Review of Kwaku El (LDS) vs. Aaron Shafovaloff (Reformed) Debate: Does God Have Glory that He Will Not Share?

The following is a review of a debate between Kwaku El (a Latter-day Saint and one of the hosts of the 3 Mormons youtube show) and Aaron Shafovaloff (hereafter, "AS"). One can find the debate online here:

Kwaku El and Aaron Shafovaloff debate: Does God have glory that he will not share?

As readers of this blog know, I was scheduled to have a Skype debate with Aaron back in 2016 on Sola Scriptura, but he backed out.

The following will be a review of some of the arguments AS presented. Before I begin, however, one has to give major props to Robert Vukich for being a great moderator. Furthermore, while I was initially sceptical about Kwaku's abilities as a debater, he did a very good job and, while I am biased, would score the debate in his favour (6-4 if not 7-3). And in spite of his best attempts (stressing words and making funny faces as if that makes up for his lack of exegetical skills), Aaron lost this debate.

I had originally planned to review the entire debate, but due to (1) space constraints and (2) the fact that if AS is wrong in some of his presuppositions, the rest of his house of cards falls down rather easily, I will focus on some of the more important topics discussed in the debate.

AS's 3 texts to support his Opening Thesis

My friend Christopher Davis, shared the following with a group of fellow LDS apologists, and with his permission, I am sharing it here as it demolishes the three "proof-texts" AS appealed to in order to support this theology:

God has an attainable knowledge:

AS began his argument by citing verses where the Bible states that God’s knowledge is unfathomable, unsearchable, unlimited, etc. by man. While Aaron used a number of scriptures to support his argument, I did not see one of them that could be clearly stated that man could never achieve this knowledge in a future state of unity with God, but would read more contextually as man is now on earth. These scriptures that Aaron used did not really reflect the context that they were written in, as a comparison of man’s wisdom and understanding vs. God’s. Aaron gave a heartfelt and expressive argument, but in my opinion, I felt he was reading his argument into his cited passages, rather than having them demonstrate his position.

AS appeals to the following verses.

“For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether.” - Psalm 139:4

“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.” - Psalm 139:6

“Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.” - Psalm 139:16-18

“Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” - Isaiah 40:13-14

“Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.” - Isaiah 40:28

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?” - Romans 11:33-34

I object to his eisegesis of Psalm 139:4 for his argument of perfect unattainable knowledge. The Cambridge Bible Commentary explains the verse differently.

“God knows not merely the spoken word which men can hear, but its true meaning, and the secret thoughts which prompt its utterance. But the verse may also be rendered, For (when) a word is not yet on my tongue, Lo, thou &c. Before thought has formed itself into words and found expression, the Searcher of hearts knows it.”

Likewise, Barnes writes this.

“For there is not a word in my tongue - All that I say; all that I have power to say; all that I am disposed at any time to say. But lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether - All that pertains to it. What is "said," and what is "meant." Merely to "hear" what is spoken does not imply necessarily a full knowledge of what is said - for it may be false, insincere, hypocritical. God knows exactly what is said and what is "meant."

In both commentaries, the context is that God knows our hearts and our true meaning rather than the interpretation that this is about God predicting the future words we say. We can agree or disagree about predestination, but I think this verse is poor scriptural support for it.

Concerning Psalm 139:6 and the argument that man cannot EVER attain to the knowledge of God, it is worthy to note that Athanasius qualified this passage in his Letter LII to the Monks that “perfect apprehension of the truth is at present far removed from us by reason of the infirmity of the flesh.” Athanasius states as we LDS do that the context of this is that we are at present incapable of attaining this vast knowledge and wisdom.

Moving to Psalm 139:16-18, in verse 16 we see the word gôlem, for the unperfect substance, meaning an embryo. God is aware of what the immature vessel is now and what his potential to be is. God’s knowledge is immeasurable to man, and so this would have meaning if and only if we LDS believed that man in exaltation would continue onwards as just a resurrected man and nothing more. I’ve no idea why AP thought that this verse was helpful to his argument.

Isaiah 40 is next, but is the context of verses 13-14 regarding the promotion and exaltation of the Father as God? No, Isaiah is not making a statement of the origin of God but he is speaking of a comparison to the wisdom of the world. Note the following verses.

“Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.” - Isaiah 40:15-17

The context of this entire passage is how small and insignificant the kingdoms and wisdom of the world is compared to the limitless understanding and power of God. To force this to be a statement that is speaking of the potential origin of the Father is inappropriate. His addition of verse 28 does nothing really to contribute to this.

AS then tried to tie all of them together by a verse from Paul in Romans 11, but all Paul is doing is restating the previous passages, not adding something new to the discussion that would help AS in his argument that God has knowledge or power that cannot be shared with man at a later state of his existence or that God Himself may have received this knowledge and power himself. In short. AS has read his theological argument into these passages, which I would argue have a context that instead is mean to distinguish God from the fallible and limited understanding of mortal men who consider themselves wise.

Next AS made the proposal that man doesn’t need to be deified, because he will have a perfect relationship with God, making the need for man to profess to godhood meaningless. I don’t see that this is very convincing, and it is an ironic statement, when he has just asserted that man cannot know the mind of God and his wisdom. Yet, here AS is saying that despite not having the slightest iota of understanding of the mind of God, he is sure that he intention of man to become God is definitely not in God’s plan. This is where a lot of AS’s logic starts to come apart. God is apparently unfathomable, except of course that we can fathom that deification is somehow not part of the plan.

Finally, AS started to cite differing views of deification held by various LDS prophets. He cited some comments from LDS leaders that the Father may be increasing in knowledge, and contrasted them afterwards by other comments that later leaders have said that God is infinite in his knowledge, but that he increases in his honor and influence. Frankly, this avenue is a red herring and an attempt to force KE and fellow LDS to pick a side on a speculative matter that doesn’t really address the question. In either option, man is given progression of knowledge into godhood. This seemed like an attempt to insert a conflict of opinion on an unessential matter into the discussion. I’m glad that this point really went nowhere, since it was irrelevant.

KE started with a very good argument, which is that non-LDS must allow LDS to define their theology regarding deification with LDS terms, and not with the understanding of the average Trinitarian. This is an important point, since those terms are incompatible with our theology. KE moved into the Romans point of becoming joint-heirs of God and being glorified together with Him. This point was not ever responded to, and I’m left to think that there is no response. It perfectly answers the question posed, “Does God share his glory with man”. KE is quick to say, “Paul says yes”. KE further and correctly states that we are eternally subordinate to God. Our exaltation is glorifying to our Father.

KE further cites Paul that we shall judge angels, shall partake of the divine nature, and sit on the thrones of God. KE appealed to the following verse which was very effective.

“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” - 2 Corinthians 3:18

During the Cross Exam period AS posed a number of bait questions to KE, but nearly all of them, KE responded that he was asking question which we do not have revealed information on. The questions were like:

- Is God the Father still learning?

- Has God the Father always know everything?

- Is Open Theism an accurate way to describe God?

- Can an LDS be an Open Theist and still be in good standing?

- Will your spirit children consider that you know everything?

- How does the Father relate to and consider the “Heavenly Grandfather”?

To all of these questions, KE either said that he has no opinion on the matter, that he can’t confirm the assertion, or that the Church has no formal position on the question. There was nothing really gained from this exchange of questions.

Next KE asked if man would continue in knowledge after death. AS said yes. Next KE asked if this progression in knowledge would pertain to knowing about everything. In this instance AS said no, and made an example, that things like knowing all prime numbers would not be information he would have. Essentially AS is saying that man would know more, but that his knowledge would still be limited as a creation of God. It would be demonstrably more than what we have now, but still infinitely less than that of the Lord. AS commented that we would progress in knowledge infinitely, but that we would always have an infinite amount of things that we would not know. Personally, this, to me is no different than man is now. Man is currently progressing in knowledge both of the natural world we live in, and of the nature of God. In the view of AS, we would be no different than we are currently, and he remarked that this was the view of Brigham Young. I couldn’t disagree more with this statement, and I wish that KE had the opportunity to correct AS on this if the format allowed. I’m not sure that KE realized that this is an erroneous claim, because he just said, “OK, great”, and left it at that. But this problem really needs to be addressed.

Brigham Young said, “We are going to have the Kingdom of God in the fulness thereof, and all the heights and depths of glory, power, and knowledge; and we shall have fathers and mothers, and wives and children.” - Discourses of Brigham Young, 97.

“Simply to take the path pointed out in the Gospel by those who have given us the plan of salvation, is to take the path that leads to life, to eternal increase; it is to pursue that course wherein we shall never, never lose what we obtain, but continue to collect, to gather together, to increase, to spread abroad, and extend to an endless duration. Those persons who strive to gain eternal life, gain that which will produce the increase their hearts will be satisfied with. Nothing less than the privilege of increasing eternally, in every sense of the word, can satisfy the immortal spirit.” - Discourses of Brigham Young, 93

I don’t see anywhere in these comments that Brigham Young is conceding that we, or God for that matter, has an infitnite amount of things that have still to learn.

Next KE asked about whether people in this world who are not Christians will ever be allowed to progress anyway, after they die, which AS responded no to. AS asserts that all men have some access to knowledge of God, but which they will be judged and condemned by. I have no idea how this assertion works in reality to the countless people who did not have any understanding of the Hebrew YHWH, or of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Next KE challenges AS to consider and define who would be allowed to enter heaven out of ignorance, such and children or mental handicap. AS conceded that there would be some allowance for these people, but could not define what this criteria would be, nor determine where this criteria could be found in scripture. This was very odd, since the argument AS was making that all men would be judged and damned by their access to knowledge of God, wherever that knowledge would be is rooted in Romans by Paul, but the exceptions that he is willing to entertain is not found in scripture. One has to wonder why we LDS are condemned for our extra-biblical conclusions, when our EV friends are allowed to postulate doctrine that is not found explicitly in scripture either.

AS seems to want to play both sides of the argument here. In one statement, he conceded that there will be some exceptions as to people who can be exalted to heaven, but who couldn’t possibly have developed a correct understanding of God, but then in the same breath, he mentions the imputed guilt of Adam and that condemnation that all men have to go to Hell for no other reason than we are born carnal and have the inherited sin of Adam. I refute imputed guilt with the explicit words in Ezekiel.

“Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” - Ezekiel 18:19-20

My thanks to Christopher for allowing me to reproduce such. It should be noted that, with respect to Ezek 18, many leading Calvinists have argued that God engaged in a form of "divine deception." Commenting on v. 24, Jonathan Edwards wrote:

With respect to those texts in Ezekiel—that speak of a righteous man’s falling away from his righteousness-the doctrine of perseverance was not so fully revealed to make them wary . . . (Of the Perseverance of Saints, chapter VII § 20 in The Works of Jonathan Edwards [2 vols.; Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974], 2:601, emphasis added)

In other words, God engaged in divine deception during the Old Testament by allowing for believers, including the inspired authors of the Old Testament itself, to believe it was possible for a truly regenerated person to lose their salvation! Such is another example of how Reformed theology forces people to argue for a God who engages in divine deception.

Humans Receiving Worship and being the Eschatological Recipients of Worship

There are many texts that clearly speak of (1) mortals receiving worship and (2) being the eschatological recipients of worship. This fact alone refutes AS en toto. Let us consider some of the pertinent texts.

In Zech 3:20, we read the following:

At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you; for I will make you a name and a praise among all the people of the earth; when I turn back your captivity before your eyes saith the Lord.

In this verse, the people are given a promise that they will inherit a great “name” and be praised among the people of the earth.

That the Bible knows of, and approves of, praise (in some limited sense) being given to mortals and non-deity is seen throughout its pages, such as the use of the Hebrew verb חוה  or the Greek verb προσκυνεω in the LXX of mortals (often translated as “worship”/”bow down [to]”). A potent example would be 1 Chron 29:20 and King Solomon being the recipient thereof (emphasis added):

And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshipped the Lord, and the king.

Within a context of temple sacrifice and worship, the Israelites are commanded by David to “bow down” and “worship” both Yahweh and the king--the Hebrew construction of the sentence italicised above ( וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַיהוָה וְלַמֶּלֶך) does not allow for a distinction between the veneration Yahweh receives and what is given to the king from the assembly as does the LXX rendition (καὶ κάμψαντες τὰ γόνατα προσεκύνησαν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ).

As another example, one scholar in a recent volume dealing with the Christology of the Synoptic Gospels, noted the following about the worship of the (mortal) Davidic King and Psa 72:

In Psalm 72 wild creatures and enemies, kings and nations, all bow down and serve the king (vv. 9-11). The pairing of the roots חוה and עבד in verse 11 is precisely the pairing of words that one finds in the commandment forbidding the adoration of idols (Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9). Thus, while it is possible to separate cultic worship from courtly obeisance, we have begun to seen enough of the confluence of idealized human figures and actions and ascriptions typically reserved for God to keep us from being able to rule out “worship and serve” reserved for God to keep us from being able to rule out “worship and service” of the king as a rite appropriate even for Israel’s monolatrous belief and practice. The Priestly creation story has already opened up the possibility that idealized, original humanity stands as the image of God that grounds the prohibition of images made by human hands. It is no great leap from such a creational theology of idealized human figures to such a figure playing precisely the role of God’s proxy in worship and service, such that what is forbidden to images made by human hands is allowed to the image formed by God. The idea would be that God is worshipped through this service because God stands behind this king.

In the succeeding verses, the king is deemed worthy of such adoration because he is deliverer (v. 12), savior (v. 13), and redeemer (v. 14). And so the king’s name, like God’s own glory, is celebrated as something that should last forever (v. 17). “The psalm seems to hold out the possibility that a king might be granted life to a fuller and greater extent than an ordinary human being. Here again, the Judahite conception of divine kingship is less explicit and exalted than what we find in Egypt . . . but it still has a mythical dimension that goes beyond the common human condition” (Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 23). Even beyond this, the petition that the king’s name flourish “before the sun” (לִפְנֵי־שֶׁמֶשׁ, v. 17) became an opening for the idea that the name of the king existed before the sun. (J.R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016], 101-2)

There are many other instances of this, but let us focus on Isa 45:14 where God promises that the Gentile nations will offer supplication/prayer to Israel:

Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee and they shall be thine; they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, and they shall make supplication unto thee, saying Surely God is in thee, and there is none else, there is no God.

Apart from the Masoretic Text and LXX using חוה and προσκυνεω, respectively in this verse, the LXX also uses the term προσευχομαι, which means “to pray to.” The Latter-day Saint hymn, “Praise to the Man” pales in comparison to such, as prayer is never given to Joseph Smith (in fact, I am pretty sure one would be excommunicated for such if such were given to Joseph Smith(!)

Here is a listing (not exhaustive) of some other verses that are rather a propos for this discussion where mortals or objects are the recipients of praise, not deity:

Gen 49:8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise (חוה/προσκυνεω): thy hand  shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down
before thee. 

Deut 26:19 And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in  praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken. 

Psa 49:18 Though while he lived he blessed his soul: and men will praise thee, when thou doest well to thyself. 

Psa 56:4 In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will
not fear what flesh can do unto me. 

Psa 56:10 In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word. 

Prov 27:2 Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. 

Prov 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also,
and he praiseth her. 

Prov 31:30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that
feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. 

Prov 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates. 

Eccl 4:2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. 

Song 6:9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her
mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her.  The daughters saw her,  and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her. 

Isa 62:7 And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make 

Jerusalem a praise in the earth. 

Jer 13:11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I
caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of
Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a
name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear. 

Jer 33:9 And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it. 

If AS were consistent in his theology, he would have to argue that Jesus Christ Himself advocated idolatry, promising something only reserved to deity (in the Trinitarian view, and, as a result, in the theological view of AS) to glorified Christians. How so? Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

In 3:21, believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Robert M. Bowman, Richard Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).

As for Rev 3:9, believers are promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9 (cf. my discussion on whether Jesus receives λατρευω in the New Testament).

To add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:

[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)

Interestingly, Solomon in 1 Chron 29, the very same chapter he received the same worship as Yahweh, he also sit on the throne of Yahweh. On the topic of people other than Yahweh sitting on the throne of Yahweh, Patrick Navas (author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures) wrote the following which serves as another refutation of the “divine identity” argument based Jesus sitting on the throne of Yahweh:

Another text that helps to underscore the fallaciousness of Wallace’s reasoning is found in 1 Chronicles 29:[23] which says:

“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Jehovah as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.”

Here Solomon is portrayed as one who “sat on the throne of Jehovah as king.” Does this text imply that Solomon therefore “shares all the attributes of Jehovah,” or that Solomon is ontologically “Jehovah,” or that he is a member of the “Godhead”? No. It simply means that Solomon occupied a position of supreme/royal authority over the people of Israel as Jehovah’s agent or representative. To sit on Jehovah’s throne does not make one ontologically Jehovah (or one who has all of Jehovah’s attributes as Wallace wrongly implies), but makes one an individual whom Jehovah has invested with kingly authority as his appointed and ruling representative. Solomon sat down on Jehovah’s earthly throne in Jerusalem. Following his resurrection, the supremely exalted Messiah, Jesus, sat down “at the right hand of the majesty on high”—in heaven itself, with all things in subjection to him, with the obvious exception of God himself (Heb. 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:27). (Patrick Navas, Response to Daniel Wallace)

This is yet another area where Latter-day Saint theology and practice is more commensurate with “biblical Christianity” and not the theologies of our Evangelical opponents.

Jesus' Super-Exaltation After the Ascension

In the LDS view, Christ is our model for our exaltation. As we have seen (Rev 3:9, 21 discussed above), we will become glorified jus as Christ has been glorified by the Father. Other texts supporting this "Christification," as well as the super-exaltation of Jesus and his continuing subordination to the Father will be discussed here.

Phil 2:9 states that “God also hath highly exalted [Christ], and given him a name which is above every name.” Here, we read that the Father gave to Christ, at the moment of his exaltation of the Son, a name above every other name (Yahweh). This shows that the son did not possess this name until his exaltation, showing the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father; also, it speaks of Christ being “exalted,” which is nonsense in light of much of Trinitarian theologies that state that Jesus was not void of his deity, but instead decided to voluntary “shield” it to most people (in effect, ridding Phil 2:5-11 of the concept of kenosis, self-emptying, and instead, perverting the Christology of the text to speak of an endusasthai or a “clothing up”). Furthermore, we know that this name could not be “Jesus,” as He possessed this name prior to his exaltation.

This can also be seen in John 17:11-12:

And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. (NRSV)

In the above pericope, using prolepsis (cf. v.22), Christ speaks of how the Father “gave” him the Father’s name (Yahweh); it was not something Christ intrinsically possessed until after his exaltation.

Even after his exaltation, the telos of all glory and honour Christ receives are that of the further glorification of the Father:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-10; cf. 1 Cor 15:22-28)

One should also point out the term, sometimes translated as “exploited” in Phil 2:6 αρπαγμος. Again, this points to something that Jesus did not have, as its predominant meaning in Koine Greek literature means “to plunder” or “to steal.” Notice how Louw-Nida define the term in their work, Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed.:

ἁρπάζω ; ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m ; ἁρπαγή, ῆς f: to forcefully take something away from someone else, often with the implication of a sudden attack - 'to rob, to carry off, to plunder, to forcefully seize.' ἁρπάζω: πῶς δύναταί τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἁρπάσαι 'no one can break into a strong man's house and carry off his belongings' Mt 12.29 . . . ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m: that which is to be held on to forcibly - 'something to hold by force, something to be forcibly retained.'

Liddell-Scott, in their Greek Lexicon (abridged), offers a similar definition of this term:

ἁρπαγμός

ἁρπαγμός, ὁ, (ἁρπάζω) a seizing, booty, a prize, N.T.

Such a Christology, apart from being one that permeates the entirety of the New Testament, can also be seen in the revelations of Joseph Smith, such as D&C 93:16-17:

And I, John, bear record that he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

If AS and other Trinitarians are correct, Phil 2:9 is utter nonsense, for how can the Father glorify Jesus and give Christ the name that is above every name, if Christ had this glory before the incarnation and even had it during his 33 years of mortality? The Trinitarian understanding of this verse is incoherent. In reality, post-ascension, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily in Jesus (Col 2:9), something we are also said to strive for (Eph 3:19). However, Christ is still subordinate to God the Father (1 Cor 11:3; 15:22-28 [exegeted below]).

Phil 2:5-11 is a wonderful example that serves as a great analogy for our understanding of deification: just as the glory the Son receives glorifies the Father, whatever glory we, too, will receive, will have its ultimate telos in the glorification of the Father, too.

As one Reformed scholar put it:

[Phil 2:5-11’s depiction of the exalted Jesus] does not replace God or take worship from God. God is worshipped through the worship of the exalted Jesus. The worship which is given to the exalted Jesus does not usurp the worship of God, nor does it rival the worship of God; it rather complements the worship of God and facilitates it. Paul thus includes the exalted Jesus within Christian worship. The eschatological grande finale for Paul is the ultimate and universal glorification of God which God has purposed to be achieved through the worship of the exalted Jesus. The importance and centrality of the risen Jesus in relation to Christian worship, which I have argued from the beginning of this study, is evident here. God cannot be ultimately and maximally glorified according to Paul, without, or apart from, the exalted Jesus. Paul thus sees worship from a teleological perspective as fulfilled in the ultimate expression of honor that is given to God by the entire cosmos, through the agency of the exalted Jesus. (Tony Costa, Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters [Studies in Biblical Literature vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013], 249, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

The glorification of Jesus does not end with the glorification of God merely--the Father is glorified, and in a similar way, the glorification of mankind does not end with mankind--it ultimately results in the glorification of God.

That Paul held to a subordinationist Christology can be seen in other places in his epistles, most notably his Midrash of Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX) in 1 Cor 15:22-28.

The Hebrew of Psa 110:1 reads:

נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי שֵׁב לִימִינִי עַד־אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ

Yahweh said to my lord, “sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (my translation)

The LXX (109:1) renders the verse as follows:

εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου

The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (my translation)

Here, the first Lord (in the Hebrew, Yahweh) says to a second lord (אדֹנִי adoni in Hebrew, meaning “my lord”) to sit at his right hand. The only meaningful, and exegetically sound interpretation of this verse is that the second lord is sitting at the right-hand of God, making him distinct from "Yahweh," and not that he is numerically identical to the "One God," a la Trinitarianism, though he does indeed serve as God’s vizier, to be sure.

I am aware that some (e.g., James R. White) have tried to argue that the second Lord is Adonai, not Adoni, but the LXX, the Targums, and other lines of evidence support the Masoretic vocalisation; for instance, the Targums always interpreted the second lord to be a Davidic King, not "another" Yahweh. For more, see David M Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBL: 1973) and Jaco Van Zyl, "Psalm 110:1 and the Status of the Second Lord--Trinitarian Arguments Challenged," in An E-Journal from the Radical Reformation: A Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism, winter/spring 2012, pp. 51-60.

In Trinitarian theology, as mentioned previously, there is an allowance (albeit, an ambiguous one) for a distinction between the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit (e.g. the Father is not the Son). However, there is no allowance for a distinction between “God” and any of the persons. However, the Christology of the New Testament tends to distinguish “God” (θεος) from the Son, not simply the “Father” from the Son, as it does here, differentiating between ο θεος (literally, the God) from Jesus. Indeed, the other instances of the New Testament’s use of Psa 110:1 differentiates, not just the persons of the Father and the Son, but θεος and the Son. For instance, consider 1 Cor 15:22-28 and Heb 10:12-13:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order. Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is expected, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (θεος) may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:22-28)

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (θεος); From henceforth expecting till his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet. (Heb 10:12-13)

In both these pericopes, Psa 110:1 (LXX, 109:1) is used and expanded upon, and clearly, a distinction is made between, not just the persons of the Father and the Son (which is accepted, albeit, ambiguously, as the definition of "person" is debated within Trinitarian circles, both historically and in modern times, by Trinitarian theology), but God (θεος) and Jesus, a distinction not tolerated by Trinitarianism, as well as showing the Son's subordination, even post-ascension, to God the Father.

Appeal to John 17:3

AS shot himself in the foot when he appealed to John 17:3 to support this theology, as this verse, and others like it, are, exegetically, anti-Trinitarian in nature.

The Greek reads:

αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

"Now this is life of the age to come that they may know you the only one who is the true God and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (my translation).

The title, τον μονον αληθινον θεον (“the only one who is the true God”), is predicated upon a single person, not a “being” composed of three “persons” (however one wishes to define “person”), and such is predicated upon the singular person of the Father, with Jesus himself distinguishes himself in John 17:3 from “the only true God.” Absolutising this verse, this is a strictly Unitarian verse as only a singular person is within the category of being the “only true God.” However, in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.

This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "Midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].

"No one has taught God Anything" and God's Contingent Foreknowledge

AS confidently asserted this in the debate. While it is true, what Calvinists read into this (e.g., determinate foreknowledge; the nature of God's decree being immutable [cf. Chapter III secs. III-IV of the 1847 Westminster Confession of Faith "Of God's Eternal Decree"]) is not. Indeed, the Bible explicitly teaches that God changes his mind and has contingent foreknowledge.

In trying to stress the sovereignty of God, Reformed theology has not only over-emphasised such (similar to how Roman Catholicism has over-emphasised Mary in her role in the economy of salvation), it has also made God an impotent deity who cannot allow genuine free-will among humans to accomplish His goals. Notice the following confession from a well-known and respected Reformed author:

If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all the grand and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us. If a grain of sand in the kidney of Oliver Cromwell changed the course of English history, so our maverick molecule could change the course of all redemption history. Maybe that one molecule will be the thing that prevents Christ from returning. (R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God [rev ed.; Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986], 16).

Consider the following text which really encapsulates the synergistic nature of God and the problematic nature of Sproul's statement and the theology thereof:

Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts; Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord. (Zech 1:3; cf. Zech 3:7; Mal 3:7; John 6:40, etc).

The Hebrew term translated as “turn” is שׁוב; the LXX translates it as επιστρεφω; both these terms in the Hebrew OT and LXX refers to turning back to God/repentance. (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:33, 35) as well as Yahweh turning back to His people/averting His wrath against sin (e.g., Zech 1:16). In this verse, and many other texts, God turning back to His people is contingent upon his people turning back to Him, not vice versa, showing that genuine free-will is part-and-parcel of the “salvation formula,” not mere compatibilist freedom. The conception of deity one finds with "Mormonism" is a potent deity who allows people to have genuine free-will to accept or reject the gospel, and yet will be victorious at the end of times; the Calvinist understanding of God is an impotent, blasphemous deity, who calls everyone to repentance and yet actively withholds the ability to all but a small few the ability to come to faith, and such is required so he can achieve his goals. One concept is a truly sovereign concept of God; the other is not.

Such a theme is found elsewhere in the writings of Old Testament prophets, including Hosea and Joel, who use similar language to Zechariah. Let me quote from the New American Standard Version (1995 update), a conservative Protestant translation (emphasis added):

Return (‎שׁוב; επιστρεφω), O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. (Hos 14:1)

"Yet even now," declares the Lord, "Return (‎שׁוב; επιστρεφω) to Me with all your heart, and with fasting, weeping, and mourning; and rend your heart and not your garments." Now return (‎שׁוב; επιστρεφω) to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness and relenting of evil. (Joel 2:12-13)

One favourite Old Testament example that argues against Reformed theology is that of Phinehas in Psa 106:30-31. For background on Phinehas, we have to turn back to Num 25 in which some of the men of the Israelite camp were engaging in cultic sexual intercourse with Moabite and Midianite women (e.g., Num 25:2-3, 6), resulting in God commanding Moses to kill them (Num 25:4), resulting in 24,000 who died in the plague (Num 25:9). In defiance of this divine command, and Israelite man brought a Midianite woman to his tent, more than likely to engage in such cultic sexual intercourse. Phinehas, a priest, saw this happen and took the following action:

And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. (Num 25:7-8)

Not only did Phinehas’ actions propitiate the wrath of God, but the psalmist, recounting the incident in Num 25 (Psa 106:28), and the meritorious act of Phinehas, wrote:

Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations.

There has been no end of scrambling by Reformed apologists to answer this. One response is to dismiss this text as relevant simply because Paul did not appeal to it (this is the “response” by James White in his book The God Who Justifies and in his 2000 debate versus Catholic apologist, Robert A. Sungenis [available online here]). A similar response comes from Reformed author, John Murray:

For if he [Paul] had appealed to Psalm 106:31 in the matter of justification of the ungodly, then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradiction and would have demonstrated justification by a righteousness and zealous act . . .Genesis 15:6 is dealing with justification, as Paul shows. Psalm 106:31 is dealing with the good works which were the fruit of faith. (John Murray, Commentary on Romans vol. 1 p. 131 as cited by Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 228)

Sungenis (Ibid., 229-30) answers this charge rather cogently:

Murray’s claim that Paul’s quoting of Ps 106:31 would have “created a contradiction” is only true if one’s theology predisposes one to view Abraham’s crediting of righteousness as a forensic imputation — a mere considering of righteousness that is not inherent — rather than as a manifestation of infused righteousness inherent within the individual and appearing at a specified time. Murray’s theological presupposition forces him to put Paul in the dubious position of having purposely to ignore the only other time the phrase “credited with righteousness” is used of an individual in Scripture (Ps 106:31) just to prove a point and avoid a contradiction in his own theology. In fact, the only thing, according to Murray, that saves Paul from contradiction is Paul’s deliberate refusal to bring Ps 106:31 into the discussion. Though Murray makes a valiant attempt to salvage his own theology, he inadvertently puts Paul at odds with Scripture. This is a highly untenable situation in biblical hermeneutics since it has long been accepted by responsible theologians that Scripture is one cohesive whole which does not contradict itself. It also puts Paul at odds with himself, since it was he, inspired by the Holy Spirit, who quoted incessantly from obscure Old Testament passages — for example, Paul’s quote from the obscure passage of Hk 2:4 in Rm 1:17 — to prove to his audience what was not immediately obvious about the gospel and its relationship to the old covenant. Moreover, it was Paul himself who said that “All Scripture was inspired and profitable for teaching...” (2Tm 3:16), Ps 106:31 presumably included. Murray’s words, “For if he had appealed to Ps 106:31...then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradiction...” show the desperate lengths faith alone theologians will go to protect their presupposition. Can we imagine Paul ever teaching someone not to appeal to a certain Scripture — a Scripture that is so intimately related to the topic at hand — because it would contradict one’s interpretation of another Scripture? In the annals of biblical revelation, there is no such suggestion ever made by any of the sacred writers. Moreover, Murray’s claim that the work of Phinehas was merely the “fruit of faith,” does not offer him an escape from the clear language of Ps 106:31. If he can claim that Paul could not have used Ps 106:31 to prove his point about justification in Romans 4, then he must also admit that the Psalmist chose the wrong terminology to describe Phinehas’ righteousness, since under Murray’s hypothesis the specific words “credited with righteousness” may only refer to imputed righteousness. Murray cannot have it both ways, that is, he cannot, on the one hand, say that the language of Ps 106:31 is so strong toward teaching justification by works that Paul was forced to ignore the verse to avoid a contradiction, and, on the other hand, say that Ps 106:31 refers only to the fruit of faith but not justification proper. In the first suggestion he attempts to make the verse very strong, in the latter suggestion he attempts to make it very weak. Both cannot be true. Hence, someone is wrong, either the Psalmist or Murray. The evidence is against Murray, since his position argues from silence whereas the language of Ps 106:31, like the language of Gn 15:6, is clear and unambiguous. The Holy Spirit, through inspiration, assigns the work of Phinehas the same justifying nomenclature that is given to Abraham, i.e., “credited with righteousness.” Granted, Paul has a major point to make in Romans 4 concerning the crediting of righteousness to Abraham, but Paul sets the context of Romans 4 in opposition to the concept of legal obligation and the incessant boasting of the wayward Jews, not in opposition to God-glorifying and grace-prompted works such as those done by Phinehas. In effect, Murray’s error exposes the false notion in Protestant thought which understands work only as the qualifier of faith, rather than as an independent virtue which when added to faith has power to justify under the grace of God. Hence, the “inherent contradiction” Murray predicted is merely a contradiction in his own theology.

In addition, in these texts, there is no distinction in this text of those who are called to repentance and those that God will grant repentance thereto. However, according to most Calvinists, historical and modern, while the call to repentance is for everyone without distinction, only those who were elect in the eternal past will be granted the ability to repent.

In his 2010 debate with Roman Catholic apologist Robert A. Sungenis, James R. White, another Reformed Baptist, was questioned thusly during the cross-examination portion of a debate on predestination:

Robert Sungenis: Does God call the whole human race to repentance?

James White: Yes, God calls all men, everywhere, to repent; that's Acts chapter 17.

Robert Sungenis: Okay. Does God give only certain people the ability to repent?

James White: Yes; His elect. (beginning at the 1:38:53 mark)

Such is just one of the many internal inconsistencies of Reformed theology that, ultimately, makes God a play-actor.

Chapters 32-33 of the book of Exodus is a very potent example of (1) God changing his mind and (2) God’s personal nature. Let us look at it in point by point format:

1. God determines to destroy all of Israel for worshipping the golden calf.
2. Moses pleads with God to relent, reiterating the promise to Abraham and the potential mockery from Egypt.
3. God rescinds His threat to destroy all of Israel, yet punishes the leading perpetrators.
4. Moses spends 40 days prostrate and fasting to appease God for Israel’s sin.
5. Although temporarily appeased, God refuses to go with the Israelites through the desert, because they are so “stiff-necked” he “might destroy them on the way.”
6. Moses pleads again with God to change His mind.
7. God changes His mind and decides to go with them.
8. God then remarks on the intimate relationship He has with Moses as the basis of His decision to change His mind.
9. God confirms this intimate relationship by showing Moses part of His actual appearance.

Another Old Testament text that further proves our point is that of Amos 7:1-6:

This is what the Lord God showed me: he was forming locusts at the time the latter growth began to sprout (it was the latter growth after the king's mowings). When they had finished eating the grass of the land, I said, "O Lord God, forgive me, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!" The Lord relented concerning this, "It shall not be," said the Lord. That is what the Lord God showed me: the Lord God was calling for a shower of fire, and it devoured the great deep and was eating up the land. Then I said, "O Lord God, cease, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!" Then the Lord relented concerning this, "This also shall not be," said the Lord God. (NRSV)

In this passage, God is said to have relented (alt. change his mind [Hebrew: נחם Greek: μετανοέω]) from punishing Israel due to the intercession of Amos (cf. Exo 32-33 for a similar event where, based on Moses’ intercession, God relents from His promise to destroy the Israelites due to their idolatry). The plain meaning of this passage is that God changed His mind and did not engage in play-acting nor can this be relegated to a mere anthropomorphism. As one recent author on God’s contingent foreknowledge wrote:

First, not only did the Lord change his mind, but he affirmed his intention by verbalizing it (e.g., “’This shall not be’ said the Lord”). Hence, if one attempts to fictionalize this event, one must also fictionalize Amos’ recording of God’s own words, which, as the saying goes, means that Amos put words into the mouth of God that God did not actually say.

Second, the narrative gives us two contrasting actions of God in a cause-and-effect relationship: (1) God has already formed the locusts to destroy the vegetation, and (2) God stops the forming of the locusts and does not destroy the vegetation. Hence, if an exegete were to claim that God’s verbalized decision that occurs in between the cause-and-effect sequence of event #1 and event #2 is fictional (i.e., the statement “’This shall not be’ said the Lord” did not occur), it essentially requires that the whole narrative becomes fiction. In other words, the Lord’s changing of mind is an integral part of the natural sequence of events in the historical narrative, without which the Lord’s initial forming of the locusts to eat the vegetation and Amos’ plea to stop the forming would be superfluous or causes without effects. (Robert Sungenis, The Immutable God Who Can Change His Mind, The Impassable God Who Can Show Emotion [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2016], 37-8)

Many critics of such a perspective will appeal to texts such as Mal 3:6 to the effect that God does not change his mind, and, furthermore, such texts that speak of God changing His mind (e.g., Gen 6:6) are to be relegated as mere “anthropomorphisms.” Notwithstanding, such an approach is based on eisegesis. The context of Mal 3:6 specifies that God’s unchangeability refers only to His unchanging character to forgive if the sinner repents, not that God cannot change His mind about previous decisions or about contingencies that arise in accordance with man’s free-will decisions (cf. Jer 18:7-10).

Other passages which indicate that God “does not change” (e.g., Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Psa 110:4; Jas 1:17) refer only to God’s inability to lie, take back an oath He made, tempt one to sin, or reverse decisions based on a capricious whim, since these would be adverse to His divine character (see passages where God promises to change His mind if the future free-will actions of man resulting in their repentance--Mal 3:7; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9, etc).

Even the Calvinist's favourite metaphor of God being the potter and humanity being the clay does not support monergism, but actually supports synergism (James R. White wrote a volume in response to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free, and called it The Potter's Freedom, showing just one example of its popularity within Reformed circles; AS appealed to this metaphor in the third section of the debate, too). How so? Take chapter 18 of the book of Jeremiah as a whole. This metaphor of God’s relationship to His people is used in vv. 4-6:

The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him. Then the word of the Lord came to me: Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. (NRSV)

However, only by ignoring (1) the totality of the Bible (e.g., the texts discussed above) and (2) the rest of this chapter in Jeremiah, can one be able to absolutise this pericope to support the popular Reformed reading thereof. In the verses immediately following this text, we read the following which again highlights the dynamic relationship between God’s will and the free-will actions of human beings:

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer 18:7-10, NRSV)

Robert B. Chisholm, currently the department chair and senior professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote the following in a paper Making Sense of Prophecy: Recognizing the Presence of Contingency, presented at the ETS Far West Regional Meeting, April 2007:

The Lord sent Jeremiah to the potter’s house for an object lesson (vv. 1-2). As the potter shaped his pot according to a specific design, the clay was not pliable, so the potter reshaped it into a different type of pot (vv.3-4). Just as the potter improvised his design for the uncooperative clay, so the Lord could change his plans for Israel (vv. 5-6). If the Lord intends to destroy a nation, but it repents when warned of impending doom, the Lord will relent from sending judgment (vv. 7-8). Conversely if the Lord intends to bless a nation, but it rebels, the Lord will alter his plan and withhold blessing (vv. 9-10). God announces his intentions, but a nation’s response can and often does impact God’s decision as to what will actually take place. (p. 3)

The footnote for the above text (p. 3 n. 6) reads thusly:

By making room for human response, God does not compromise his omniscience (defined in the classical sense), sovereignty, and immutability. God fully knows what will transpire because he has decreed the future. But this decree, by God’s sovereign decision, accommodates the choices and actions of creatures to whom he imparts a degree of freedom. It also makes room for God to respond to these choices and actions. This relational flexibility is a corollary of his immutability, which encompasses his just and compassionate nature.

Commenting on Jer 18:7-10, Richard L. Pratt, himself a Calvinist (Presbyterian), so he would agree with AS with respect to TULIP and other issues, wrote:

Several elements in this passage point to its categorical nature. First, each sentence begins with an emphatically general temporal reference. The expressions “at some time” (rg`), “and at some other time” (wrg`) emphasize that Yahweh’s words apply to every situation. No particular circumstances limit the protases. Second, the anarthrous expression “any nation or kingdom” (`l gwy w`l mmlkh) also points to the categorical nature of the policy. Yahweh’s responsiveness applies to all nations. Third, these verses describe the two major types of prophetic prediction: judgment (Jer 18:7-8) and salvation (Jer 18:9-10). In terms of form critical analysis, all prophetic oracles gravitate in one or both of these directions. Referring to these two major directions of all predictions underscores the categorical nature of the dynamic described here.

The universal perspective of Jeremiah 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions. Sincere repentance had the potential of effecting every unqualified prophecy of judgment. Flagrant disobedience had the potential of negating every unqualified prophecy of prosperity.

A survey of Scripture reveals that the descriptions of God’s reactions in Jeremiah 18 are only representative. Yahweh reacted to human responses in many different ways. At various times, he completely reversed (Am 7:1-9), postponed (e.g. 1 Kgs 21:28-29; 2 Kgs 22:18-20), mollified (e.g. 2 Chr 12:1-12) and carried through (2 Sam 12:22-23) with predictions. Yahweh exercised great latitude because his responses were situation specific, appropriate for the particularities of each event. nevertheless, a basic pattern was always at work. The realizations of all unqualified predictions were subject to modification as Yahweh reacted to his people’s responses. (Richard L. Pratt, Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions: An Inaugural Address Presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary, pp. 14-15)

Commenting on Jer 18:7-10 and its surrounding context, Lawrence Boadt wrote:

The key to this illustration does not lie in the potter’s patient reuse of the raw clay but in the implied thread that God may change his attitude toward Israel. If the nation has not worked out as a “covenant-of-Moses vase,” for example, he may have to do something else with it. The image ends in v. 6 with the simple application that Israel is the clay in the hands of Yahweh. No more really needs to be said. The idea of a God who creates humans from clay can be found in some of the oldest myths of the Near East. In Eypt the ram good Khnum appears on reliefs shaping little humans on a potter’s wheel, and the Babylonian Atra Hasis epic describes a creation in which Mami, the mother goddess, nips off lumps of clay (made up of the flesh and blood of a god) and has gods and goddesses fashion them into human shape (Atra Hasis I:189-20). Israel new this kind of myth and used its language for the account of creation in Gen 2:7. But Jeremiah warns that God can just as readily begin again. (Lawrence Boadt, Jeremiah 1-25 [Old Testament Message vol. 9; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982], 139)

Indeed, elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah, we see this explicated:

If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings. (26:3)

And said unto them, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, unto whom ye sent me to present your supplication before him; If ye will still abide in this land, then will I build you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you up: for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you. (42:9-10)

So we see that the metaphor of the potter and the clay cannot be absolutised in the way that many Reformed apologists are wont to.

The book of Jeremiah itself records the following prophecy given by the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah (the "70-year prophecy"):

Assuredly, thus said the Lord of Hosts: Because you would not listen to My words, I am going to send for all the peoples of the north -- declares the Lord -- and for My servant, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all those nations roundabout. I will exterminate them and make them a desolation, an object of hissing -- ruins for all time . . . This whole land shall be a desolate ruin. And those nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. When the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation and the land of the Chaldeans for their sins -- declares the Lord -- and I will make it a desolation for all time. (Jer 25:8-9, 11-12, 1985 JPS Tanakh)

For thus said the Lord: When Babylon's seventy years are over, I will take note of you, and I will fulfill to you My promise of favor -- to bring you back to this place. For I am mindful of the plans I have made concerning you -- declares the Lord -- plans for your welfare, not for disaster, to give you a hopeful future. When you call Me, and come and pray to Me, I will give heed to you. You will search for Me and find Me, if only you seek Me wholeheartedly. I will be at hand for you -- declares the Lord -- and I will restore your fortunes. And I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places to which I have banished you -- declares the Lord -- and I will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you. (Jer 29:10-14, 1985 JPS Tanakh)

As Christopher M. Hays notes:

So, Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would conquer Judaea and rule the Israelites and their land for seventy years, after which God promised to restore them. But did things turn out as planned? Not exactly. The Old Testament is littered with texts trying to account for the way in which subsequent history did not line up with Jeremiah’s timeline. Initially, the biblical authors needed to explain why the exile began to wind down too early; then, they had to reverse their tactics and explain why restoration from exile was taking too long; and finally some of them just threw up their hands and denied that the prophesied restoration was ever even inaugurated (however abortively or impartially). In short, the Hebrew Bible seems a veritable cacophony of voices trying to explain why things did not turn out as Jeremiah had prophesied. (Christopher M. Hays, “Prophecy: A History of Failure?” in Christopher M. Hays, ed. When the Son of Man Didn’t Come: A Constructive Proposal on the Delay of the Parousia [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016], 23-58, here, p. 26, italics in original)

While Hays’ entire essay should be read, as one example of the reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s original prophecy by Ezra-Nehemiah, he writes:

[The editor of Ezra-Nehemiah has to] explain why the restoration from exile had been so sluggish! Even seventy years after the invasion of Judea, things still hadn’t come together as Jeremiah had prophesied. Jeremiah 29:10-14 (cf. 25:11-12) promised that after the seventy years God would return the Israelites from exile and restore their fortunes. But it is not as if all the Israelites had returned to the Promised Land by the time the Temple had been rebuilt. Only a portion of the Israelite population hobbled back to Judaea under Cyrus’s decree (Ezra 2:1-65). When Ezra’s ministry began around 458 BCE, a solid 130 years into the exile, he was still only leading a modest contingent of Israelite exiles to Jerusalem (see Ezra 8:1-20), and even then, their travel required the gracious permission of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-28). A dozen years after that, Nehemiah undertook his ministry (Neh. 2:1-10), and he too lamented that the exile was far from over (Neh. 1:1-11). Thus, in about 446 BCE, some 141 years after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, Nehemiah was still in Persia; the walls of Jerusalem lay in ruins; and those who had supposedly escaped captivity remained “in great trouble and shame” (Neh. 1:3). To compound matters, Nehemiah the governor of Judah, Nehemiah’s predecessors had been exploiting and oppressing the Israelite residents. To put it mildly, the restoration of Israel after seventy years that Jeremiah promised had proven an overstatement; God’s “plans to prosper them and not to harm them” (Jer. 29:11) were not coming to pass as advertised.

So, the editor of Ezra-Nehemiah had to back-pedal. Although he wanted to read the prophecy of Jeremiah as being fulfilled in more-or-less literal, chronological terms, he was obliged to see 515 BC as the beginning of a fulfillment that remained quite incomplete even seventy additional years later. The editor of the book, summoning a pitiably quixotic optimism, seemed to hope that, with men such as Ezra and Nehemiah at the helm, Israel might steer a course toward complete restoration. (Ibid., 28-29, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

Commenting on another example of a biblical prophet reworking Jeremiah's prophecy, James L. Kugel wrote:

 Daniel the Re-interpreter

Certainly the best biblical example of the tendency of later prophetic figures to reinterpret the existing Scripture is found in the book of Daniel. Daniel relates that on one occasion he “consulted the books concerning the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD that had come to Jeremiah the prophet, were to be the end of Jerusalem’s desolation, seventy years” (Dan 9:2). This introduction in itself is surprising. The book of Jeremiah does indeed report that the prophet had said that in seventy years, the Babylonians would be punished and Israel’s fortunes would be restored (Jer 29:10; cf. 25:12)—and this, give or take a few years, is exactly what happened. So what was Daniel consulting the books for? Seventy years are seventy years. But then the angel Gabriel appears and informs Daniel on the real meaning of Jeremiah’s promise: he didn’t mean seventy years, but seventy groups of seven years apiece, making for a total of 490 years:

While I was still speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, setting my supplication before the LORD my God on my God’s holy mountain—while I was still in the midst of praying, the “man” Gabriel, whom I had seen in the earlier vision, was sent forth in flight and reached me at the time of the evening offering. He spoke to me enlighteningly and said: “Daniel, I have come to you now to give you insight and knowledge. A the start of your prayer, a word went out, and I have come to tell it . . . Seventy groups of seven years have decreed for your people and your holy city. (Dan 9:20-24)

As we have seen above, the notion of 490 years exactly was not unique in Second Temple Judaism, and the reason is not hard to find. Biblical law stipulates that the jubilee year is to come around once every forty-nine years (Lev 25:8); the number 490 is simply one jubilee multiplied by ten (which comes out to be the same as Daniel’s seventy “weeks of years” that is, the seventy units of sevens in Dan 9:24). So it came about that 490 years also appears here and there as a mega-unit of time in the Dead Sea  . . .In any event, this last-cited passage from Daniel recalls a number of themes already seen above: (1) the prophets of old (in this case, Jeremiah) had prophesied, but them themselves didn’t understand the hidden message of their prophecies; (2) this in turn reflects the fact that most prophets are actually long-range predictors, their predictions having to do with times far distant from their own; (3) an angel (here, Gabriel) is needed to explain the significance of ancient prophet’s (here, Jeremiah’s) words . . .thereby also turning his book into yet another collection of long-range predictions, some of which had already occurred or where coming to pass in his own time. (James L. Kugel, The Great Shift: Encountering God in Biblical Times [New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017], 252-53)

Such is further proof of the contingent nature of biblical promises and prophecies as well as God's foreknowledge. Indeed, this may help us try to harmonise the tension between the debate as to whether God is still progressing in knowledge or knows all things. With respect to his present knowledge, God does indeed know all things, but due to the free-will actions of humans (explicated above), He interacts with and realigns plans as a result thereof. As Blake Ostler put it: 

God knows all things presently occurring and that they are now actual. God also knows that all possible future events are potentially but not actually true. However, God does not know precisely which future choices of free agents will be actual, although he does have a complete knowledge of the probability of such choices for any given individual. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 1: The Attributes of God [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001], 295-96)

God as the Author of Sin in the Reformed Tradition

Kwaku pressed AS on the issue of whether God is the author of sin, and AS tried his best to dodge the issue. Notwithstanding, the reality is that, contrary to the attempts by AS (and other Reformed apologists and theologians, including Jonathan Edwards), Calvinism does indeed make God the author of sin. Note the following three statements a Calvinist would agree to:

1. God created all things ex nihilo.
2. Therefore, the ultimate source and origin of one’s will is God.
3. God’s foreknowledge is exhaustive, not contingent (as it is within certain systems, such as Socinianism).

Related to the above, God’s foreknowledge is active, not passive—that is, God decrees all things, including sinful acts, and such events will infallibly take place, and not simply foreknows events passively (as one finds within simple foreknowledge and other theories of foreknowledge).

Therefore, God is the author of sin.

Only by explicitly rejecting at least one of the above premises can a Calvinist consistently claim that God is not the author of sin. However, all the following premises are part-and-parcel of Reformed theology.

On the relationship between God creating ex nihilo and one’s will, consider the following from Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, Volume 2: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2006), 410:

If the causes of our acts originate from causes outside of our control, then we are not free and cannot be praised for blamed for what we do resulting from those causes. If the causes of our actions are outside our control, then our acts that result from such causes are not within our control either. Thus, a person must be an ultimate source of her acts to be free. By an ultimate source, I mean that some condition necessary for her actions originates within the agent herself. The source of action cannot be located in places and times prior to the agent’s freely willing her action. The source of the action is the agent’s own will that is not caused by events or acts outside of he agents but from the agent’s own acts of will. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo is contrary to such a view of agency on its face. Consider that: (1) If a person is created from nothing, then he is never the ultimate source or first cause of her choices. If we assume that (2) all persons are created from nothing, then it follows from (1) and (2) that (3) no person is the ultimate cause or source of anything. This argument does not require any particular concept that God acts in relation to humans or brings about their acts through cooperative grace. All it requires is the notion of creation ex nihilo. If the libertarian demand that we must be the ultimate source of our choices to be morally responsible for them it sound, then God cannot create morally responsible persons ex nihlo. In some sense, persons must be co-creators, first causes, unmoved movers of their own wills, and the source of their own choices

Adam's Sin Imputed to us?

AS in his first opening statement baldly asserted that Adam's sin is imputed to us in Rom 5. However, this is simply false--Paul argues that we become, are not merely reputed, "sinners" just as we are made (again, not imputed) righteous at justification (something his false theology would deny, too).

That we “become” righteousness, and not merely declared to be righteousness based on an imputation of righteousness from an alien source can be seen in Rom 5:19:

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (δικαιος).

The verb “to be made” in this verse is καθιστημι, which means “to constitute.” It does not have the meaning of merely legally declaring something to be “x” without it actually being “x.” Compare the following usages of the verb in the New Testament:

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made (καθιστημι) ruler over this household, to give them meat in due season? . . . Verily I say unto you, That he shall made (καθιστημι) ruler over all his goods. (Matt 24:45, 47)

And delivered [Joseph of Egypt] out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him (καθιστημι) governor over Egypt and all his house . . .But he that did his neighbour wrong trust him away, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge over us? . . .This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge? The same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush (Acts 7:10, 27, 35)

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained (καθιστημι) for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb 5:1)

For the law maketh (καθιστημι) men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Heb 7:28)

Furthermore, no one doubts that one is more than just “declared” to be a sinner; one is actually a sinner and is sinful intrinsically; it would break the parallel between “being a sinner” and “being righteous” in Rom 5:19 to introduce into it such a distinction that Reformed theology reads into this verse (that the former is a real, ontological category, but the latter is only a legal category). Therefore, those who are said to be righteous (δικαιος) are not simply placed into a legal category and labelled “righteous”; they are actually righteous.

The Salvation of Infants and Mentally Handicapped vs. Calvinism

AS argued that, in his view, those who died before reaching a certain level of adult maturity (mentality handicapped people; infants) will go to heaven. This is contrary to Total Depravity which states everyone from the seed of Adam is depraved--AS' model is similar to "everyone is totally depraved, just some people are more totally depraved than others." In AS's view, this would result in abortion being the greatest heaven-filling device man has created--I mean, if AS believes that ensoulment takes place, it would be the a licence to "ok" late-stage abortion and that one is given some special salvific grace based on when they die (in infancy) and/or some mental impediment. AS is a very inconsistent Calvinist (I acknowledge many have held a similar view within Reformed theology throughout the ages [e.g., the concept of "elect babies" who die in infancy], but that hardly makes it any less inconsistent).

Does Rom 1:19-20 teach Total Depravity?

Answering the common appeal to Rom 1 to support Total Depravity, Matthew Roper wrote the following:

ROMANS 1:19-20

Wilson claims that the notion that those who died without a knowledge of the gospel need to have the opportunity to hear it is in conflict with the teachings of the Bible. According to Wilson, Romans 1:19-20 shows that, “those who do not have the written word of God are nevertheless without excuse according to Paul, because they have rejected God’s revelation of himself through creation and the human conscience” (1995:1). No doubt, the wonders of creation testify to God’s existence, but they do not explain the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While it is certainly true that all men and women have a conscience which helps them distinguish between good and evil, they cannot respond to and accept a gospel they have not heard and it is only the Gospel of Jesus Christ that saves. As Paul observed, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14). God is not arbitrary and unjust. Somebody, somewhere, has to teach these people so that they may hear and have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the gospel message before the judgement.

When one examines Romans 1:19-20 carefully, it becomes clear that Paul is not speaking of those who die in ignorance of the Gospel, but is speaking of the consequences of willfully rejecting the gospel when it is offered. “The wrath of God,” says Paul, “is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” To hold the truth in unrighteousness, they must first have had the truth and then rejected it. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them (Romans 1:18-19). God always reveals the Gospel through his appointed preachers and messengers. When the Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached by the power of God, the conscience or light of Christ within all men and women shows them that what they are hearing is true. If they follow that light, it will lead them to accept the Gospel. If they reject it they will fall back into darkness and sin as Paul tells us (Romans 1:26-32). It is those who have been taught the Gospel who are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20), since even God’s creations honor and obey God’s power and will, even when man does not. The sin of man lies in knowing the truth and rejecting it anyway, “because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21). Having openly rejected the Gospel message when it was offered, they brought divine judgements upon themselves (Romans 1:32). Those who die in ignorance of the Gospel message without having the opportunity to receive it, however, are another matter entirely.

Latter-day Saints are not the only people who recognize the importance of this issue. Stephen T. Davis, a professor of Philosophy at Claremont College has recently written a cogent defense of the resurrection that many evangelicals should gladly welcome (Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993]). Addressing the issue of those who die in ignorance of the Gospel, Davis states:

Suppose there was a woman named Oohku who lived from 370-320 B.C. in the interior of Borneo. Obviously, she would never have heard of Jesus Christ or the Judeo-Christian God; she would never have been baptized, nor would she ever have made any institutional or psychological commitment to Christ or to the Christian church. She couldn’t have done these things; she was simply born in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Could it be right for God to condemn this woman to eternal hell just because she was never able to come to God through Christ? Of course not (Davis, 151).

But how can God’s mercy take effect, since salvation is only in the Gospel of Jesus Christ? As a solution, Davis suggests “post-mortem evangelism” (Davis, 162). He argues that a number of New Testament passages support this view including Ephesians 4:8-10; 1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6; and 1 Corinthians 15:29. He notes the early Christian tradition that Christ during the interval between his death and resurrection descended to preach the Gospel to the spirits of the dead. “Despite the scores of interpretations of the difficult texts just cited that have been suggested in the history of Christian thought, this still seems to be a possible and plausible exegesis of 1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:5-6” (Davis ,163). Davis then reasons, “If the gospel was once preached to the dead, perhaps this practice continues. If so, perhaps the ignorant are preached to after death and receive then the chance they never had before to receive Christ and turn to God” (Davis, 164). (Salvation for the Dead: A Response to Luke Wilson)

That Total Depravity is contrary to the Bible can be seen in many texts. For instance, consider how Latter-day Saints, as well as other groups, are often attacked for expecting potential converts to display godly attitudes before being baptised and confirmed members of the Church. LDS teaching on this point is summed up in the fourth Article of Faith:

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion of the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In Matt 3:8, recording the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the KJV reads:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.

The Greek of this text reads:

ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.

Literally, John is commanding the people “to do” (ποιεω) works that are “worthy” of repentance. The Greek adjective translated as “worthy” is αξιος. In New Testament soteriological contexts, it is always used to describe the reality of someone or something; it is not a mere legal declaration; in other words, something is counted/considered worthy because they/it are intrinsically worthy. We can see this in the Gospel of Matthew itself:

Nor scrip for your journey, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy (αξιος) of his meat. And into whateoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who it is worthy (αξιος); and there abide till ye go thence . . .And if the house be worthy (αξιος), let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. (Matt 10:10-11, 13)

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy (αξιος) of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy (αξιος) of me. (Matt 10:37-38)

Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy (αξιος). (Matt 22:8)

We can also see this in the verb form of this adjective (αξιοω) and its usage in the New Testament. Speaking of Christ and his worthiness, we read the following:

For this man was counted worthy (αξιοω) of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. (Heb 3:3)

Not only are there important soteriological implications of this, but also anthropological, as it calls into question the Reformed/Calvinistic belief of Total depravity (the “T” of the TULIP).

Further evidence that the biblical authors did not believe in “total depravity” can be seen in many places. One potent example is the case of Cornelius, a Roman Centurion and “God-fearer” (a Gentile who associated with the synagogue). Listen to the descriptions of him before his conversion and entrance into the New Covenant:

A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave alms to the people and prayed to God always. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was fraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. (Acts 10:2-4)

In the above pericope, Cornelius’ devotion, alms, and prayers were received by God, not as dirty rags (or “menstrual garments” per the underlying Hebrew of Isa 64:6), but as a “memorial.” The Greek term used is μνημόσυνον. This is a technical term in the LXX, often used in the sense of a memorial sacrifice or a placard used to perpetuate memory of a person or an event (in the Torah alone, see Exo 3:15; 12:14; 13:9; 17;14; 28:12, 29; 30:16; Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:8; 23:24; Num 5:26; 17:5; 31:54; Deut 32:26).

It is not unusual, however, to hear from some Reformed apologists that Cornelius was converted prior to Acts 10 and that such positive statements reflect the (imputed) righteousness of a saved person and their sanctified state. However, this is a rather desperate attempt to avoid the plain meaning of the episode (which reflects lip-service towards the perspicuity of Scripture).

In a recent volume, Kermit Zarley discusses the difficulty with this claim:

Luke has two decisive texts indicating Cornelius was not saved prior to meeting Peter. First, Luke says that soon after this Cornelius episode, “When Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers critized him, saying, ‘Why did you go to the uncircumcised men and eat with them?’” (Acts 11:2-3). Peter then related that Cornelius “told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved’” (vv.13-14).

Second, Luke implies that at this time in Jerusalem, Peter spoke to “the apostles and the believers” (Acts 11:1). Then Luke says regarding what Peter said to them, “When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, ‘Then God has given even the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life’” (v.18).

Thus, Cornelius was not regenerated-saved prior to hearing Peter preach. (Kermit Zarley, Solving the Samaritan Riddle: Peter’s Kingdom Keys Explain Early Spirit Baptism [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2015], 137)

I could go on, but it is clear that the “T” of TULIP is utterly opposed to the Bible.

Neh 9:6--species uniqueness of Yahweh?

AS quoted Neh 9:6 to support his theology of God and worship. He is not the first critic to appeal to such a passage--Michael Heiser attempted to use this passage, too, to support Yahweh's purported "species uniqueness." Blake Ostler wrote the following in response to Heiser on this issue:

Nehemiah 9:6: It is you, O Lord, you are the only one; you made the heavens (עָשִׂיתָ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַיִם), the highest heavens and all their host (כָל־צְבָאָם), the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them. To all of them you give life, and the heavenly hosts bow down before you. (New American Bible [NAB])

Nehemiah claims that the hosts of heaven have been made or organized just as the earth was organized (עשׂה, 'asah) with everything on it. However, the sense of “create” here does not entail creation out of nothing but rather organization of the armies of heaven. Further, it doesn’t entail that the armies of heaven are created in all respects. The sun, moon, and stars are not “created” in the sense that they are brought into existence from nothing. Rather, the sun, moon, and stars are “created” in the sense that they are placed in the raqia or dome that separates the waters above the heavens from those below as Genesis 1 states. In fact, the parallel in Psalm 148:1-5 suggests that the “hosts of heaven” refer to the sun, moon, and stars: “Praise the Lord from the heavens; give praise in the heights. Praise him, all you angels; give praise all you hosts. Praise him, sun and moon; give praise, all shining stars. Praise him, the highest heavens, you waters above the heavens. Let them all praise the Lord’s name; for the Lord commanded and they were created” (יְהַלְלוּ אֶת־שֵׁם יְהוָה כִּי הוּא צִוָּה וְנִבְרָאוּ) (NAB).

Based on the parallel between “hosts of heaven” and the sun, moon, and stars in Psalm 148:2-3, the assertion that the “hosts of heaven” are created refers to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, but only in the sense that the preexisting heavenly bodies are organized by being placed in the firmament or raqia on the fourth day in Genesis 1:14-18. As physically organized things, the sun, moon, and stars are deemed to be created or organized realities in Mormon thought as well. Returning to the Hebrew cosmology, it must be kept in mind that the Hebrews regarded the sun, moon, and the stars as sentient beings that can praise Yahweh. However, the sun and the moon are not among the sons of God who reside in the highest heaven above the heaven of heavens. The creation in Nehemiah 9:6 refers to dividing the waters by fixing the dome to hold back the waters above and the separate the waters from the heaven below the firmament. The sun, moon, and stars are fixed in the firmament and that is what constitutes their being “created” . . .  The armies or hosts of heaven like the sun, moon, and stars are the lowest in the heavenly hierarchy. These heavenly hosts or bodies are fixed in the solid but transparent “firmament” or raqia that is below the waters which are located in the heavens above the firmament. The raqia holds back the waters from flooding the earth. The sun and the moon move below the raqia, and the stars are fixed in it like lights in the dome. The sons of God in the council of heaven around God’s throne, in contrast, are above the heaven of heavens in the realm of the uncreated.

Thus, the proof texts reviewed by Heiser do not establish that the “sons of God” are not the same kind as Yahweh because they are created in the sense that they are ontologically contingent and he is not. Rather, they merely establish that: (1) some of the elohim are not considered to be fully divine beings like Yahweh; (2) some of the heavenly hosts such as sun, moon, and stars were created or organized at the time that the earth was created. The sun, moon, and stars already existed to be placed in the firmament. They are created only in the sense that they are organized by taking preexisting heavenly hosts and placing them in their order in the firmament. However it is contrary to the Hebrew scripture to regard the sons of God as created in the sense that they are brought into existence at the time of creation because they were already present with Elohim at the creation of humankind. When Elohim declares in Genesis 1:26: “Let us make man in our own image” (emphasis mine), the plural refers to the council of gods who assist in the creation. When God says in Job: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? . . . . When all the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4 7), Job cannot refer to the creation of the earth because the stars were placed in the raqia on the fourth day after the foundations of the earth had already been laid. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 283-84.)

Blake also makes mention to “creation” not implying creatio ex nihilo; I would strongly suggest one to read his article, "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought," a response to recent attempts by William Lane Craig and Paul Copan to salvage belief in this post-biblical doctrine.

Did Jesus "create" Satan?

AS, during the second cross-ex, argued that Jesus created Satan in Col 1:16, and, following James White, argued that Paul exhausts language to emphasis such a point--that Jesus created everything including Satan. As this is a major text that many like to abuse, let us examine Col 1:15-20 in some detail. We will also provide positive evidence for Jesus and Satan being "brothers" at the end with a discussion of Job 1:6.

The Greek of Col 1:15-20 reads:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, [δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

The NRSV renders it as follows:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers -- all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in1 him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

There are a couple of things one has to consider to engage in any meaningful exegesis of this pericope:

1.     There is a differentiation, not just between the persons of the Father and the Son, but between “God” (ο θεος) and Jesus (vv. 15, 19), something which is inconsistent with Trinitarianism.

2.     That the “all things” that are created do not include the spirits of man can be seen in v. 21 where there is a differentiation between the things created in vv.15-20, “And you (και υμας), that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled," something said to then-believing Christians. Does Paul here include Satan and demons among this "creation" when he says Jesus has reconciled "all things" in heaven and earth to Himself? Highly unlikely. Paul could not have included unbelievers in this "reconciliation"; otherwise, he would not have qualified the prospects of reconciliation for his audience: "If ye continue in the faith" (v. 23). I mention this point as some Evangelicals (incorrectly) cite this pericope as "proof" of how allegedly anti-biblical LDS Christology is (e.g. Ron Rhodes, "Christ," in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism).

3.     Relying on the faulty translation of the preposition εν in the KJV, some harp on the English preposition, "by." Most modern translations, including the NRSV quoted above, translate the preposition as "in," not "by" (it is possible this is a "causal εν," with "because of him" being a plausible translation of the construction ἐν αὐτῷ--see the discussion of this preposition in Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, as one example). This is further strengthened by the fact that v.16 is part of a οτι-clause in Greek (οτι meaning "for" or "because of").

4.     The text states that thrones, principalities, and powers were created “in Jesus.” These are hierarchies of angels that are in view in this pericope (cf. Rom 8:38), That this is the case can be further seen in the fact that Col 1:15ff places this creation within the realm of all those things that God the Father is reconciling to Himself (Col 1:20), clearly placing a limit to the "all things" spoken about in Col 1:16.

5.     The voice of the verbs used in v.16 when speaking of the creative role of Jesus are passives, not actives--ἐκτίσθη is the indicative aorist passive of κτίζω while ἔκτισται is an indicative perfect passive. This would be consistent with LDS theology. Note the following from Bruce R. McConkie in vol. 3 of his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary: "16-17. Christ created the universe and all things that in it are, but in doing so he acted in the power, might, and omnipotence of the Father. 'Worlds without number have I created,' is God's language, 'and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.' (Moses 1:33.) 'By him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.' (D. & C. 76:24; John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:2.)" Such is reflective of the function of divine passives, where the Father is the ultimate creator, but it was done through the Son (and, in LDS theology, other figures, too [cf. Abraham 4:1ff]). As N.T. Wright writes in his commentary on Colossians, part of the Tyndale Commentary series: "All that God made, he made by means of him. Paul actually says 'in him,' and though the word εν can mean 'by' as well as 'in,' it is better to retain the literal translation than to paraphrase as NIV has done. Not only is there an intended parallel with verse 19, which would otherwise be lost: the passive 'were created' indicates, in a typically Jewish fashion, the activity of God the Father, working in the Son. To say 'by,' here and at the end of verse 16, could imply, not that Christ is the Father's agent, but that he was alone responsible for creation." On the use of passive verbs, consider the following:

[T]he creation language of [Psa 32:6, LXX] maintains the passive construction found in the Hebrew. It reads: 

τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν. 

 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm and by the breath of his mouth all their power. (Ps 32:6 LXX)

 This passive construction is analogous to the language of the Colossian hymn where Christ’s role in creation is depicted through the use of passive verbs. Though Christ is the subject of the passage as a whole, in Col 1:16 the subject of the sentence is “everything in the heavens and on the earth.” Christ’s involvement in their creation is presented though the use of εν with the dative so that all things were created “in him.” 

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς . . τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται 

 For in him everything in the heavens and upon the earth were created . . . All things were created through him and for him. (Col 1:16)

 Just as in Ps 33 (32 LXX) where the word of the Lord does not create, but is the means by which God created, so in the Colossian hymn Christ does not create, but is presented as the one in whom, through whom, and for whom God created all things. (Matthew E. Gordley, The Colossian Hymn in Context [Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 61-62 [square brackets my own for clarification]).

The Greek terms translated as "were created" and "have been created" are ἐκτίσθη and ἔκτισται, the third person indicative aorist passive and perfect passive of the verb κτίζω, meaning "to create." In addition, the prepositions that are coupled with these tenses differ (εν [in] and εις [into/towards/for], respectively).

Commenting on these shifts in tenses and prepositions, Nigel Turner wrote the following:

St. Paul was pursuing the intimation of verse 15, that Christ is God’s icon and our archetype. The two tenses are thus explained by the fact that the prototokos conception necessarily involves two other conceptions, viz. (1) a past act which is punctiliar (grammatically) because one aspect of creation is past for ever, and (2) a second action which is not merely punctiliar but also perfective. Of this second action, the results are with us still, since we and all creation are not yet in actuality the icon of Christ, as he is of God. Although the process has been soundly set in motion, it will proceed while all nature continually renews itself in him until it reaches his entire perfection. Aptly using the perfect tense, St. Paul could close the verse with the words, “All these things were once created by his instrumentality (dia, “through”; not en, “in,” as at the beginning of the verse) and they continue to be created now towards (eis) him.” He meant towards his perfect image; closer to the intended pattern. St. Paul did not often confuse the prepositions eis and en, and indeed in Col. 1:16 he set both together in a context which requires that their meaning is not at all synonymous: “in (en) him were once created all things that are in heaven and upon earth the visible and the invisible, thrones, lordships, powers, authorities; all these have been created (and now exist) by his continual support (dia) and he is their goal (eis).” (Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1965], 125).

Compare the passive voice used of the creative activity of Christ in Col 1 with that of Rev 4:11 where, speaking of the role the Father plays in creation, we read:

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. (NRSV)

The figure addressed is clearly the person of the Father, as Jesus is later presented as being distinguished from this figure on the throne, as seen in Rev 5:5-6. Furthermore, the terms translated as "you created" is ἔκτισας, the indicative aorist active of κτίζω.

Why is this important? The differences in voices (active vs. passive) show that there were different roles the Father and Son played, wth, the logical implications of such being very strongly anti-Trinitarian when one applies modus tollens:

First Premise: If Jesus is God within the Trinitarian understanding of Christology, he played an active role in the creation, just like the Father.

Second Premise: Jesus played a passive role in the creation, as opposed to the active role in creation played by the Father.

Conclusion: Jesus is not God as understood within the framework of Trinitarian Christology.

6.     Blake Ostler wrote the following about this text (and Heb 11:3, a related verse) showing it does not support creation out of nothing:

The view that the “invisible things” are not absolute nothing is also supported by Colossians 1:16–17:

For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible, thrones, ruling forces, sovereignties, powers—all things were created through him and for him. He exists before all things. (NJB)

In this scripture it seems fairly evident that the “everything invisible”

includes things that already exist in heaven, such as thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. Further, the invisible things are also created by God; yet the fact that they are invisible means only that they are not seen by mortal eyes, not that they do not exist. The reference to invisible things does not address whether they were made out of preexisting matter. However, 2 Corinthians 4:18 states that “the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (KJV). It is not difficult to see that Hebrews 11:3 neither expressly mentions creation out of nothing nor implicitly assumes it. The argument that the text must somehow implicitly assume creation out of nothing misinterprets the text and forces it with assumptions that are contrary to the meaning of “invisible things.” If anything, Hebrews 11:3 implicitly assumes creation of the earth out of a preexisting substrate not visible to us.

7.     It should be noted that LDS theology does state that Christ is the creator, and often borrows the verbiage of this Christological hymn when speaking of His role in the creation (e.g., D&C 93:10; 3 Nephi 9:15; the 1916 First Presidency statement, "The Father and the Son”), and such is not limited to the "New Creation," but also to the Genesis creation, contra "Biblical Unitarians." I raise these issues, however, as many critics of LDS Christology have falsely stated that Col 1:15ff refutes "Mormon" theology which states that "biblical theology" presents Jesus as being the creator of the spirits of man as well as fallen angels (a category clearly not being reconciled to God, unless one wishes to embrace Origen's eschatology!)
8. In Col 1:19, we read: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." Two aorists are used in this verse (ευδοκησεν [thought/pleased] and κατοικησαι [dwell]; cf. Col 2:9). If we go along with the trinitarian view, then at what point in time was God the Son filled with God's fullness, and was he God before this happened in their view? As we have seen in our discussion of Phil 2:5-11, such is consistent with LDS theology, but at odds-end with Trinitarian theology.

9

On a related issue, it is often argued by Trinitarians such as James White (see his debate with subordinationist Unitarian, Patrick Navas, in 2012) that Paul exhausts all the prepositions in Koine Greek to describe Jesus as the creator. However, this is not true--strikingly missing is the phrase εξ ου ("from whom"), used of the Father in 1 Cor 8:6, but never of Jesus. To understand the full force of the anti-Trinitarian implications of this issue for New Testament Christology, one will also have to exegete 1 Cor 8:4-6.

Here is the Greek followed by the NRSV translation (emphasis added):

Περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς. καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.

Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really exists," and that "there is no God but one." Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as in fact there are many gods and many lords -- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

There are a number of important points here—

Firstly, the term “God” is predicated of the Father, and it is to the exclusion of the Son.  Trinitarianism, the significance of which was discussed earlier in this post.

Secondly, the “number” of God is said to be “one” (εἷς). In light of how the Father has θεος predicated upon his person to the exclusion of the Son, absolutising this verse as critics of LDS theology wish to do (e.g., Ron Rhodes; James Whit) et al. wish to do, this is a strictly Unitarian text, not Trinitarian. However, this is not an issue for Latter-day Saint Christology, as the term “God” is multivalent, as we recognise that the Father is the “one true God,” but there are (true) deities who can properly be called “God” (cf. Deut 32:7-9 [Dead Sea Scrolls]; Psa 29; 89; etc), something neither Unitarianism nor Trinitarianism in their various forms can tolerate.

Another refutation of the Trinity comes from that of logic. In 1 Cor 8:6, creation is said to be εκ (from) the Father, while it is said to be δια (through/by) the Son. Again absolutising this pericope in the way Trinitarians wish to do, let us examine how this pericope is another nail in the coffin of the claim that "the Trinity flows from every page of the Bible":

First Premise: If Jesus is God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology, all things would be made from (εκ) him.

Second Premise: All things were not made from (εκ) Jesus.

Conclusion: Jesus is not God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology.

This is perfectly logical reasoning, called modus tollens. Not only do Trinitarians have to go against careful, scholarly exegesis of the Bible, but also logic.

It should also be noted that many Trinitarian scholars argue that this text is not Trinitarian, but binitarian, with this pericope “proving” that Paul did not believe when he wrote 1 Cor 8:4-6, in the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit(!)

Daniel Wallace, a leading Greek grammarian who is also Reformed/Trinitarian, in an interview in favour of the Trinity (which can be found here) admitted this:

Paul says, ‘Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live’ …What Paul does…I call it a primitive binitarian viewpoint. It’s not even quite trinitarian…I should probably clarify this for the listeners. I think there’s a progressive understanding in the New Testament about who Jesus is; and when Paul writes 1 Corinthians in the early 50s, I think he’s very clearly binitarian. I don’t know yet if he has understood the Trinity. My guess is he probably does not and those things get revealed a little bit later on. But here’s the thing.

He also wrote something very similar in an article published in an Evangelical journal, "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13/1 (2003), pp. 97-125 (online here):

There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds. This does not mean that in the NT the Spirit is a thing, any more than in the OT the Spirit (רוּחַ —a feminine noun) is a female! Grammatical gender is just that: grammatical. The conventions of language do not necessarily correspond to reality . . . One implication of these considerations is this: There is often a tacit assumption by scholars that the Spirit's distinct personality was fully recognized in the early apostolic period. Too often, such a viewpoint is subconsciously filtered through Chalcedonian lenses. This certainly raises some questions that can be addressed here only in part: We are not arguing that the distinct personality and deity of the Spirit are foreign to the NT, but rather that there is progressive revelation within the NT, just as there is between the Testaments . . . In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the  grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit's personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course, but I am arguing that we need to ground our beliefs on a more solid foundation.

Unitarian apologist, Jaco Van Zyl, summed up the implications of this admission rather well in his response to Wallace's interview:

For Wallace to admit that NT writers did not understand the Trinity implies that later Fourth- and Fifth-Century Christians discerned and believed what “inspired” bible writers failed to believe. This argument is therefore no different from the claims made by the very ones Wallace and others are trying to help since the Jehovah’s Witnesses also proclaim that Jesus and the apostles didn’t know that Jesus would return in 1914 C.E., or that the first Christians did not know that the “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9 would be a second class of Christians gathered since 1935 with a different hope than the literal 144 000 anointed class of Revelation 14, etc.; there is absolutely no difference in argumentation. At least it can be safely said, considering Wallace’s admission, that the first Christians did not believe in the Trinity formulated in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries – that who and what God was to them was different from who God was to these first Christians. The implications of this admission are rather significant.

The purpose of Col 1 is the preeminence and superiority of Jesus above everything else. Since the Christ-event was understood to be the ultimate purpose of all creation, all things were created and intended with the Christ-event in mind. Jesus' pre-eminence is shown in that he was intended before creation and demonstrated to be the firstborn of everything through His glorious resurrection. This could be seen in the locution in v.16, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως "firstborn of all creation," could be rendered as a genitive of subordination, "firstborn above all creation," as proposed by Daniel Wallace and other Greek grammarians (see Wallace's discussion of the genitive case in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament).

James Dunn in his commentary on Colossians/Philemon offered this exegesis of Col 1:16:

The “in him” is the beginning of a sequence of prepositional phrases by means of which the creation of “all things” is described: “in him, through him, to him.” Such use of prepositions “from,” “by,” “through,” “in,” and “to” or “for” was widespread in talking about God and the cosmos. So particularly pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo 6: οτι εκ θεου παντα και δια θεου συνεστηκε; Seneca, Epistulae 65.8: “Quinque ergo causae sunt, ut Plato dicit: id ex quo, id a quo, id in quo, id ad quod, id propter quod”; Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.23: εκ σου παντα εν σοι παντα εις σε παντα; so also Philo, De cherubim 125-26: το υφ’ ου, το εξ ου, το δι’ ου, το δι’ ο; and already Paul (Rom. 11:36 and 1 Cor. 8:6, as partially also in Heb 2:10).

Once again, however, we may deduce that the primary influence is the Jewish Wisdom tradition, within which such language had been used of divine wisdom (Feuillet, Sagesse 206-11). So, e.g., Ps. 104:24 (LXX 103:24): “you made all things by wisdom (πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας),” a very close parallel; Prov. 3:19: “The Lord by wisdom (τη σοφια) founded the earth”; Wis. 8:5: “wisdom that effects all things (της τα παντα εργαζομενης)”; Philo, Quod deterius 54: “Wisdom, by whose agency the universe was brought to completion (δι’ ης απετελεσθη το παν)”; similarly Heres 199 and Fuga 109.

What does such language mean when applied to Messiah Jesus? Not, presumably, that the Christ known to his followers during his ministry in Palestine was as such God’s agent in creation; in the first century no less than the twentieth that would be to read imaginative metaphor in a pedantically literal way. It must mean rather that that powerful action of God, expressed by the metaphor of female Wisdom, in and through whom the universe came into being, is now to be seen as embodied in Christ, its character now made clear by the light of his cross and resurrection (1:18, 20). The subsequent desire to distinguish more clearly God as the final cause (εκ) from Wisdom/Christ as the means or agent (δια) is already evident in 1 Cor. 8:6 (cf. John 1:1-3), as it had been important in equivalent terms for Philo (De cherubim 125).

What of the least common of the three prepositions, the εις (“for, to”) in the last line of v. 16 (never used in such contexts in reference to Jewish Wisdom)? If the prepositional sequence was simply adapted from the wider philosophic usage it need not be indicative of eschatological purpose (cf. Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6, δι’ ον in Heb. 2:10). Even as christianized, the two strophes seem to be structured on a proctology/eschatology, old cosmos/new cosmos distinction, with the future eschatological emphasis limited to the second. Nevertheless, because of the hymn’s present context, the redemptive work also accomplished “in Christ” (1:14) is presented as the key that unlocks the mystery of the divine purpose. “In Christ” creation and redemption are one. In the cross and resurrection (1:18, 20) both past and future find the clue to their ultimate significance. (James D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996], 91-92)

Compare this with what Dunn wrote in a very learned tome on Christology:

We must rather orient our exegesis of v. 16a more closely round the recognition that once again we are back with wisdom terminology—as perhaps Ps. 104.24 (103.24 LXX) makes most clearly:

Ps. 104.24 - πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας

Col 1.16 - ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα

What does this mean, to say that Christ is the creative power (= wisdom) of God by means of which God made the world? . . . This may simply be the writer’s way of saying that Christ now reveals the character of the power behind the world. The Christian thought certainly moves out from the recognition that God’s power was most fully and finally (eschatologically) revealed in Christ, particularly in his resurrection. But that power is the same power which God exercised in creating all things—the Christian would certainly not want to deny that. Thus the thought would be that Christ defines what is the wisdom, the creative power of God—he is the fullest and clearest expression of God’s wisdom (we could almost say its archetype). If then Christ is what God’s power/wisdom came to be recognized as, of Christ it can be said what was said first of wisdom—that ‘in him (the divine wisdom now embodied in Christ) were created all things’. In other words the language may be used here to indicate the continuity between God’s creative power and Christ without the implication being intended that Christ himself was active in creation. ‘He is before all things (προ παντων) . . .’ (v. 17). The exegete here has the same problem with προ as with πρωτοτοκος in v. 16b: it is intended in a temporal sense, or is it priority in the sense of superiority in status which is meant, or is a deliberate ambiguity intended? The following clause (‘in him all things hold together’) if anything supports the first (or third) alternatives and sets up once again wholly in the same Wisdom/Logos context of thought. In which case again probably we do not have a statement of Christ as pre-existent so much as a statement about the wisdom of God now defined by Christ, now wholly equated with Christ. (James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation [2d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989], 190-91)

Jerry L. Sumney mirrors Dunn et al. with the following:

Colossians 1:16 uses the prepositions en (“in”), dia (“through”), and eis (“for”), as 1 Cor 8:6 and Rom 11:36 uses dia and eis to speak of the relationship between Christ and the world. Colossians 1:16 does not, however, use the preposition ek (“out of, from”) to describe this relationship, through Paul does use it to speak of God’s relationship with the world in 1 Cor 8:6. Lohse understands this selection of prepositions to indicate that the writers of these texts see God as the source of creation, with Christ always as mediator of this act of God (50 n. 125). This is certainly the theological stance that the Colossian poem advocates, whether or not the particular prepositions are chosen to express it. The assertions in 1 Corinthians and Romans, that creation came into being through Christ demonstrate that this idea is not a late theological development. Already in the early 50s of the first century, Christians were thinking of Christ as a preexistent being through who God created the chaos. (Jerry L. Sumney, Colossians: A Commentary [New Testament Library; Louiseville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2008], 69)

In Col 1:19, we read: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." Two aorists are used in this verse (ευδοκησεν [thought/pleased] and κατοικησαι [dwell]; cf. Col 2:9). If we go along with the trinitarian view, then at what point in time was God the Son filled with God's fullness, and was he God before this happened in their view? Such is consistent with LDS theology, such as the LDS interpretation of Phil 2:5-11, but at odds-end with Trinitarian theology.

Verse 18 reads; "And he is the head of the body, the church is the beginning of the firstborn of the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence." This is nonsense in light of the hypostatic union which states that Christ was "fully God" while incarnate, but only "veiled" his divinity (more on this later when we discuss Phil 2:5-11). However, this is part of a ινα clause in Greek, meaning that Christ became the "firstborn of the dead" in order that he might have the preeminent, or "supreme" (πρωτεύων). As one Greek scholar wrote:

The authority of Christ is the driving focus, as seen in the fact he is the agent in the creation of τὰ πάντα (1:16), which is to be taken in its most sweeping sense. His authority is implied further by the list of authorities and powers later in the verse. The πρὸ πάντων in 1:17 probably refers to authority and not priority in time is seen in the parallel καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ in 1:18. Bruce thinks that πρωτότοκος refers primarily to his preexistence. But while preexistence cannot be denied, rulership is the more important focus. (J. William Johnston, The Use of πας in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Greek [New York: Peter Lang, 2004], 177)

Maximillian Zerwick, a Jesuit New Testament scholar, echoed such sentiments:

287. In Col 1,16f St Paul establishes Christ’s universal primacy on the grounds ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα (aorist: historical fact). Christ is however not only the efficient cause (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ) but also the final cause (εἰς αὐτὸν) and as such is even more in the present (and future) than in the past; hence to describe this state of affairs Paul now uses the perfect: πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται,· and adds by way of conclusion πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, a perfect expressing the fact that we and the universe have in Christ our subsistence, our internal cohesion, an intimate relation with one another and the universe—What Christ’s resurrection was for Paul, namely the beginning, once and for all, of the new αιων, which is ours, is well illustrated by his use of a perfect along with three aorists in 1 Cor 15,3: Christ died (απεθανεν) for our sins . . . and was buried (εταφη) and is risen (εγηγερται—but English has to use past instead of the perfect on account of the following “on the third day”) . . . . and He appeared (ωφθη) to Cephas.” (Maximillian Zerwick, Biblical Greek [trans. Joseph Smith; Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, Rome, 1963], 97)

The "Mormon Jesus" being a "Spirit Brother" of Satan--what the Bible really says

In Job 1:6, we read the following:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

In this text, Satan is presented as being among the “Sons of God” (בני האלהים) This can be seen in the verb יצב (to take [their] stand/position”) and that Satan is said to be in their “midst,” that is, he belongs among their ranks, clearly demonstrating that the theology of Job holds to a “Satan” who has real, ontological existence, in contradistinction to some Christadelphian interpretation of the "Satan" texts in Job. When one examines the phrase, “among them” (KJV), one finds that the Hebrew is a phrase consisting of the prefixed preposition (בְּ) meaning “in/among” and (תָּוֶךְ). When one examines the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes someone being a member of a group, not independent thereof (e.g., Exo 28:33; Lev 17:8, 10, 13; Num 1:47; 5:3; 15:26, 29, etc.); indeed, commentators such as David J.A. Clines states that the phrase regularly denotes membership of the group in question (See Clines, Job 1-20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 1989], 19). The bare term תָּוֶךְ also denotes membership, not independence, of the group in question (cf. Gen 23:10; 40:20; 2 Kgs 4:13).

Furthermore, the "Satan" in Job 1:6, in Hebrew, is not just the bare term (שָׂטָן), meaning an "adversary," which, in and of itself, can denote anyone who opposes another, whether divine or not (e.g., the angel of the Lord is referred to as an adversary or שָׂטָן in Num 22:22), but is coupled with the definite article (השטן), “the satan,” which denotes the supernatural tempter (cf. Zech 3:2); one should compare this with similar Greek locutions in the LXX and NT such as such as ο σατανας (Sirach 21:27; Matt 12:26; Mark 3:26; 4:15; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7); ο διαβολος (Matt 4:1,5,8,11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2,3,6,13; 8:12; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:6, 7; 2 Tim 2:26; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:10) and ο πειραζω (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), all denoting the external, supernatural tempter in most of Christian theologies (some small groups denying a supernatural Satan notwithstanding).

Why is this significant? One popular charge is that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus and Satan are “brothers.” Left on its own, it is shocking and seen as blasphemous. However, leaving this on its own, with no explanation, is “yellow journalism.”

In Latter-day Saint Christology Christ has existed for all eternity; many critics claim that LDS theology is reflective of Arianism or some other Christology, but that is a non sequitur. D&C 93:21 and other texts affirm that Christ has existed eternally. Notice the “high Christology” of the following two passages from uniquely LDS scriptural texts (more could be reproduced):

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he [Christ] is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Alma 11:39)

I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. (D&C 19:1)

In LDS theology, properly stated (and not the caricature one finds in works such as The God Makers and other presentations thereof) states we all pre-existed as the spirit sons and daughters of God. In that sense, we are all brothers/sisters of Jesus. However, Job 1:6 proves, unless one is a Christadelphian or some other similar group, “the Satan” is one of the “sons of God,” that is, a member of the heavenly court, one of whom was Yahweh. Note Deut 32:7-9 from the NRSV, reflecting the Qumran reading (see this blog post reproducing what a recent scholarly commentary has to say about this important pericope):

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

While much more could be said, it should be noted that, as with so many beliefs, it is Latter-day Saint theology, not Evangelical theology, that is supported by biblical exegesis.

On the issue of pre-existence, only LDS, not the Trinitarian, model allows for one to speak of Jesus pre-existing, as well as allowing for his (personal) pre-existence not to conflict with his being truly and fully human. For a fuller discussion, see:

The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence

Do the Synoptic Gospels Refute the Doctrine of Eternal Marriage?

The question of eternal marriage came up during the audience Q&A. AS dismissed the issue out of hand, arguing that Jesus refuted the concept of marriage existing in the age to come (he strongly depreciated its eschatological value) and Kwaku's response to his abuse of Jesus' encounter with the Sadducees, recorded in Matthew and Mark, with a pretty lame response. Here we will examine this issue more carefully.

Matt 22:23-30

As for Matt 22:30, which is the most commonly-cited text used against LDS teachings on this issue has Jesus addressing the Sadducees, saying:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Firstly, it should be noted that the Sadducees rejected belief in angels and the resurrection. Furthermore, when one examines the Greek, it refutes the argument.

“[Neither] marry” is [οὔτε] γαμοῦσιν, the present indicative active of the verb “to marry” (γαμεω). “Given in marriage” is γαμιζονται, again, the present indicative active of the verb γαμιζω “to give in marriage.” Jesus is not speaking of there being no marriage bonds in the hereafter, but that, in the age to come, there will be no performances or marriage. One’s opportunity to be married is something that can only take place on this side of eternity, to borrow the common phraseology. Matt 22:30 is therefore addressing the act of being married; nothing is said, for or against, marriages performed in this age continuing into the hereafter.

As Kevin Barney wrote in a blog post addressing this topic:

If Matthew had wanted to report that Christ had said in effect “Neither are they now in a married state (because of previously performed weddings),” the Greek in which he wrote would have let him say so unambiguously. He would have used a perfect tense [gegamēkasin] or a participial form [gamēsas] of the verb. He did not, so that cannot be what he meant. Jesus said nothing about the married state of those who are in heaven. By using the present indicative form of the verb, Matthew reports Jesus as saying in effect “In the resurrection, there are no marriages performed.” Jesus goes on to compare those in the resurrection to the angels of God, for unlike mortals they will never die and, according to Jewish tradition, they do not need to eat. The key point is that, contrary to the misconceptions of the Sadducees, life in the resurrection will be different in many ways from life in mortality. (Jesus then goes on to make an additional argument in favor of the resurrection in the following verses.)

The potential continuation of the marriage state in the hereafter for those married in mortality is consistent with another statement of Jesus, as recorded in Matt. 19:6: “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

One non-LDS scholar, Ben Witherington, wrote the following, showing that the question of the eternality or lack thereof of marriage is not in view in Jesus' encounter with the Sadducees; commenting on the Markan parallel found in ch. 12, he wrote:

Jesus’ response, which begins at v.24, suggests that the Sadducees are ignorant of both the content of the Hebrew Scriptures and the power of God. Jesus stresses that in the age to come, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of terms γαμουσιν and γαμαζονται is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state (see, for example, Tertullian, On Monogamy 10, who specifically denies that God will separate in the next life those whom he has joined together in a holy union in this one). Jesus, the, could seem to be arguing against a specific view held by the Sadducees about the continuity between this life and the life to come, a view involving the ongoing practice of Levirate marriage.

 I would suggest that Luke’s expansion of his Markan source at Luke 20:36 understands quite well the rift of the discussion. In the eschatological state we have resurrected beings who are no longer able to die. Levirate marriage existed precisely because of the reality of death. When death ceases to happen, the rationale for levirate marriage falls to the ground as well. When Jesus saying in v.25b that people will be like the angels in heaven in the life to come, he does not mean they will live a sexless identity (early Jews did not think angels were sexless in any case; cf. Gen. 6:1-4! [Though there is, interestingly, evidence that some early Jews believed that angels didn’t marry—see 1 Enoch 15:7. There was furthermore the belief that the dead became angels after the resurrection [cf. 1 Enoch 51:4; 104:4; Bar. 51:9-10]. On the discontinuity of this world and the world to come [including the assertion that there will be no begetting], see B. Ber. 17a), but rather that they will be like angels in that they are unable to die. Thus the question of the Sadducees is inappropriate to the condition of the eschatological state. I would suggest that Jesus, like other early Jews, likely distinguished between normal marriage and levirate marriage. In Mark 10 Jesus grounded normal marriage in the creation order, not in the order of the fall, which is the case with levirate marriage (instituted because of death and childlessness and the need to preserve the family name and line). Thus Jesus is intending to deny about the eschatological state “that there will be any natural relation out of which the difficulty of the Sadducees could arise.” (Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001], 328-29)

Some critics also bring up Rom 7:2 as evidence against LDS teachings on eternal marriage. The text reads thusly:

For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

In context, Paul is speaking about "the law" (ο νομος), as seen in Rom 7:1. He is not addressing whether the marriage sealing between two faithful Christians continues into eternity, but that the Torah's teachings about marriage are only binding while both are alive; when one passes away, it is not an act of adultery for the widow or widower to remarry. Such is commensurate with Latter-day Saint theology.

James D.G. Dunn, in his seminal commentary on Romans, wrote the following about the background to vv.2-3:

The point of the law is illustrated by the case of the married woman. Under Jewish law, once married to her husband she was bound to him, and there was no way provided by the Torah for her to end that relationship prior to his death. Only when he died she was released from that law which bound her to him. The law governing the marriage relationship became inapplicable and so powerless over the wife as soon as the marriage relationship ceased with her husband’s death. The authority and power of the law over the wife is shown by the fact that it names her adulteress, with all the opprobrium, guilty, and liability to the penalty of death which that word then carried, if she consorts with another man while her husband is still alive. Likewise the way in which the power and authority o the law I completely nullified and rendered inoperative by the husband’s death is shown by the fact that once her husband is dead the same woman can do precisely the same thing without incurring any name or blame of adultery. There is a death which liberates from the lordship of sin (6:9-10, 18), so there is a death which liberates form the lordship of the law. (James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 [Word Biblical Commentary 38a; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988], 368)

Furthermore, as Dunn (ibid., 360) notes, under Roman Law, the widow was not freed from the law of her husband by his death, since she was obliged to mourn his death and to remain unmarried for twelve months.

Implicit Evidence for Eternal Marriage in the Bible

While there is no explicit statement affirming such, there is implicit biblical evidence supporting this doctrine from the Bible. Jeff Lindsay provides a typical list of biblical evidence for “eternal marriage”:

There are indications of eternal marriage and eternal families in the Bible. One of the earliest comes from Job. At the end, Job is blessed with double of all the things he had lost (Job 42:10,12). We are then given a lost of these things, and indeed we see that he was blessed with double the number of sheep, camels, oxen, and asses. But "he had also seven sons and three daughters" (Job 42:13), the same number be had before his trial (Job 1:2). The implication is that he still had the original children, consistent with the LDS view that families can be eternal.

1 Pet. 3:7 hints at eternal marriage, when Peter speaks of the man and woman being "heirs together" of the grace of life. Another suggestion of eternal marriage comes from the word of Christ about the sealing power he gave to Peter (Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18): whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound (sealed) in heaven. And of marriage, Christ said "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6). Also, in the Lord (possibly meaning in heaven or in the eternities), the man is not without the woman and vice versa, according to 1 Cor. 11:11.

Admittedly, at best, these are allusions or implicit evidences for such; nothing explicit as one finds in D&C 132:12, 15-17. Jeff admits that “The Bible is admittedly incomplete in its teachings of eternal marriage." However, this would only be problematic if one believes in the formal sufficiency of the Bible. AS, as a Protestant, holds to such; Latter-day Saints do not, so it is not problematic for us (cf. Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura)

Evidence for Antiquity of Belief in Eternal Marriage

The concept of eternal marriage is well-attested among Jews in the medieval period and is frequently mentioned in the Zohar, which also notes that God has a wife, the Matrona ("mother"), and is known in the Talmud. In the Falasha (the black Jews of Ethiopia) the text 5 Baruch ,has Jeremiah's scribe, Baruch, being shown various parts of the heavenly Jerusalem, with different gates for different heirs. The text then says, "I asked the angel who conducted me and said to him: 'Who enters through this gate?' He who guided me answered and said to me: 'Blessed are those who enter through this gate. [Here] the husband remains with his wife and the wife remains with her husband'" (Wolf Leslau, Falasha Anthology [New Haven: Yale, 1951, 1971], 65.) 

A hint of the eternal nature of marriage is found in Tertullian's discourse on the widow, in which he wrote: "Indeed, she prays for his [her husband's] soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection" (On Monogamy 10). In the same passage, speaking of marriage, he wrote: "If we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other…But if 'in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels,' is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate - destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognize as well our own selves as them who are ours…Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together, since we shall all be with the one God - albeit the wages be various, albeit there be 'many mansions,' in the house of the same Father - having labored for the 'one penny' of the selfsame hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate those whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated." (Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4: 56, 67) 

The pseudepigraphic Joseph and Aseneth 15:6 has a heavenly messenger telling Aseneth, "Behold, I have given you today to Joseph for a bride, and he himself will be your bridegroom, forever (and) ever." In a later passage, the Egyptian king tells Joseph "Behold, is not this one betrothed to you since eternity? And shall be your wife from now own and forever (and) ever?" (Joseph and Aseneth 21:3). Pharaoh then tells Aseneth, "justly the Lord, the God of Joseph, has chosen you as a bride for Joseph, because he is the firstborn of God. And you shall be called a daughter of the Most High and a bride of Joseph from now and forever" (Joseph and Aseneth 21:4) (My copy of the text is from The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth [2 vols.; Broadway: Doubleday, 1983], 2:202-47). 

Conclusion

While much more could be said, this review is already 20,000+ words. It should be clear, however, that AS' arguments rested on eisegesis, misrepresentation of LDS theology, and faulty presuppositions. While 

As AS is now having public debates with LDS apologists, he can consider this a debate challenge on the topic of Sola Scriptura. Here is the proposed structure:

Thesis: Is Sola Scriptura, the Formal Doctrine of the Reformation, Biblical?

Opening statements: 30 mins each

Rebuttals: 15 mins each

Cross ex: 15 mins each 

Conclusions: 10 mins each

I am sure some readers of this blog will happily contribute to a travel fund to get me to Utah for such a debate. Further, I have written extensively on the issue, including the following lengthy essay:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura