there is a definite article (των) before “sins,” not causing any change in the meaning. Here, we see that those who hold to a “causal” meaning of εις in Acts 2:38 have to engage in a gross inconsistency (or, if they are consistent, adopt a very novel soteriology)—holding such an interpretation of εις, one will have to conclude (if one is consistent) that the remission of sins comes first, which then gives cause for the shedding of Christ's blood. The atonement, then, is no longer an action of Jesus in this sense. Of course, as with the "causal" interpretation of εις in Acts 2:38 is based on eisegesis, this interpretation of Matt 26:28, too, wrenches the underlying Greek out of context. Of course, only Latter-day Saints and others who hold to baptism being salvific can be consistent in their approach to both Matt 26:28 (on the relationship between remission of sins and the shedding of Christ’s blood) and Acts 2:38 (for the remission of sins and baptism).

Some critics of this view of baptism point to Matt 12:41 (Eric Johnson of MRM has tried to pull this eisegetical stunt before):

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (εις) the preaching of Jonas [OT Jonah]; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The argument is that εις here clearly has a “causal” meaning, as one cannot repent “into” one’s preaching or teaching. However, for those who make this argument (e.g. Eric Johnson), it reveals a poor grasp of how language works. In English, it is nonsensical to say, as the Greek of this verse reads, “into the proclamation of Jonas”; therefore, to make sense to English readers, most translations render εις as “at.” However, for a Greek reader and speaker, it is perfectly natural to think/read of one converting “into” the preaching of another. Think of the French way to ask for directions—in French, it is “pour aller” followed by “to” (á) and the destination. “Pour aller” literally means “for to go.” However, this would not be rendered into English as “for to go,” but “how do you get to”; however, for a French speaker, it is proper to speak of “how to go” to a certain place. Comments about Matt 12:41 that justify εις having a “causal” meaning only shows ignorance of both the Greek language and how language works, as there if often an inability to render perfectly one language into another without a translator having to take liberties to ensure readers will understand it in English.

Moreover, that modern scholarly grammarians agree with the "traditional" rendering of the preposition in Acts 2:38 are numerous; in perhaps the most scholarly Koine Greek lexicon on the market (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [BDAG]), the following definition of εις is offered, with Acts 2:38 being an example of the preposition carrying the meaning with "into" or "with a goal towards" (within the context of Acts 2:38, one is baptised into/with a goal towards a remission of sins, supporting baptism being salvific, not merely symbolic [emphasis added]):

f. to denote purpose in order to, to (Appian, Liby. 101 §476 ἐς ἔκπληξιν=in order to frighten; Just., A I, 21, 4 εἰς προτροπήν ‘to spur on’) εἰς ἄγραν in order to catch someth. Lk 5:4. εἰς ἀπάντησιν, συνάντησιν, ὑπάντησίν τινι (s. these 3 entries) to meet someone, toward someone Mt 8:34; 25:1; J 12:13. εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς as a witness, i.e. proof, to them Mt 8:4; 10:18; 24:14 al. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven Mt 26:28; cp. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Ac 2:38. εἰς μνημόσυνόν τινος in memory of someone Mt 26:13; Mk 14:9; cp. Lk 22:19 al. (εἰς μνημόσυνον En 99:3). εἰς ὅ for which purpose (Hdt. 2, 103, 1) Col 1:29; otherw. 2 Th 1:11 with this in view; εἰς τί; why? (Wsd 4:17; Sir 39:16, 21) Mt 14:31; Mk 14:4; 15:34; Hm 2:5; D 1:5. εἰς τοῦτο for this reason or purpose Mk 1:38; Lk 4:43 v.l.; J 18:37; Ac 9:21; 26:16; Ro 9:17; 14:9; 2 Cor 2:9; 1J 3:8; Hs 1:9 (Just., A I, 13, 3). εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο for this very reason 2 Cor 5:5; Eph 6:22; Col 4:8. W. subst. inf. foll. (X., Ages. 9, 3, Mem. 3, 6, 2; Just., A I, 9, 5) in order to (oft. LXX; neg. μή in order not to; s. B-D-F §402, 2) Mt 20:19; 26:2; 27:31; Mk 14:55 and oft.—εἰς ὁδόν for the journey 6:8.

Evangelical apologist, Gary F. Zeolla of "Darkness to Light Ministries," wrote an article entitled, "Questions about Baptism." In an attempt to downplay the salvific role of baptism in Acts 2:38, he wrote that:

"[R]epent" and "be baptized" in Acts 2:28 [sic; he means v.38] have different grammatical forms so they are not both linked with "the remission of sins." On the other hand, in Acts 3:19, the verbs "repent" and "be converted" do have the same grammatical forms. But baptism is not mentioned. So baptism is to be submitted to AFTER repentance and conversion.

This is a rather silly argument, but it does show that the old adage, "a little Greek is a dangerous thing" is alive and well.

The term translated as "repent" in Acts 2:38 is μετανοήσατε which is the imperative aorist active of the verb μετανοεω. The term translated as "be baptised" is βαπτισθήτω, the imperative aorist passive of the verb βαπτιζω. The difference (which the apologist does not tell us) is simply between an active and passive voice. Of course, as repentance is something one does, while baptism is something that is done to the person, that is the reason for the difference in voices. There is no hint whatsoever that Acts 2:38 separates baptism from the remission of one's sins, notwithstanding this rather weak argument.

In Acts 3:19, the term translated as "be converted" is ἐπιστρέψατε, again, the imperative aorist active, this time of the verb επιστρεφω, "to turn/return." However, it is simply question-begging to claim that, just as baptism is not mentioned in this verse, ipso facto, baptism is not salvific, in spite of texts explicitly tying it into salvation (e.g., Rom 6:1-4). Furthermore, it is akin to advocates of "no-Lordship" theologies citing Acts 16:31 ("Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved") as precluding repentance from salvation, in spite of other verses which are explicit in repentance being tied into the salvation formula (e.g., Rom 10:9, 13). Evangelicals, like Zeolla, are guilty of implicitly denying the practice of "tota scriptura" (taking into account the entirety of the Bible's message on a topic) an important element of the Protestant doctrine and practice of Sola Scriptura.

R.C.H. Lenski, the great Lutheran commentator, wrote on this verse and how it demonstrates that water baptism is salutary:

Our acceptance of baptism is only acceptance of God’s gift.

This is emphasized strongly in the addition: “for or unto remission of your sins.” It amounts to nothing more than a formal grammatical difference whether εἰς is again regarded as denoting sphere (equal to ἐν), R. 592, or, as is commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, or better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The same is true regarding the idea of effect in εἰς. This preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two. It is this gift of remission that makes baptism a true sacrament; otherwise it would be only a sign or a symbol that conveys nothing real. In order to make baptism such a symbol, we are told that Peter’s phrase means only that baptism pictures remission, a remission we may obtain by some other means at some later day. But this alters the force of Peter’s words. Can one persuade himself that Peter told these sinners who were stricken with their terrible guilt to accept a baptism that pointed to some future remission? Had he no remission to offer them now? And when and how could they get that remission, absolutely the one thing they must have? And how can Ananias in 22:16 say, “Be baptized and wash away thy sins!” as though the water of baptism washed them away by its connection with the Name?

Ἄφεσις, from ἀφίημι, “to send away,” is another great Biblical concept: “the sending away” of your sins. How far away they are sent Ps. 103:12 tells us: “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.” Measure the distance from the point where the east begins to the point where the west ends. Nor does David say, “as far as the north is from the south,” lest you think of the poles and succeed in measuring the distance. Again Micah 7:19: “Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.” Even today the sea has depths that have never been sounded. The idea to be conveyed is that the sins are removed from the sinner so as never to be found again, never again to be brought to confront him. God sends them away, and he would thus be the last to bring them back. When the sinner appears before his judgment seat, his sins are gone forever. This is what our far less expressive “forgiveness” really means. Nor does the guilt remain, for sin and guilt are one: sin gone, guilt gone! (Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 107–108). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.)

As for Eph 2:8-10 which is often treated as the “clobber-text” employed by apologists for Sola Fide and Sola Gratia. Notwithstanding, the "works" in view here, as with Rom 4:4 and the use of the term "debt" (οφειλημα), are works where one tries to legally obligate God to give us salvation--this is anathema, as we cannot obligate God to "owe" us anything, let alone salvation. However, such does not condemn works within the realm of God's grace, as seen in many texts (e.g., Psa 106:30-31; Rom 2:5-10; cf. Heb 6:10).

New Testament scholar, Markus Barth, in his 1974 commentary on Ephesians, published as part of the Anchor Bible commentary series, on pp. 244-45, writes:

There appears to be some resemblance between the opponents fought in Ephesians 2:9 and those refuted in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. Therefore, the "works" of these opponents can be more clearly defined as "works of law". . . .What are the "works of law" which Paul's opponents were "boasting" about? Because their works were connected with OT commandments and Jewish customs, and because they were obviously recommended to or imposed upon Gentiles, the adversaries of Paul are usually called "Judaizers". . . . In the New Testament the term "works of law" and polemics against "righteousness by law" occur only in contexts where the imposition of some [Jewish] legal elements upon the Gentiles is discussed.

What is grace according to Paul? God looking away from one’s sins because of an imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness? No, according to Paul, grace is:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and wordly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for what blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who have himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tit 2:11-14)

The very purpose of sending his Son in the context of salvation is to give grace which cleanses from sins. The purpose is not for him to look away from our sins because of an imputed, alien righteousness. One must work out salvation with fear and trembling in order to attain that resurrection of life (Phil 2:12-16) and any gospel that denies that is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I would challenge anyone to look at any judgement scene in the Bible and find me any one scene where one goes to heaven based on faith alone and an alien righteousness. There is not one. Every single one that separates those from going to heaven and those going to hell is based on works and obedience to God. Look at Rev 20:12-13; 22:11-14; John 5:28-29; Matt 7:16-23; 16:24-27; 25:31-46; Rom 2:4-13; 1 Cor 3:10-17. Every single one of them makes this separation based on works and obedience; they are not in regard to only extra rewards or punishments. Only the active grace that God provides and when he looks through his eyes of grace is it possible to attain salvation. For a book-length discussion, see Chris Vanlandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006) for a refutation of the common claim among many Evangelicals that works, for the Christian, determine their rewards in the hereafter, not their final destinies, at the final judgement.

Commenting on Phil 2:12-16, referenced above, VanLandginham states:

Finally, Phil 2:12-16, particularly verses 12-13, deserves a more thorough analysis. What does Paul means by the phrase “with fear and trembling work out your own salvation” (2:12)? Some suggest that σωτηρια refers to the health and welfare of the corporate body of believers in Philippi, not final salvation from God’s wrath or eternal life in the next age. This sociological interpretation has been amply rebutted. Here, as in 1:28, σωτηρια refers to eschatological salvation as it usually does elsewhere in Paul’s letters.

What, then, does Paul mean by κατεργαζομαι? Paul uses the word eighteen other times with the meaning “to achieve, accomplish, do, bring about, produce, or create.” In this case, then, Paul exhorts the Philippians to bring about or achieve their own salvation. Considering all the passages discussed in this section, such a mandate and responsibility should come as no surprise. Why else would Paul exhort believers to be “pure and blameless,” or to “produce a harvest of righteousness,” or to be “blameless and innocent . . . without blemish” in light of the imminent day of Christ, unless he also believes that Christians themselves must work in order to be saved on that day. Κατεργαζομαι refers to a number of things, such as “live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel” (1:27), “standing for in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel” (1:28), “do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves” (2:3), “look not to your own interests but to the interests of others” (2:4), do all things without murmuring and arguing” (2:14), “holding fast to the word of life” (2:16), and so on. Christians themselves do these things, not God; they decide as an act of the will to obey or disobey Paul, the gospel, or God.

Believers do such things, however, not on their own strength alone. Paul says, “For God is the one who is working in you so that (you might) desire to work for (his) good pleasure” (2:13). God aids and inspires the believers to accomplish God’s purposes. Likewise, Paul testifies about himself:

Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. (Phil 3:12)

I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Phil 4:13)

On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. (1 Cor 15:10)

In his autobiographical statements, sometimes Paul emphasizes his role in his endeavors (e.g., 2 Cor 11:23-29; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 2:9), sometimes God’s grace. Paul views himself as neither “possessed” or controlled by the deity nor as constrained or overpowered; rather he is inspired. If one’s deeds rely solely upon God’s doing, then the logic of God’s commandments is lost and responsibility for one’s behaviour at the Last Judgment is moot. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006], 186-87)

Something that is rarely discussed, especially among proponents of various “faith alone” theologies is the relationship Eph 2 has with Col 2. Ephesians and Colossians have very strong ties with one another, and many key passages in both epistles are to be read in light of the other to get the fuller meaning of Paul’s comments; furthermore, most scholars who hold to the authorship of one of these epistles almost universally holds to the authorship of the other (these are two of the six disputed epistles, the others being 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles).

In the parallel text to Eph 2:8-10, we read the following:

In [Christ] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism wherein also we are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. (Col 2:11-13)

In this pericope, Paul states that those "in" (εν) Christ are circumcised with a spiritual circumcision (viz. water baptism [per v. 12]), and paralleling the language used in Rom 6:1-4 discussed above, we are said to be buried together (συνθαπτομαι) with him "in baptism" (εν τω βαπτισμω), resulting in God freely forgiving (χαριζομαι) us of our trespasses. The only exegetically-sound interpretation is that this pericope teaches baptismal regeneration, not a merely symbolic understanding of water baptism. Of course, it is God, not man, who affects salvation and the forgiveness of sins through water baptism, as the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of baptism, cleanses us from sins and makes us into a new creature; it is not something merited by human works (see Titus 3:3-5). It is rather disturbing, and unfortunately, has led to a lot of eisegesis and heretical theologies, the concept that if a person does anything, they legally merit salvation. If I am handed a gift, do I “merit” the gift by putting my hands out to receive it? For some, the answer is “yes.”

When read contextually, and in light of Col 2:11-13, as well as the entirety of Paul’s own writings, Eph 2:8-10 is not a “problem text” for Latter-day Saint soteriology, in spite of the incessant claims from many ignorant critics of the Restored Gospel.

As one Catholic author noted:

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)

Furthermore, on Eph 2:8-10, what is often overlooked in discussions like this are the subsequent verses that show what the "works" Paul had in mind--works of the Law of Moses that were markers of one being Jewish and a member of the Old Covenant. Here is Eph 2:11-19 (NRSV):

So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called "the uncircumcision" by those who are called "the circumcision"--a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands--remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he had made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.

Clearly, the boundary markers of the Old Covenant are in view in Eph 2, similar to the understanding of "the works of the Law" one finds in 4QMMT from Qumran.

On the topic the salvific efficacy of water baptism specifically, and soteriology in general, McKeever is way out in left field in terms of exegesis and consistency with true "Biblical Christianity." For those who want an actual scholarly discussion of water baptism, see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009).One should compare and contrast the careful scholarship in Ferguson's magisterial volume with the eisegesis one finds in Mormonism 101 and other like-works on the topic of baptism.

8. The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

Many Christian churches do practice this. The Bible shows, however, that at times the Holy Ghost (Spirit) was received of men without mention of hands being laid on them. (See Acts 4:31; 10:44; 11:15.)

9. The true church must practice divine healing.

Again, many Christian churches do practice this and do get results.

I will treat these two points at once, as there is little to critique. It is true that many other faiths practice divine healing and bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (I myself was confirmed in like-manner when I was 12 as a Roman Catholic).

However, it should be noted that McKeever is reading into those texts in Acts something that is not there—a salvific outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, in LDS pneumatology, can, in a non-salvific way, fall upon a person, though such (e.g., the reception of a spiritual witness of the Restored Gospel) leads to one receiving the Holy Spirit in a salvific sense via the ordinance of confirmation.

Some critics have tried to make the claim the LDS Church pays lip service to the gifts of the Spirit in recent years; for documented refutations, see, for instance:

Matthew B. Brown, Receiving Gifts of the Spirit (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 2005)

Duane S. Crowther, Gifts of the Spirit (Bountiful, UT.: Horizon Publishers, 2001)

10. The true church must teach that God and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct individuals.

The Christian church holds that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate personages. Joseph Smith strayed from the truth when he said they were separate Gods. This conflicts with many passages such as Deut. 6:4 and Isaiah 43:10, just to name a few.

While Trinitarians do hold that the Father and the Son (as well as the Holy Spirit) are separate “persons,” even to this day, Trinitarians debate as to the meaning of “person” vis-à-vis the members of the Tri-une God. For a recent book-length discussion, see Persons: Human and Divine (Oxford University Press, 2007), eds. Peter Van Inwagen and Dean Zimmerman.

As for Deut 6:4 and Isa 43:10, alongside the doctrine of the “plurality of the Gods” as taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, it is McKeever, not Joseph Smith, who is opposing the Bible's message.

 Deut 6:4

‎  שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד

Hear, o Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh alone (my translation)

The Shema is often cited as evidence of strict monotheism. However, most modern biblical scholars agree that the Shema is not about the “number” of God, but instead, is about how Yahweh is the only God with whom Israel is to have a covenantal relationship with. A parallel would be Deut 5:7, a rendition of the Decalogue:

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. (cf. Exo 20:3 [exegeted here])

According to biblical scholars such as Michael Coogan, this commandment and the Shema implicitly recognises the ontological existence of other gods (cf. Gen 20:13). As in a marriage, one of the primary analogues for the covenant, Israel was to be faithful, like a wife to her husband. When the prophets condemn the Israelites for having worshipped other gods in violation of this commandment, the metaphors of marital and political fidelity are often invoked, sometimes graphically (e.g., Ezek 16:23-24; 23:2-12; Jer 2:23-25; 3:1-10). Yahweh is a jealous husband (e.g., Exo 34:14) and the worship of other gods, or making alliances with foreign powers, provokes his rage (Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A historical and literary introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures [New York: Oxford University press, 2006], 176, 116).

As one recent scholarly commentary states:

Many modern readers regard the Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one, about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly, the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH--but not thereby to deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of other gods, presupposes their existence. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)

Additionally, there has been a lot of linguistic nonsense about the Hebrew numeral אֶחָד which simply means one (not  “plural one” or some other nonsense one finds among some Trinitarians). See my blog post on Gen 2:24 addressing this pathetic argument, or the work of Anthony F. Buzzard, who has done a lot of great work on this particular issue (while I disagree with Buzzard’s Socinian Christology, he shows the Trinitarian arguments are utter nonsense).

For those wishing to delve further into the issue of "monotheism" in the book of Deuteronomy, I would highly recommend Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of "Monotheism" (2d ed.: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

There is a danger, however, of Trinitarians “absolutizing” Deut 6:4 as some are wont to do, not the least is that Mark 12:28f and its parallels refute any Trinitarian reading of the Shema. In this incident with a Jewish scribe, we read the following:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he [Jesus] had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is One Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is one other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is one other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:28-34)

In the above pericope, Jesus agrees with a Jew about the Shema. What is interesting is that the Jews were never Trinitarians, in spite of a lot of fudging of biblical grammar by the likes of Natan Yoel (The Jewish Trinity) and other eisegesis-laden texts. This is an undisputed fact of history and scholarship. Furthermore, singular personal pronouns are used to describe God. Furthermore, in the proceeding text, Jesus discusses Psa 110;1 (109:1, LXX), where Yahweh speaks to “my Lord, and Christ identifies Himself as the second Lord, not the first:

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. And he said unto them in his doctrines, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces.  (Mark 12:35-38; cf. Acts 2:34; Heb 1:13)

Taking the absolutist hermeneutic of many Trinitarian apologists, one must conclude that the Shema is strictly uni-personal, not Tri-personal, in scope. Of course, both theologies are undermined by other factors, not the least is that the ontological existence of plural gods in the midst of the Most High are part-and-parcel of biblical theology, even in the book of Deuteronomy itself (e.g., the earliest textual reading of Deut 32:7-9 or the fact that even modern conservative Protestant commentators are acknowledging the elohim of Psa 82 and 89 to be [true] gods).

Isaiah 43:10 and other like-texts

LDS apologist, James Stutz, has a very enlightening post on the rhetoric of Isaiah 40-47 and the supremacy of Yahweh in light of Isa 47:8, 10 and the phrase, “none else beside me” written in reference to Babylon. One could add other instances, such as the following:

All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. (Isa 40:17)

The Hebrew locution, "as nothing" translates כְּאַיִן, which is rendered correctly by the KJV (an alternative translation would be like/as nought [cf. the NASB; 1985 JPS Tanakh]). The same locution appears in Isa 41:11:

Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be shamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing (כְאַיִן); and they that strive with thee shall perish.

 Of course, this is a statement of the supremacy of Yahweh, not the denial of the ontological existence of nations apart from Israel.

In Isa 40:23, we read:

That bringeth the princes to nothing; he makes the judges of the earth as vanity.

Again, the term often translated as "nothing" or "nought" (Heb: אַיִן) is coupled with a pre-fixed preposition, in this instance, לְ ( לְאָיִן ). Again, the supremacy of Yahweh (and national Israel) is in view here, not the denial of the ontological existence of the princes in this verse who, obviously, have real existence, not imagined.

The term   אַיִן often means "insufficient" or impotent, even in "Deutero-Isaiah" (Isa 40-47). Note the following:

And Lebanon is not sufficient (אַיִן) to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient (אַיִן) for a burnt offering. (Isa 40:16)

Again, the impotency of Yahweh's (and Israel's) enemies are in view here; not a denial of their ontological existence.

To quote Daniel McClellan (who, in turn is paraphrasing some of the work of Michael S. Heiser):

Deutero-Isaiah is not denying the ontological existence of other deities; rather, he is denying their efficacy and legitimacy. The language used by Deutero-Isaiah and Deuteronomy (“I am and there is no other,” “there is none beside me,” etc.) is also used in reference to Babylon, Moab (Isa 47:8, 10), and Nineveh (Zeph 2:15). The vernacular is placed in the mouths of Israel’s opponents, but the point is clear: these cities are not denying the existence of other cities, but rather that they are at all relevant in comparison (see Ps 89:6 and Isa 40:25). Deuteronomy 32 provides further indication that this is the correct reading. In v. 21 YHWH states, “They made me jealous with a non-god (בלא־אל) . . . so I will make them jealous with a non-people (בלא־עם).” The nation being referenced (Assyria-Babylon) is not one that does not exist, but one that is inconsequential in the eyes of YHWH. That this is part of the same propaganda is supported by v. 39 (ואין אלהים עמדי) and by Isa 40:17: “All the nations are as nothing (כאין) before him, he considers them as less than nothing (מאפס) and deserted (ותהו).”

That the authors of this rhetoric in no way deny the existence of other deities is also made clear by the proximity of explicit mentions of other gods. Deut 32:8–9 and 43, for instance, mention the sons of El and command “all the gods” to bow before YHWH, respectively. In Deut 4:19 the gods of the nations are explicitly said to have been established by YHWH for the worship of the people of those nations. Divine council imagery is also present in Isaiah 40 and 45.

Evangelical critics of LDS theology are guilty of eisegesis when they claim texts such as Isa 44:6, 8 refute Latter-day Saint theology on the “number” of God.

In Zeph 2:11-14, we read the following oracle of divine judgment against Nineveh:

You also, O Ethiopians, shall be killed by my sword. And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and he will make Nineveh a desolation, a dry waste like the desert. Herds shall lie down in it, every wild animal; the desert owl and the screech owl shall lodge on its capitals; the owl shall hoot at the window, the raven croak on the threshold; for its cedar work will be laid bare. (NRSV)

Then, in Zeph 2:15, the prophet writes:

It this the exultant city that lived secure, that said to itself, "I am, and there is no one else"? What a desolation it has become, a lair for wild animals! Everyone who passes by it hisses and shakes the fist. (NRSV)

Such a sentiment is paralleled by the Chaldeans who, personified in the Hebrew as a ‎‎ גְּבִירָה

 (Great Lady/Queen/Queen Mother) compared herself thusly to other nations:

Sit in silence, and go into darkness, daughter of Chaldea! For you shall no more be called the mistress of kingdoms. I was angry with my people, I profaned my heritage; I gave them into your hand, you showed them no mercy; on the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy. You said, "I shall be mistress forever," so that you did not lay these things to heart or remember their end. Now therefore hear this, you lover of pleasures, who sit securely, who say in your heart, "I am, and there is no one besides me; I shall not sit as a widow or know the loss of children" (Isa 45:5-8 NRSV)

Such comments further help us interpret texts such as Isa 43:10; 44:6, 8 where Yahweh says similar things. It would be impossible to argue that these cities believe that theirs were the only cities that had ontological existence and all other cities/nations did not have ontological existence; instead, such sentiments speak of their (self-professed) supremacy over all other cities/nations. Similarly, Yahweh in such texts is not speaking of the non-existence of other deities, but His supremacy over all other deities.

Here is my exegesis I presented to Desmond Ferguson, formerly of “Irish Church Missions”:

Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6, 8 and the "Number of God"

In the Autumn 2005 issue of ICM's The Banner, in an article entitled, "Witnessing to the Mormons," Ferguson claimed that Isaiah 43:10, 11 and 44:6, 8 refuted Latter-day Saint theology, often referred to, in scholarly circles, as monolatry (e.g., Michael Heiser [an Evangelical]), or, as D. Charles Pyle once stated it to be (and I agree with him), "relational monotheism," that states that there are (true) gods in the midst of God (cf. Genesis 20:13 [Hebrew]; Psalms 29 (esp. the Hebrew); 82; Deuteronomy 32:7-9 [Dead Sea Scrolls], etc.). Notwithstanding the popularity of such pericope in literature critical of "Mormonism" and text supportive of the Trinity (e.g., The Forgotten Trinity by James White), and notwithstanding the ironic fact, lost on Ferguson, that taking an absolutist view on these passages results, not in Trinitarian theology, but either Unitarianism or a strand of Modalism, such represents proof-texting of the worst degree. What is more interesting is that, instead of engaging my exegesis of pertinent pericope (e.g,. Deuteronomy 6:4; 32:7-9; the Hebrew of Genesis 20; the Greek of 1 Corinthians 8) and on other issues (such as 2 Timothy 3, as discussed below) two years ago, Ferguson simply obfuscated and ignored all the evidence I presented that refuted his fallacious "arguments," and just obsessed over personalities, revealing that he did not have a clue about the issues at hand. That is revealing of how little he truly knows about (1) "Mormonism" and (2) the Bible.

For Isaiah, the point of his screed against the idols and gods was that of comparing Isaiah's theology with that of both popular Israelite religion (which at the time had groups worshiping Yahweh and Baal alongside an Asherah [KJV: "grove(s)" in the temple in Jerusalem) and that of the Canaanite religion in general.

In Isaiah 43:10-11, we read the following:

*You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe in me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no Saviour.*

Verse 10 is not a statement of monotheism, but a comparison drawn between Baal and Yahweh. Verse 11 is a comment on the Asherah. Verse 10 doesn't make a whole lot of sense if one interprets such a passage in terms of the strict monotheism expounded by errant writers on this topic.

"Before me"? "After me"? When is before God and when is after God? What about the time in between (which, in Orthodox [i.e., Traditional] Christianity is "always")? Is one willing to assert a "before God" or an "after God"? Clearly, simply suggesting that it talks about being created before God is nothing more than suggesting that something was created before God was created (which is incompatible both with Orthodox Christian and Latter-day Saint theology). But "after God" implies an end to God--not that something was created after God was created. Such a view, of course, is not well thought out. The text does not support such an interpretation. Baal assumed his position as chief among the elohim (Hebrew: Gods) after he defeated Yaam ("Sea"). Later, while he was dead, after a confrontation with Mot ("Death"), there was a succession crisis when `Athar attempted to sit in the throne of Baal (which is discussed in Isaiah 14). In this sense, for Baal, there is both a "before" and a possible "after." But for Yahweh, there is no succession. Yahweh did not overthrow another divinity to become the chief among the elohim. Nor can he be displaced from his throne. There is no denial of the host of elohim in this passage, nor is there any denial of the existence of El (Hebrew: "God") there either. Canaanite theology places Baal was king/god of the gods, but El is the God of the Cosmos. Both exist, and the existence of one does not threaten the existence of the other. Likewise, Israel's chief elohim, Yahweh, does not threaten, nor is threatened by the existence of El.

In verse 11, we get his statement: "apart from me, there is no saviour" (New International Version [NIV]). This is translated as "beside me there is no saviour" in the KJV, and "besides me there is no saviour" in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). In fact, most translations, including the modern ones, follow the language of the NRSV and the KJV against the NIV. I bring this up as Ferguson uses the NIV, and used such in his atrocious article, and it is popular among Evangelicals outside the KJV-Only movement. The phrase, "besides me" in Isaiah 43-45 is a reference to Asherah--claimed by some as a consort for Yahweh, and claimed by others as a consort for Baal. Asherah was claimed by those who worshipped her as a Saviour--as a deliverer. This is explicitly stated in Jeremiah, when the remaining Jewish aristocracy was fleeing to Egypt following the assassination of Gedaliah. They dragged Jeremiah with them and complained to him in Jeremiah 44:17-19:

*"We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At the time we had plenty of good and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouting out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."*

The women then added:

*"When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cake like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?"*

One should compare the above with 2 Kings 22-24, where the Asherah (KJV: "grove(s)") is removed from the temple and the wooden poles depicting her which were on the outside of the First Temple were destroyed by Josiah during the Deuteronomic Reformation. Essentially, Isaiah is claiming that salvation comes from Yahweh alone--not from an Asherah or from Baal.

But there are other interesting things in chapter 43. Yahweh, in verse 3, states that, "For I am Yahweh your elohim." Then, in verse 12, Isaiah explicitly discusses the fact that he is comparing Yahweh to other divinities: "I have revealed and saved and proclaimed--I, and not some foreign gods among you." It should be noted that nowhere does Isaiah ever claim that it is sinful for foreigners to worship other gods. This doesn't appear in the text until the post-exilic portions of Jeremiah (Jeremiah was pieced together by a number of individuals, thus the unusual chronology in the text, among other things) while Deuteronomy 4 seems to suggest that the foreign gods were given to the foreign nations so that they would worship them (cf. Deuteronomy 32:7-9 [the Hebrew verb here is "to inherit," nahal, which differentiates in this passage Yahweh from Elohim, the former who inherited/received, as a patrimony from the latter, Israel]). The notion here is clearly that Yahweh is superior to these foreign gods--independent of the question of whether or not they are real divinities.

This brings us to Isaiah 44. The primary alleged monotheistic proof-text of Isaiah 44 is that of verses 6 and 8:

*This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God . . . Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock [this is the underlying Hebrew word used]; I know not one.*

It should be noted that the NIV misses the chance of some consistency. In verse 6, the "apart from me" is the same as "besides me" of verse 8. This section of Isaiah is essentially a polemic against Asherah worship. I note that some time later, around 622 B.C.E., during Josiah's reform, the Asherah is removed from the temple in Jerusalem. This is described in 2 Kings 23:

*The king ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priests next in rank and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of the LORD all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron Valley and took the ashes to Bethel. He did away with the pagan priests appointed by the kings of Judah to burn incense on the high places of the towns of Judah and on those around Jerusalem—those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and moon, to the constellations and to all the starry hosts. He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the LORD to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it there. He ground it to powder and scattered the dust over the graves of the common people. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.*

This description relates to what follows verse 8 in Isaiah 44. Here is some more of that chapter:

*The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house. He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it. Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?*

Did you notice the similarity to Psalm 82:5 here?--

Psalm 82: They know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness;

Isaiah 44: They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.

In any case, we have in Isaiah 44 a description of how the carpenter takes the tree, and creates an image from it. The remainder of the tree is burned as ash (it was a public burning and scattering of the ashes in the Josian destruction of the Asherah in 622 B.C.E.). Here is a description of the people mistakenly worshipping a tree. And then later the specific imagery of the forests and the trees worshipping Yahweh. A polemic against Asherah worship - the castigation of the worship of the tree.

These same issues apply to Isaiah 45. But that chapter starts off with a peculiarity. In the very first verse we read:

*This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armour, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut*

Here, Cyrus is called the anointed one of Yahweh - his salvific agent, his messiah. Go figure.

The question, though, ultimately is whether or not Isaiah's point of view is similar to that of Psalm 82. Psalm 82 does not deny the existence of other elohim (as noted by scholars such as Robert Alter; Frank Moore Cross jnr.; Margaret Barker; Mark S. Smith; Jeffrey Tigay, etc), nor does it claim that they are not divinities. It simply imputes to them impotence--they cannot save, they are incapable of granting salvation. If this is the case (which is seems to be), then Isaiah is not the great voice of monotheism as many errantly portray the text to be, but, instead, a voice of the supremacy of Yahweh as the only divinity who is capable of doing these things--and only for Israel. Sadly, because of his ignorance of the Bible and biblical scholarship, Ferguson's treatment of such passages reflect a poor grasp of the Bible.

The Biblical Evidence for the "Plurality of the Gods" doctrine

That the Bible affirms the ontological existence of (true) gods is affirmed in many places. Note, for instance, Deut 32:7-9.  The NRSV of this pericope reads:

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.

One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Masoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the DSS has the reading "sons of god" or, as ANE scholars understand the term, "gods."

In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:

Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.

One final example would be Gen 20:13.Firstly, a short Hebrew lesson. The term   אֱלֹהִים is irregular in that, while its form is plural, it can denote either a singular or plural Elohim (“G/god[s]”—not “human judges”) depending on the verb it is coupled with. For instance, in Gen 1:1, it is coupled with a verb in the second person singular, so Elohim is singular; however, there are many instances where it is coupled with a verb in the plural, denoting plural “G/gods” (e.g., Psa 82:6).

In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):

וַיְהִ֞י כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֘ מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֒ וָאֹמַ֣ר לָ֔הּ זֶ֣ה חַסְדֵּ֔ךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשִׂ֖י עִמָּדִ֑י אֶ֤ל כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָב֣וֹא שָׁ֔מָּה אִמְרִי־לִ֖י אָחִ֥י הֽוּא׃

Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ...

And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...

Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."

Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether Unitarian or creedal Trinitarian) out of the water. If one wants to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse, see this post discussing the NET’s comment on Gen 20:13.

11. The true church must teach that God and Jesus Christ have bodies of flesh and bone.

Mormons believe this only to substantiate Joseph Smith’s so-called first vision. John 4:24 claims God is a spirit (lit. God is Spirit). Even Smith at one time taught God the Father was a personage of spirit (See Lectures on Faith, Lecture Fifth). He changed his mind later on.

Again, McKeever's lack of exegetical skills and intellectual integrity comes out explicitly.

John 4:24

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24 [NRSV])

John 4:24 is one of the most common proof-texts used against the Latter-day Saint belief that God the Father is embodied. However, from the get-go, one must note the irony that most critics who raise this verse are Trinitarians. Why? In this verse, there is a differentiation, not just between the persons of Jesus and the Father, but between Jesus and God (θεος)! Notwithstanding, there are some elements in this verse that are often overlooked by critics.

Firstly, the Greek of this verse is:

πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν

The phrase, often translated, “God is spirit” is in bold. In Greek grammar, this is a qualitative predicate nominative, which deals with, not composition, but one's qualities. Furthermore, from the context, this refers to man’s worship of God, not the composition of deity. Jesus is addressing a Samaritan, whose theology privileged Mount Gezirim, while the Jews privileged Jerusalem, one of the many disputes between them. Jesus, instead, echoing the universalism of the New Covenant, states that proper worship of God will not be localised in one place. In other words, this verse does not address God's physiological nature--only the means by which men communicate with God. Such must be done spiritually (i.e., spirit to spirit), and must develop a spiritual nature.

Furthermore, taking the absolutist view of this verse to its "logical" conclusion, one would have to state that it is a requirement that men are to shed their physical bodies in order to worship God--if God is only spirit and this passage requires men to worship God "in spirit," then men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology is to claim that men cannot worship God as mortal beings, which is ludicrous. It would also akin to absolutising 1 Cor 15:45, and stating that Christ currently exists in an unembodied spirit, notwithstanding Christ's corporeal ascension (Acts 1:11) and His being depicted as embodied in post-ascension visions of Jesus (e.g., Acts 7:55-56).

A related criticism that has been raised by some opponents (e.g., Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?) is that if God were to possess a physical body, this would make divine omnipresence impossible as God would be rendered "limited" or "finite" by that body. Therefore, God, in LDS theology, could not be omnipresent, something required by this verse. However, Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that his body has him. The Father is corporeal and infinitely more, and if a spirit can be omnipresent without being physically present, then so can a God who possesses a body and a spirit.

Indeed, the Bible affirms that, though the Father has a body (e.g., Heb 1:3), His glory, influence and power fills the universe (Jer 23:34). He is continually aware of everything in the universe and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Psa 139:7-12).

Furthermore, a question that is begged is that “spirit” is immaterial. However, many early Christians believed that “spirit” was material (e.g., Origen, On First Principles, Preface 9 and Tertullian, Against Praxaes, 7), something consistent with LDS theology (D&C 131:7).

Another related verse that is often raised by critics is that of Luke 24:39. However, as with John 4:24, this is another example of eisegesis. What Evangelical critics fail to note is that the converse of the statement is not true. A living physical body most definitely does have a spirit. In fact, it is physically dead without one (James 2:26). A spirit alone does not have a physical body. But if God has a physical body, he also has a spirit. Therefore, even though God is corporeal, it is appropriate to say that God "is spirit" (as in John 4:24), for spirit is the central part of His nature as a corporeal being.

Moreover, it would not be appropriate to say that God is only a spirit based on this verse--here, Christ clearly has a spirit and a physical body. His spirit had just been recombined with His perfected and glorified physical body in the resurrection, a point He took great pains to demonstrate (Luke 24:41-43). He was not, however, "a spirit" in the sense of being only a spirit.

In unique LDS Scripture, we find something similar to John 4:24 echoed in D&C 93:33-35:

For man is spirit, The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

In this pericope, man is said to be “spirit,” though such does not preclude embodiment. 

Biblical scholars would also disagree with the common eisegesis of John 4:24. New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:

It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)

On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:

Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).

This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:

[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)

Alan Kerr offered the following comments on John 4:24:

6.6.4 God Is SpiritCommentators generally agree that this statement is not a philosphical proposition but a message about God in his relation to people. Two similar sentences about God in 1 John bear a similar sense: God is light (1:5) and God is love (4:8). It is also generally agreed that ‘Spirit’ here captures the Old Testament nuances of רוח as the life-giving creative power of God. The decisive issue for John is summed up in the stated purpose of the Gospel: ‘These things are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you might have life through his name’ (20:31). The goal is life (ζωή), and it is God the Spirit who gives life (6:63). This life is traced back to being born of the πνεῦμα, the life-Giver (3:5). In some way this life is bound up with knowing—knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (17:3)—that is, knowing the truth.Given this statement—πνεῦμα ὁ θεός—we must interpret ἐν πνεύματι in the light of it. It cannot refer to any spirit, but only to the Spirit that is God. While the primary emphasis of ἐν πνεύματι is on the life-giving and creative power of the worship, there is also a secondary significance intimated by 3:8 where πνεῦμα is the unconfined, uncontrolled and uncomprehended wind/Spirit that blows where it wills. The presence of God who is πνεῦμα is not to be confined to Jerusalem or Gerizim. The true worshipper should therefore not be confined by spatial limitations.
On the other hand, for John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. This emerges most clearly in the pronouncement about the Johannine Paraclete, who extends and communicates the presence of Jesus while Jesus is away. So in Jn 14:18 Jesus can say, ‘I am coming to you,’ and refer directly to the Spirit Paraclete in the previous verses (14:16, 17). C.F.D. Moule succinctly comments on how Christology dominated pneumatology in early pneumatic experience, a comment that aptly sums up the entwinment of the Spirit and Jesus in John: ‘The Spirit is Christified; Christ is Spiritualized.’ So given Johannine pneumatology it would be in order to say that worshipping ‘in Spirit’ would be partially equivalent to worshipping ‘in Jesus’. (Alan Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John [New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 192-94)

Commenting on Gen 1:26-27, one non-LDS scholar wrote the following that is conducive to LDS theology:

[T]he Hebrew word for ‘image’ is also employed by P of Seth’s likeness to Adam (Gen 5.3), following a repetition of Genesis 1’s statement that humanity was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5.1), which further supports the notion that a physical likeness was included in P’s concept. It is also noteworthy that the prophet Ezekiel, who was a priest as well as prophet at a time not to long before P, and whose theology has clear parallels with P’s, similarly speaks of a resemblance between God and the appearance of man. As part of his call vision in Ezek. 1.26, he declares of God, ‘and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form’ (the word demut, ‘likeness’, is used, as in Gen. 1.26). Accordingly, there are those who see the image as simply a physical one. However, although the physical image may be primary, it is better to suppose that both a physical and spiritual likeness is envisaged, since the Hebrews saw humans as a psycho-physical totality.

The use of selem elsewhere in Genesis and of demut in Ezekiel certainly tells against the view of those scholars who see the divine image in humanity as purely functional in nature, referring to humanity’s domination over the natural world that is mentioned subsequently (Gen. 1.26, 28), an increasingly popular view in recent years. Although the two ideas are closely associated, it is much more likely that humanity’s rule over the world (Gen. 1.26-28) is actually a consequence of its being made in the image of God, not what the image itself meant. (John Day, From Creation to Babel Studies in Genesis 1-11 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 13-14).

Such conclusions are also supported by vv.21-25:

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. And God blessed the, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (לְמִינָהּ), cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:21-25)

According to this pericope, each class of creation is described as having been created "after its kind (alt. species [מִין])." Subsequently, they were assigned a duty--to multiply and replenish the earth. Horses do not look like mice and fish do not look like cats. They were created after their own kind. This is important as plays an important exegetical role vis-a-vis the relationship between God and the physical nature of man in the verses that immediately follow this pericope:

And God said, Let us make man in our image (צֶלֶם), after our likeness (דְּמוּת): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image (צֶלֶם), in the image (צֶלֶם) of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26-28)

As Presbyterian Old Testament scholar, Meredith Kline, wrote:

By setting the image-likeness formula in the context of sonship, Genesis 5:1-3 contradicts the suggestion that the image idea is a matter of representative status rather than of representational likeness or resemblance. For Seth was not Adam's representative, but as Adam's son he did resemble his father. The terminology "in his likeness" serves as the equivalent in human procreation of the phrase "after its kind" which is used for plant and animal reproduction and of course refers to resemblance. (Meredith G. Kline, “Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit” Westminister Theological Journal, 39 [1976/77]: note 34)

Kline, on this theme, also comments that "the traditional avoidance of the visible corporeal aspect of man in formulating the imago Dei doctrine (in deference to the noncorporeal, invisible nature of God) has not reckoned adequately with the fact of theophanic revelation and in particular has missed the theophanic referent of the image in the Genesis 1 context" and that "the theophanic Glory was present at the creation and was the specific divine model or referent in view in the creating of man in the image of God."

Interestingly, Kline (correctly) rejects the idea that Gen 1:26 is evidence of a plurality of persons within the "one God" (a later reading that desperately tries to read the Trinity back into the Old Testament). On Gen 1:26 in the same article, he wrote:

In Genesis 1:26 it is the plural form of the creative fiat that links the creation of man in the image of God to the Spirit-Glory of Genesis 1:2. The Glory-cloud curtains the heavenly enthronement of God in the midst of the judicial council of his celestial hosts. Here is the explanation of the “let us” and the “our image” in the Creator’s decree to make man. He was addressing himself to the angelic council of elders, taking them into his deliberative counsel.

This understanding of the first-person-plural fiat is supported by the fact that consistently where this usage occurs in divine speech it is in the context of the heavenly councilor at least of heavenly beings. Especially pertinent for Genesis 1:26 is the nearby instance in Genesis 3:22, a declaration concerned again with man’s image-likeness to God: “Man has become like one of us to know good and evil.” The cherubim mentioned in verse 24 were evidently being addressed. In the cases where God determines to descend and enter into judgment with a city like Babel or Sodom, and a plural form (like “Let us go down”) alternates with a singular, [30] the explanation of the plural is at hand in the angelic figures who accompany the Angel of the Lord on his judicial mission. [31] When, in Isaiah’s call experience, the Lord, enthroned in the Glory-cloud of his temple, asks, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8), the plural is again readily accounted for by the seraphim attendants at the throne or (if the seraphim are to be distinguished from the heavenly elders, as are the winged creatures of the throne in Revelation 4) by the divine council, which in any case belongs to the scene. (A similar use of the first person plural is characteristic of address in the assembly of the gods as described in Canaanite texts of the Mosaic age.)

Such conclusions are strongly consistent with Latter-day Saint theology, but again, contradicts McKeever's theology.

Further evidence from the New Testament that the Father, like the Son, is embodied can be seen from Heb 1:3. 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" offered the following exegesis of the verse:

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 kai 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 aapaugasma 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.

Much more could be said on this issue, but it is clear that McKeever is the one guilty of preaching a false gospel, not "Mormonism."

As for Lectures of Faith no 5, consider the following:

Noel B. Reynolds, The Authorship Debate Concerning Lectures on Faith: Exhumation and Reburial

Idem. The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith

As Larry E. Dahl wrote in his essay, "Authorship and History of the Lectures on Faith” we read the following:

Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith?

It is a common understanding that Joseph Smith wrote the Lectures on Faith. Often we hear or read statements like “The Prophet Joseph Smith taught” as an introduction to a quotation from the Lectures. Those who have carefully studied the historical sources agree to the Prophet’s close involvement with the Lectures, but acknowledge that others contributed heavily in their preparation, as the following representative quotations from Church leaders and others show:

1. The idea has been expressed that Sidney Rigdon wrote these lectures, but they were compiled by a number of the brethren and the Prophet himself had the final revision of them (Smith, Church History137).

2. “Lectures on Faith” written by Sidney Rigdon and others . . . (Widtsoe 2).

3. Joseph Smith was not their sole author, but they were written by a committee over which he presided. . . . It is not known specifically which member, or members, of the committee put the Lectures on Faith in their written form. But there can be no doubt that the theological ideas which they contain came from Joseph Smith. All the major ideas within them can be found in his revelations and teachings before 1834 (Andrus 20 fn).

4. These statements that I now read were in part written by the Prophet and in whole approved by him and taught by him in the School of the Prophets (McConkie 4).

5. My analysis of the Lectures on faith [sic] leads me to three somewhat tentative conclusions: First, although Joseph Smith did not write the lectures as they appear in the 1835 version, his influence can be seen in images, examples, scriptural references, and phrasing. Second, Sidney Rigdon may well have prepared them for publication; however, the style throughout is not consistently his. Third, the lectures in their published version represent a compilation or collaboration rather than the work of a single person (Partridge 28).

It is instructive to review the evidence that links Joseph Smith and others to the writing of the Lectures. First, perhaps, it should be noted that a committee of four men—Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick O. Williams (all presiding officers in the Church)—was appointed 24 September 1834 “to arrange the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints. These items are to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made” (HC 2:165). That committee reported to the priesthood councils of the Church nearly one year later, 17 August 1835, recommending the publication of a book they had prepared (HC 2:243–51). That book consisted of two parts. The first contained the Lectures on Faith; the second consisted of selected revelations and inspired declarations received since the beginning of this dispensation. The two parts together made up what were called the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church. The priesthood councils and other Church members assembled accepted the committee’s recommendation. The result was the publication of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which came off the press about the middle of September 1835. (Writing from Kirtland to the Saints in Missouri under the date of 16 September 1835, W. W. Phelps said, “We received some of the Commandments from Cleveland last week. I shall try and send 100 copies to the Saints in Zion this fall” (Journal History [16 Sep 1835]). An earlier compilation of revelations known as the Book of Commandments was being printed in 1833, when mobs destroyed the church press and all but a few copies of the book.)

While it is true that the Lectures on Faith were part of the Doctrine and Covenants (being the “Doctrine” section with the revelations being the “Covenants) from 1835 until they were removed in 1921, early Latter-day Saints differentiated between the non-inspired nature of the Lectures on Faith and the inspired/God-breathed nature of the “Covenants.” For instance, The Prophet's uncle, John Smith, represented the Kirtland High Council and quote him as having said, "...that the revelations in said book were true, and the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine." Levi Jackman, representing the High Council in Missouri "bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and the said High Council of Missouri accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." (See History of the Church 2:244) Clearly, by specifying the "revelations" they were emphasising an important distinction.

When the book was published, the preface explained that "the first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work. The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones."

This is not to say that the Lectures on Faith are worthless, just that they have been superseded by explicit revelation, and have to be used cautiously. As an example of the worth one can get out of them, taking the necessary care, can be seen in the following commentary by Blake Ostler:

The Lectures also establish that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as one Godhead, “constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made” (V, 2). Thus, the attributes of godliness do not necessarily define the individual divine persons; rather, they are properties of the Godhead as a unity of persons. Indeed, the Lectures teach that it is in virtue of the oneness or unity of the divine persons that they have the divine attributes:

The glory which the Father and the Son have, is because they are just and holy beings; and that if they were lacking in one attribute or perfection which they have, the glory which they have, never could be enjoyed by them; for it requires them to be precisely what they are in order to enjoy it; and if the Savior gives his glory to others, he must do it in the very way set forth in his prayer to his Father [in John 17]: by making them one with him, as he and the Father are one.—In so doing he would give them the glory which the Father has given him; and when his disciples are made one with the Father and the Son, as the father and the Son are one, who cannot see the propriety of the Savior’s saying, The works which I do, shall they do; and greater works then these shall they do because I go to the Father (VII, 15)

Thus the attributes of God arise in virtue of the relationship of unity enjoyed by the individual divine persons only when united as one in the Godhead. Each of these attributes and perfections of character is deemed by the lectures to be essential to divine glory and status. However, the attributes are essential not in virtue of some logical necessity but are necessary to allow any rational being to exercise faith. Further, the very glory that God enjoys in virtue of possessing such attributes is communicable to humans when they enter the divine unity. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 1: The Attributes of God [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001], 73-74)

Such is part-and-parcel of modern LDS theology, including its Christology.

12. The officers must be called of God.

Another subjective point. All cultists believe they are called of God.

13. The true church must claim revelation from God.

Again, a subjective point. All cultists claim revelation from God.

It is true that many groups (not just “cultists”) claim that they are called of God and that they receive, in some sense, revelation, so not something unique to the LDS Church. However, notice that McKeever is trying to poison the well with interjecting the term “cultists” into the mix. Such is unbecoming of a scholarly discussion, but then again, McKeever is far from being a scholar. However, with equal force, one could claim that the apostle Paul was a “cultist” who received special revelation and claimed to have been called of God.

For a discussion of the term "cult," see Daniel Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Mormonism as a "Cult": The Limits of Lexical Polemics and Jeff Lindsay's LDSFAQ page, Is the LDS Church a Cult?

14. The true church must be a missionary church.

Any Christian church that wants to see souls saved is a missionary church whether that mission field is across the ocean or across the back fence. The Mormon church holds no exclusive rights to missionary activity.

It is true that there are many groups that engage in missionary work. However, as we have seen on the topic of McKeever’s anti-biblical views on soteriology and water baptism, his flavour of Protestantism preaches a damnable false gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9), while LDS theology, on these points at least, is thoroughly biblical.

15. The true church must be a restored church.

You can’t restore something that wasn’t lost. Jesus Himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). History proves this.

Firstly, with respect to Matt 16:18, since gates—even the gates of hell (Hades/Sheol)—do not attack and destroy churches (or anything else), it is clear that Jesus could not have meant that hell would not destroy the church.  Indeed, gates are either intended to keep people in (prisoners) or keep people out.  But since Jesus gave Peter keys in verse 19, it seems clear that he intended that the church should open the gates of hell and release its prisoners (cf. 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6).  This is what he meant about the gates of hell not prevailing over the church. That this is the case can be seen in the fact that the Greek word rendered “prevail” in the King James Bible is κατισχύσουσιν, the third person plural future indicative active of κατισχύω, literally, “be strong against,” and it is often used in the sense of “restrain.”

As one Protestant scholar commented:

In keeping with the linguistic data, "gates of Hades" is to be considered a figure of speech for death, which cannot keep the Christ imprisoned. (Jack P. Lewis, "'The Gates of Hell Shall not Prevail Against It' (Matt 16:18): A Study of the History of Interpretation" in JETS 38/3 (September 1995): 349-67, here, pp. 366-67.

In reality, the promises given to the New Testament Church strongly parallel those given to Israel in the Old Testament, and yet the latter apostasised. Eric Svendsen (again, a Protestant) wrote the following on this issue:

Catholic apologists often counter this point [the charge of apostasy] by noting that God promised the indestructibility and infallibility for his church in passages such as Matt 16:18 and 28:20—promises never granted to Israel. But such an assertion is incorrect. The people of Israel were given many promises that they would never cease to be God’s chosen people, as in the following passage:

“This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that it waves roar—the Lord Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.” This is what the Lord says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares the Lord. (Jer 31:35-37)

Moreover, Paul insists that it was to the Jews that God entrusted his word (Rom 3:1-2; 9:3-5). He further asserts of “the people of Israel” that:

“Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” (Rom 9:4-5)

According to these passages Israel was promised at least as much as the church was promised. Based on these promises the Pharisees might have made a similar argument for their own authority as Catholic apologists make today regarding the authority of Rome. The Pharisees alone, it could have been argued, were capable of interpreting the Old Testament and the “Fathers” (since they alone were entrusted with God’s word, and were promised the Law, the Covenants, and the Patriarchs). Similarly, they might have staked a claim to sole ownership of the tradition of the liturgy (since Paul includes “temple worship” in his list). And, of course, how could anyone deny that they possessed eternal life since they were granted “adoption as sons” and the Messiah himself? Indeed, these statements by Paul and Jeremiah are decidedly at least as strong as (if not much stronger than) those made in reference to the church.

As much as Catholic apologists are reluctant to do so, they must face the fact that their claims to indestructibility (based on the promises of Jesus to his church) are virtually indistinguishable from those made by Israel (based on Jeremiah, and later, Paul). More importantly, they must come to terms with the fact that Israel was dead wrong in just how those promises were to be understood! Israel was promised at least as much as the church was promised. The problem is, they thought they were invincible by virtue of their association with Moses (1 Cor 10:1-5) and their pedigree to Abraham (Matt 3:9)—and they wrongly defined “true Israel” as an institution. These are the same errors made by the Roman Catholic church. Sadly, those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

In the end, because of her long history of disobedience and moral corruption, Israel as an institution was rejected by God; God then turned to the Gentiles who accepted his word with gladness. It is such a surprise then that God, after tolerating centuries of abuse and moral corruption, would finally say “enough!” (Eric D. Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists [Lindenhurst, N.Y.: Reformation Press, 1999], 112-14; comment in square brackets added for clarification)

Secondly, with respect to history, here is a challenge to McKeever, as we discussed baptismal regeneration. Name one person in the Patristic era (up until A.D. 450) who held to your view of water baptism. In reality, the patristic evidence from the second century onwards for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration force even critics of the doctrine to admit that the patristics were "unanimous" in teaching its salvific efficacy. For instance, William Webster, a Reformed Baptist, admitted that "The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96).

Another example would be Philip Schaff, author of works such as The Creeds of Christendom (3 vols.) In his monumental 8-volume work, History of the Christian Church, Schaff, a Reformed Presbyterian, is forced to concede that this doctrine was universally taught since the early days of the Christian faith, in spite of his own theological objections to such a theology of baptism:

"Justin [Martyr] calls baptism 'the water-bath for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration,' and 'the bath of conversion and the knowledge of God.' "It is often called also illumination, spiritual circumcision, anointing, sealing, gift of grace, symbol of redemption, death of sins, etc. Tertullian describes its effect thus: 'When the soul comes to faith, and becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above, it discovers, after the veil of the old corruption is taken away, its whole light. It is received into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and the soul, which unites itself to the Holy Spirit, is followed by the body.' ...."From John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, Tertullian and other fathers argued the necessity of baptism to salvation....The effect of baptism...was thought to extend only to sins committed before receiving it. Hence the frequent postponement of the sacrament [Procrastinatio baptismi], which Tertullian very earnestly recommends...." (History of the Christian Church, 2:253ff) 

"The views of the ante-Nicene fathers concerning baptism and baptismal regeneration were in this period more copiously embellished in rhetorical style by Basil the Great and the two Gregories, who wrote special treatises on this sacrament, and were more clearly and logically developed by Augustine. The patristic and Roman Catholic view on regeneration, however, differs considerably from the one which now prevails among most Protestant denominations, especially those of the more Puritanic type, in that it signifies not so such a subjective change of heart, which is more properly called conversion, but a change in the objective condition and relation of the sinner, namely, his translation from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Christ....Some modern divines make a distinction between baptismal regeneration and moral regeneration, in order to reconcile the doctrine of the fathers with the fact that the evidences of a new life are wholly wanting in so many who are baptized. But we cannot enter here into a discussion of the difficulties of this doctrine, and must confine ourselves to a historical statement." [patristic quotes follow] "In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a -consensus patrum-, than in the doctrine of the Holy Supper." (Ibid., 3:481ff, 492)

Roman Catholic apologist, Phil Porvaznik, has a helpful page on his Website, "Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers" which presents many such concessions by leading Christian historians, such as JND Kelly. Another helpful resource is David Waltz’s blog posts on baptismal regeneration in early Christianity. One example would be section 27 of the Epistula Apostolorum, a text dating to about A.D. 140, which reads as follows:

[Christ says] And I poured out upon them my right hand the water of life and forgiveness and salvation from all evil of life and forgiveness and salvation from all evil, as I have done unto you and to them that believe in me. But if any believes in me and does not follow my commandments, although he has confessed my name he shall have no profit from it.

With respect to John 3:3-5, the patristics were unanimous in understanding that the "water" Jesus spoke about was that of water baptism, and that this pericope supported baptismal regeneration:

For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament;5 since it is written, “Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXI)

And therefore it behoves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXII, section 21)

[T]his salvation proves effectual by means of the cleansing in the water; and he that has been so cleansed will participate in Purity; and true Purity is Deity. You see, then, how small a thing it is in its beginning, and how easily effected; I mean, faith and water; the first residing within the will, the latter being the nursery companion of the life of man. But as to the blessing which springs from these two things, oh! how great and how wonderful it is, that it should imply relationship with Deity itself! (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, ch. XXXVI). 

. . . Water is the matter of His first miracle and it is from a well that the Samaritan woman is bidden to slake her thirst. To Nicodemus He secretly says:—“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” As His earthly course began with water, so it ended with it. His side is pierced by the spear, and blood and water flow forth, twin emblems of baptism and of martyrdom. After His resurrection also, when sending His apostles to the Gentiles, He commands them to baptize these in the mystery of the Trinity. The Jewish people repenting of their misdoing are sent forthwith by Peter to be baptized. Before Sion travails she brings forth children, and a nation is born at once. Paul the persecutor of the church, that ravening wolf out of Benjamin, bows his head before Ananias one of Christ’s sheep, and only recovers his sight when he applies the remedy of baptism. By the reading of the prophet the eunuch of Candace the queen of Ethiopia is made ready for the baptism of Christ. Though it is against nature the Ethiopian does change his skin and the leopard his spots. Those who have received only John’s baptism and have no knowledge of the Holy Spirit are baptized again, lest any should suppose that water unsanctified thereby could suffice for the salvation of either Jew or Gentile. “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters…The Lord is upon many waters…the Lord maketh the flood to inhabit it.” His “teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn which came up from the washing; whereof everyone bear twins, and none is barren among them.” If none is barren among them, all of them must have udders filled with milk and be able to say with the apostle: “Ye are my little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you;” and “I have fed you with milk and not with meat.” And it is to the grace of baptism that the prophecy of Micah refers: “He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us: he will subdue our iniquities, and will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” (Jerome, Letter LXIX to Oceanus, section 6)

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." 

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter LXI, "On Christian Baptism")

For a detailed exegesis of this passage, see my article Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament, Part 4: John 3:1-7

If history "proves" anything, it is that McKeever's theology, apart from being anti-biblical is also utterly unknown in the earliest centuries of Christianity on this point and others, too.

16. The true church must practice baptism for the dead.

The Christian church never condoned baptism for the dead. Paul excludes himself from such a practice when he uses a third person pronoun rather than first person (“Why do they baptize for the dead …”) (See Hebrews 9:27 and Alma 34:34,35 for that matter.)

So many errors in such a short paragraph.

1 Cor 15:29 and the third person pronoun

 The Greek text of 1 Cor 15:29 reads as followed (followed by my translation of the Greek):

Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν

Else why are the one's being baptised on behalf of the dead ones? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are the one's being baptised on behalf of the dead ones?

The Greek text does not have the pronoun “they.” Instead, it uses a present passive participle, literally, “the being baptised ones” (οι βαπτιζομενοι). Contra critics who harp on the pronoun “they” and their ignorance of the original language texts, the verse is entirely neutral towards the question of whether Paul himself was in favour of this doctrine (though some commentators argue that v.30 shows Paul associated himself with those who were baptised on behalf of the dead).

There is much modern scholarship supporting the LDS reading of 1 Cor 15:29 and baptism for the dead being a valid early Christian practice, not one condemned by Paul et al. Note the following example:

It cannot be denied that Paul is here speaking of a vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul himself refers to this baptismal practice, and without distancing himself from it (This is the embarrassing perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few) interpreters making an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious baptism). (Søren Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6:1-14 [Langelandsgade, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999], 175-76)

Alma 34:34-35

 In their paper, "Do Not Procrastinate the Day of Your Repentance" by John Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, we read:

One of the more frequently quoted yet misunderstood passages of the Book of Mormon is found in Alma 34:32–34, where Amulek declares that this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. . . . Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

Critics have suggested that these verses contradict the LDS belief in preaching the gospel to the dead, since Amulek says that “there can be no labor performed” after death. But his words were addressed to the Zoramites, who had dissented from the Nephite religion and had already “received so many witnesses” (Alma 34:30). Unlike those who die without having heard the gospel (see D&C 138:32–34), the Zoramites had heard and accepted the gospel but then had rejected it. Amulek was calling upon them to repent and return to the fold lest they die in their sins, thereby placing their souls in eternal jeopardy (see Mosiah 2:33; D&C 76:31–38).


Another misreading of the passage has led some people to believe that the “same spirit” (Alma 34:34) refers to a person’s own spirit, which they suppose cannot change after death. Occasionally, some have suggested that this means that a smoker, for example, will still have a craving for tobacco after he dies, but that his spirit will not be able to satisfy this craving. However, a careful reading of the next verse shows what Amulek meant. Speaking to these people who had already been members of the church, he declared:


[I]f ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. (Alma 34:35)

Heb 9:27 and posthumous salvation

Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. (Heb 9:27 NIV)

This is perhaps the most commonly-cited "proof-text" against the Latter-day Saint belief in posthumous salvation. The argument is that one is judged at death and their eternal destiny is forever settled, so there is no opportunity, even for those who never heard the gospel in their mortal life, to accept or reject the gospel. Such an interpretation is problematic for a number of reasons. For instance, this passage never makes such a declaration, instead, it only states that judgment (read: final/eschatological) comes at some point after death. If man's final judgment took place at the moment of death, why would Peter say, "for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit?" (1 Pet 4:6; cf. 1 Pet 3:18-20)? Further, texts such as Rev 20:11-13 reveal that the final/eschatological judgment takes place at the time of the resurrection of mankind. One should also consider texts such has Matt 19:28 (cf. Luke 22:30) where the Twelve Apostles will play a role in the judgment of the Twelve Tribes, and 1 Cor 6:2-3 where Paul promises faithful Christians that they will judge the world/κοσμος as well as angels.

In 2014, Stephen Jonathan released a book entitled Grace Beyond the Grave: Is Salvation Possible in the Afterlife? (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock). This is a book I would recommend (I have not seen any LDS engagement with this rather solid volume). Many texts that are often cited as negating posthumous salvation are cogently answered therein. On pp. 89-90, Jonathan presents an answer to his fellow Evangelical Protestants who cite Heb 9:27 as biblical evidence against such a theology:

The context of Heb 9:27 is the unique sacrifice of Christ . . . Christ’s sacrifice was unlike the animal sacrifices of the Old testament in that he did not need to offer himself again and again. Rather, he has “appeared once for all” (v. 26) to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Then the author then introduces verses 27-28 “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second tie, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” The point of this verse is to illustrate the once-for-all aspect of the work of Christ, as opposed to the unfinished nature of the Old Testament sacrificial system, and it not a reference to personal eschatology . . . The writer of Hebrews uses this reference to show that human death is a once-for-all occurrence as a consequence of sin, so too Christ died once-for-all to take away the sins of many people. The phrase “and after that to face judgment” is often interpreted to mean immediately after death humans experience judgment, thereby ruling out the opportunity of post-mortem salvation. Boyd, however, contends that this “reads too much into the text.” He continues, “While this verse certainly rules out reincarnation, it does not rule out the possibility of intermediate events between death and judgment.” (Gregory A. Boyd and P.R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 188) He also reminds us that most evangelicals agree that there are other events between death and judgment, such as, Christ’s return and the bodily Resurrection, and the post-mortem view merely adds one more event or process, namely, the evangelization of the previously unevangelized. This passage offers no timescale as to how long after death that judgment comes, thereby failing to link death with loss opportunity, which is commonly taught in evangelical circles. 

17. By their fruits ye shall know them.

This expression is taken from Matthew 7:20, which ironically deals with judging false prophets, not churches. In examining the fruits of Joseph Smith, we find that he indeed was a false prophet. He introduced a foreign view of God, a false plan of salvation, and inaccurate predictions about future events. If we must use this verse to examine the fruits of Mormonism, we must have an answer as to why the Mormon Church must constantly reverse its position on matters that should never change (Alma 41:8). Why do their leaders contradict past leaders? Why did they change the Book of Mormon so many times when it was supposedly translated “by the gift and power of God the first time”? Why did they change their temple ceremony in 1990 when Smith claimed it came by direct revelation? And doesn’t it seem suspicious that many of the changes in the ceremony were things Christians (and Mormons) had been criticizing for years? Did God mess up or did Joseph Smith (or was it their current leaders)?

Talk about the shotgun approach! And so many of these arguments can be turned around on McKeever (e.g., “If the Bible is the word of God, and God will preserve it, why so are there so many textual variants?!?”); The changes in the Book of Mormon has been addressed in great detail, for instance, all 6 parts of Royal Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants in the Book of Mormon (over 4,000 pages of text[!]) is available online here on the Mormon Interpreter Website (cf. FairMormon's discussion of this issue.

As for Joseph Smith's prophecies, again,  McKeever is way out on left field on this matter. On this issue, see, for example:

Stephen O. Smoot, “Joel Kramer vs. the Bible and Joseph Smith” (a review of Joseph Smith vs. the Bible which I helped research)

Robert Boylan, Refuting James Walker on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Also, see this article responding to Eric Johnson of MRM, Is It Fair to Compare Joseph Smith with the Prophet Jonah?

For more, see my listing of Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies.

As for the changes in the temple, including those in April 1990,  the temple endowment ceremony is composed of two parts, the endowment itself and the presentation of the endowment, which contains the endowment and by which the endowment is presented to the candidate. The temple ceremony itself, in fact, uses the precise term "presentation of the endowment". The presentation of the endowment has received a number of modifications over the years, mostly tending toward shortening the ordinance and modification of the covenants in order to prevent abuse by husbands looking for loopholes to exploit their wives. The endowment itself, so far as I have witnessed for myself, has never really been changed. The endowment is the signs, tokens, and keywords, and nothing more. The temple ceremony is itself the manner of presenting the endowment. This is a distinction that misinformed critics, including Bill McKeever, do not "get."

As for Alma 41:8, here is what I wrote in response to Dave Bartosiewicz in an article entitled, Why does the Doctrine of Covenants Contradict The Book of Mormon? Should it?:

God's "word" being "unchanging"

. . . He also references Alma 41:8 which he purports to contradict D&C 56:4-5:

Now the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared them whosoever will may walk therein and be saved. (Alma 41:8)

Wherefore I the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servant Thomas, that he shall take up his journey speedily to the land of Missouri, and my servant, Selah J. Griffin shall also go with him. (D&C 56:4-5)

If Bartosiewicz wishes to absolutise such texts to produce a "contradiction," he will have to jettison Exo 32-33 and similar passages from the Bible (see above). Furthermore, he will have to throw out the book of Jonah and the following passage from Jeremiah, among many other passages:

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planned, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jer 18:7-10 NIV)

 In reality, there is yet again no meaningful contradiction. The commands or decrees will not change in their definition. Revoking means that God does not always require us to follow the commandment in question. Such was the case with the contingent promises discussed in D&C 56:4-5 as well as Jer 18:7-10.

Conclusion

It is a shame to see someone who professes to believe and follow Jesus Christ so thoroughly misinterpret and even pervert Christ's gospel and the Bible, notwithstanding his repeated claim that (1) Mormonism is not biblical and (2) his flavour of Evangelical Protestantism is representative of "Biblical Christianity." As we have seen in this review, the opposite is true.

In this article, we have seen that McKeever is incapable of any meaningful exegesis of the Bible; assumes sola scriptura and never proves it (notwithstanding it being the formal doctrine of the Reformation); preaches a soteriology and view of water baptism that is contradicted explicitly in the Bible, and also, in the process, misinterprets and misrepresents the theology and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His claims to be an expert on "Mormonism" notwithstanding, he is not a trustworthy, let alone informed, source about the LDS Church.

If Bill McKeever ever wishes to engage me in a public debate on issues such as baptismal regeneration, sola scriptura, the nature of justification, etc., he can consider this an open debate challenge.

Robert Boylan
27 July 2016






Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme