Discerning Latter-day
Saints should always be careful when reading works, even of our scholars, as
sometimes, they can be influenced more, not by LDS theology but Protestant
concepts (sometimes due to where they received their education; sometimes in an
effort to engage in ecumenism).
An example
of this comes from a popular-level work by two LDS scholars, D. Kelly Ogden and
Andrew C. Skinner, arguing (falsely) that justification is purely forensic and
is based on an imputation of righteousness:
A modern scholar explained clearly the
difference between justification and sanctification in Paul’s discussions; “In
its theological sense, justification is a forensic, or purely legal, term. It
describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the
believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the
sinner’s nature or character . . . So when God justifies, He imputes divine
righteousness to the sinner (Romans 4:22-25). (D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C.
Skinner, Verse By Verse: Acts Through
Revelation [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998], 163, citing John MacArthur
[a Reformed Protestant], Faith Works,
89-90)
Ogden,
Skinner, and John MacArthur are all dead-wrong. To see why justification is not “purely legal,” actually is transformational,
and the concept of imputation is blasphemous, see, for e.g.:
Does LDS Theology Confuse the Relationship Between Justification and Sanctification?
Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation (I will just briefly note here that the LDS understanding of baptism and its effects cannot be reconciled with forensic justification)
Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification and Refutation of Dave Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic
It is
interesting to note that Rom 4:22-25 negates the Protestant understanding of
the atonement. On this, see:
Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30
