Joseph Smith as judge and Matthew 19:28

Many critics are bothered by statements from early LDS leaders on Joseph Smith's role in the final judgement, including the following from Brigham Young:

Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.... I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption (Journal of Discourses 7:289)

This issue has been dealt with rather cogently by many LDS apologists (see this page, for example).

LDS apologists have often appealed to texts such as Matt 19:28 and its parallel in Luke 22:30, where Jesus promises the twelve a role in the eschatological judgement of the twelve tribes of Israel, similar to the role some early LDS leaders expected the Prophet Joseph Smith to play:

And Jesus and unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt 19:28)

Methodist New Testament scholar, James D.G. Dunn, commenting on this text, wrote the following which I think LDS readers will greatly appreciate:

The exalted Jesus [promises the disciples a] sharing in divine functions, particularly that of judge: 'God will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed . . .' (Acts 17.31; similar Rom. 2.16); 'We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ” (II Cor. 5.10). But here again the most striking parallel feature of the then current Enoch speculation is precisely the role attributed to Enoch in the final judgement . . .Enoch is linked with Elijah in this role in 1 Enoch 90.31 and the Apocalypse of Elijah 24.11-15. In 11 QMelchizedek, Melchizedek is depicted as a heavenly being—apparently the angelic leader ('elohim') of the holy ones who execute judgement on Belial and his host (lines 13-14). In the Testament of Abraham 11 and 13 Adam and Abel are shown in similarly exalted roles. Perhaps above all we need to recall that in our own texts first the twelve are said to be given share in the final judgement (Matthew 19.28/Luke 22.30—sitting on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel), and then the saints as a whole--'Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? . . .Do you know that we are to judge angels?' (I Cor. 6.2-3). (James D.G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity [2d ed.; London: SCM Press, 2006], 246).

Adam/Michael being differentiated from God

The following are representative examples of Michael/Adam being differentiated from God (the Father) in early LDS literature, showing that the “Adam-God” doctrine that necessitates the one-to-one identification of God (the Father) with the person of Adam(Michael) violates a most basic law of logic, the identity of indiscernibles.

That the teaching was not official LDS doctrine can be seen in many areas, not the least is that there was no unanimous consent about it even during Brigham Young’s time:

In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith, and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice-the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Seventies may decide upon the same principle. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. (Journal of Discourses, 9:91-92 [Brigham Young])

For a more thorough discussion, see the late Matthew Brown’s paper on this issue.

Collected Discourses Vol. 4, p.70

And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca County, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And the voice of Michael, the arch-angel; the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam, down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their Priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little—giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope. (Wilford Woodruff)

Conference Report, October 1902, p.82

We believe that there are gods, as the Savior quoted. He repeated what was written in the law, and He did not say it was wrong, but used it as an argument against them. While, however, we believe, as the scripture states, that there are more gods, to us where is but one God. We worship the God that created the heavens and the earth. We worship the same God that came to our first parents in the Garden of Eden. In the revelation contained in Section 106 of the Book of D&C the Lord speaks concerning Adam-ondi-Ahman, "the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet." In the 107th section, the Lord speaks of Adam as "Michael, the Prince, the Archangel," and says that he shall be a prince over the nations for ever. We may with perfect propriety call him prince, the ancient of days, or even God in the meaning of the words of Christ, which I have Just quoted; but we do not worship him, we worship the same God that he worshipped. When our missionaries are met with these sophistries and with isolated extracts from sermons, we say to them that anything that is a tenet of our religion must come through revelation and be sustained by the Church, and they need not do battle for anything outside of the works that have been accepted by the Church as a body. When men come with extracts from sermons, let them bring the whole sermon, so that the context can be taken to see what was the meaning of the preacher, and not bring a few isolated passages whose meaning can be twisted and distorted to something opposite to what was trio tended. Our brethren have a right to ask for this. They can defend the principles they teach by the revelations of God as contained in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Book of D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price, the standard works of the Church; outside of these they need not go. Many of our Elders, when they go out into the world, have never heard of the things that are brought up against us, because they are not doctrines believed or taught here. In regard to the young man who lately committed a fearful deed, in New York, and the charge that the teachings of Mormonism had caused him to do it, I am safe in saying that the young man never heard at home in Zion a single thing taught by the people here in regard to the horrible doctrine attributed to us by the world, called "Blood atonement," for nothing is taught either in private or in public that would lead to such a dreadful crime. It is only out in the world where we are accused of holding such views. I have alluded to the arguments brought against us and the works considered by us as standards in order that our missionaries may not feel at a loss what to do. They know the works which have been accepted by the Church; they can read the word of God unto His people, both ancient and modern, and let them plant themselves firmly thereon. God bless you all. Amen. (Anthon H. Lund)

Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p.331-32

Their belief reminds me that brother Joseph B. Nobles once told a Methodist priest, after hearing him describe his god, that the god they worshipped was the "Mormons'" Devil—a being without a body, whereas our God has a body, parts, and passions. The Devil was cursed and sent down from heaven. He has no body of his own; therefore he is constantly endeavouring to obtain possession of the tabernacles belonging to others. Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. Where was Michael in the creation of this earth? Did he have a mission to the earth? He did. Where was he? In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him there. Now, if it should happen that we have to pay tribute to Father Adam, what a humiliating circumstance it would be! Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him,  you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, "I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;" and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to year present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, "Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass;" then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam. But those are ideas which do not concern us at present, although it is written in the Bible —"This is eternal life, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (Brigham Young)

Journal of Discourses Vol. 10,  p.235

We have been taught that our Father and God, from whom we sprang, called and appointed his servants to go and organize an earth, and, among the rest, be said to Adam, "You go along also and help all you can; you are going to inhabit it when it is organized, therefore go and assist in the good work." It reads in the Scriptures that the Lord did it, but the true rendering is, that the Almighty sent Jehovah and Michael to do the work. They were also instructed to plant every kind of vegetable, likewise the forest and the fruit trees, and they actually brought from heaven every variety of fruit, of the seeds of vegetables, the seeds of flowers, and planted them in this earth on which we dwell. And I will say more, the spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth. (Heber C. Kimball)

Journal of Discourses Vol. 26,  pp.128-29

We are here as Jesus was here, not to do our own will, but the will of our Father who sent us. He has placed us here; we have a work to do in our day and generation; and there is nothing of importance connected with any of us only as we are associated with God! and His work, whether it be the President of the Church, the Twelve Apostles, the Presidents of Stakes, the Bishops, or anybody else, and we can only thus be of any service by placing ourselves in a position to act as God dictates us; as He regulates and manipulates the affairs of His Church in the interests of humanity, in behalf of the living and of the dead, in behalf of the world in which we live, and in behalf of those who, have lived before us, and who will live after us. We can none of us do anything only as we are assisted, guided and directed by the Lord. No man ever lived that could. Adam could not. Noah could not. Even Jesus could not. Nor could the Apostles. They were all of them dependent upon the God of Israel to sustain them in all of their acts. And in regard to Adam himself, as we are, so was he very ignorant of many principles until they were revealed to him. And if they were revealed to him they did not originate with him; and so it was with others. We find that Adam was directed of the Lord to do a certain thing—that is, to offer up sacrifices—and when the angel of the Lord came to him and said: "Adam why do you offer up sacrifices?" Adam replied, "I do not know; but the Lord commanded me to do it, and therefore I do it." He did not know what those sacrifices were for until the Lord revealed unto him the doctrine of the atonement and the necessity of the tall of man, and pointed out to him the way and manner to obtain an exaltation. Then he and Eve his wife rejoiced exceedingly at the mercy and kindness of the Almighty, and realized that even in their fall they were placed in a position to obtain a higher glory, and a greater exaltation than they could have done without it. Now, who revealed this to them? The Lord, through the ministering of an holy angel; and in relation to the dealings of God with all of the human family it has been precisely the same. We are told, for instance, that when Adam had lived to a great age—that three years before his death he called together his family—that is, some of the leading branches thereof who held the Holy Priesthood, mentioning the names of many of the more prominent that had received certain peculiar blessings from the hand of God—and there was manifested to him all things that should transpire to his posterity throughout all the future generations of time, and he prophesied of these things; and also upon those who were with him, rested the spirit of prophecy, and he blessed them, and they turned around and blessed him and called him Michael the Archangel, the Prince of Peace, etc. By what spirit then did Adam prophesy, and under what influence was he operating at that time? We are told in Scripture that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, and he in common with his sons who were then associated with him were in possession of that spirit which enlightened their minds, unfolded unto them the principles of truth, and revealed unto them the things that would transpire throughout every subsequent period of time. Who manifested these things? The Lord. Who organized the world? The Lord. Who made man upon it? The Lord. Who placed upon it the fowls of the air, the beasts of the field, and the fish of the sea? The Lord. Who sustains all things by his power? The Lord. Who controls the affairs of the world? The Lord. To whom are we indebted for life, for health, and for every blessing that we enjoy? To the Lord. He is the God of the earth, and the giver of every good and perfect gift which we enjoy, and He desires to gather together a people that will observe His laws, that will keep His commandments, that will render obedience to His will, that will submit to His authority, and for this purpose, in different ages of the world, He has introduced the Gospel and has placed man in possession thereof. (John Taylor)

Word Biblical Commentary on Psalm 82

Ps 82 opens abruptly, without an introduction, with an immediate focus on God (Yahweh) having taken his stand in the midst of a council, or assembly, of divine beings while he pronounces judgment (v 1). He is clearly in charge, presiding over the meeting. “God” is not further identified, but he is surely Yahweh, the “Great God” who is designated as the “Great King over all the gods” (מלך גדול על־כל־אלהים) in Ps 95:3; cf. 96:4 (Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 155). The “gods” (אלהים) are the divine beings who function as his counselors and agents. cf. v 6; Pss 8:6; 29:1 (“sons of gods,” בני אלים); 89:6–7; Exod 15:11; Job 1:6; 2:1; Gen 6:2. The scene is pictured as that of a divine assembly in which the great king pronounces sentence on some of the gods who have failed in their duties. Tsevat (HUCA 40 [1969] 127) notes that the psalm’s opening suggests that what “might normally be a routine assembly, where the gods report or participate in deliberations, has unexpectedly turned into a tribunal; God has stood up to judge the assembled.” See also, Mowinckel, PIW, I, 151. In this regard the meeting is similar to that in Job 1:6–12, which seems routine until Yahweh and Satan come into conflict over Job . . . Vv 3–4 are composed of a set of commands to the gods, following the question in v 2. They must recall the commission of the gods, since it would make little sense to command them to do what they will no longer have the opportunity to do because of their sentence in v 7. Their commission has been to provide judgment for those who lack the wealth and power to defend themselves in human society. The repetition of words for poor and needy people in vv 3–4 is an effective poetic device (Tsevat, 128): דל—יתום—עני—רשׁ—דל: “weak”—“orphan”—“humble” (or, “oppressed”)—“needy”—“weak.” The imperative verb “judge” in 3a doubtless means “judge justly,” but it seems to me that it may indicate the need for elders, judges, kings, and other leaders to actively intervene in the interest of powerless people who cannot defend their rights. V 2 expresses the positive action of the gods in giving advantage to the wicked, and v 3 sets forth their failure to act on behalf of the needy.

Yahweh expects judges and leaders to protect the marginalized people in society: the poor, the oppressed, and those without family support. Thus Job in his days of power and wealth testified that he went into the gate (where legal cases were tried) and “delivered the poor [עני] who cried, / and the orphan who had no helper. / The blessing of the poor [אבד] came upon me, / and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy” (Job 29:12–13, nrsv). Further he declared: “I was eyes to the blind, / and feet to the lame. / I was a father to the needy, / and championed [ריב] the cause of the stranger. / I broke the fangs of the unrighteous [עול] / and made them drop their prey from their teeth” (Job 29:15–17, nrsv). Also, note the reference in Amos 5:10–12 regarding the hatred of wealthy oppressors for “the one who reproves [מוכיח] in the gate” and the “one who speaks the truth” about those who “trample on the poor [דל]” in order to build their fine houses and maintain their affluent lifestyle. The contrast with the performance of the gods is evident; they have failed to do their duty.

The identity of the speaker in v 5 is ambiguous. God may continue his charge against the gods, or else further describe the condition of the oppressed people in vv 3–4, as in Johnson (Sacral Kingship, 90), who translates: “Rescue the weak and the poor/who have neither knowledge nor understanding,/But live persistently in darkness, / So that all the foundations of the earth are shaken.” Also, Kidner (II, 298), who takes the verse as describing “the plight of the misgoverned and misled.”

However, it seems more likely that v 5 describes the condition of the gods; it is part of their indictment. The speaker could be God addressing other members of the assembly who are not under judgment, turning aside for a moment from direct address to the condemned gods and perhaps presupposing a pause after v 4 when the gods could have responded but did not (Gunkel, 362; Ackerman, 380–83). Tsevat (HUCA 40 [1969] 129) suggests that the speaker is God and that the verse is “not an address or a proclamation but the deliberation of the judge in camera in preparation for the verdict.” It is, of course, possible that it is the voice of the psalmist who interrupts the flow of the account with a reflection or commentary on the nature of the gods—or possibly on the condition of the lowly and poor in vv 3–4. It seems more probable to me, however, in view of the form critical nature of the psalm (see Form/Structure/Setting) that the speaker in v 5 is an anonymous voice of one of the members of the heavenly assembly, the narrator in vv 1 and 8. (Tate, M. E. (1998). Psalms 51–100 (Vol. 20, pp. 334–335, 336-337). Dallas: Word, Incorporated)

The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration

Here is a paper by a Catholic apologist, Bryan Cross, entitled, "The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration." It is very thorough and is further evidence that the purely symbolic view of baptism held by many of our Evangelical critics is without any historical support and it is, in fact, a man-made tradition.

The importance of preparation before baptism

Prior to baptism, candidates for Latter-day Saint baptism are expected to produce evidence of their worthiness to be baptised, or, to quote from Moroni 6:1 in the Book of Mormon, "they [are] not baptised save they brought forth meet that they [are] worthy of it." Such would include a basic knowledge of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as faith  in Jesus Christ and repentance of one's sins. Some critics of LDS soteriology may see this as evidence of a legalistic "works-based" salvation, notwithstanding the many instances in Scripture where some preparation in the life of a person is necessary before becoming a full-fledged member of the Christian faith, such as Cornelius in Acts 10 and the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matt 3:8: "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (NIV).

In the Lukan parallel to the Matthean text, John the Baptist tells the crowd what some of these "fruits" are:

(1) Share food and clothing with their neighbour: ". . . He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none: and he that hath meat, let him do likewise" (Luke 3:11)

(2) Not to steal: " . . . Exact no more than that which is appointed you" (Luke 3:13)

(3) Not to steal, like, or complain (spoken to the soldiers, but such is a universal expectation and commandment): " . . . Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:14)

If one is to charge Latter-day Saints with a raw works-righteousness gospel, for the sake of consistency, they will have to charge John the Baptist with such, too.

One may object, citing the example of the Philippian jailer who was baptised without much prior preparation. The pertinent text is Acts 16:31-34:

And [Paul and Silas] said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptised, he and all his, straightway. And then he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

One has to realise that the circumstances surrounding the baptism of the jailer are extraordinary--an earthquake releases Paul and Silas from jail, resulting in the jailer about to commit suicide as he would be held responsible for their escape. Upon pleading with him to stop, the jailer listens to the message of Paul and Silas and accepts the gospel message. Notwithstanding, Paul and Silas are still fugitives and the jailer is still answerable to his superiors, resulting in a paucity of preparation time, but the jailers still receive some preparation, viz. an early morning lesson on the rudiments of the Christian faith which results in his household coming to faith, too, and following such, they are baptised, as Paul knows that, not only is there scant possibility of seeing this jailer again due to his fugitive status, but also the essential/salvific nature of water baptism, Paul administered this ordinance in the middle of the night, but notwithstanding these extraordinary circumstances, we can be sure that Paul (and Silas) expected the jailer to have at least some meaningful knowledge of, and love for, God, as well as a genuine confession of sin before baptism, something Acts 16:32 witnesses to: "And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house" (1995 NASB).

Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin vs. James White

This video is part 1 of a 6-part series from the 1993 radio debate between James White and LDS scholars, Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin. Enjoy!

Kevin Barney on the JST of 1 Corinthians

Mike Ash Refutes Jeremy Runnells

LDS apologist, Mike Ash, has recently released his paper critiquing Jeremy Runnell's nonsense in his "CES Letter." The work, entitled, "Bamboozled by the 'CES Letter'" can be found as a .pdf here.

The Spirit as a Down-Payment

One will often hear that one can have "eternal life" in the here and now, and they cannot possibly lose it. This is often based on an appeal to 1 John 5:13 (exegeted here) and John 10:28-29. The latter text reads:

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

One will often hear a phrase from some Protestant that, "if eternal life can be lost, then it is not eternal after all!" Such ignores the fact that "eternal" can often be qualitative, not quantitative; for instance, in his translation of John 17:3, N.T. Wright understands the phrase ζωη ινα to be "life of the age to come." For a book-length discussion of this term in Greek and Hebrew, see Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2007). Moreover, such confuses the possession with the possessor. For instance, one can possess a car license, but if one drives recklessly, the one who issued the license can take it away. Indeed, such an absolutist view of John 10:28-29 is refuted by other texts in (1) the Johannine literature, such as John 15:1-6 and (2) the rest of Scripture, such as Heb 6:4-9, where a true believer can lose their salvation. Another example would be one being in a parent's will--one can (using prolepsis) say that they "possess" the inheritance, although its actualisation is still in the future, though it is always possible, due to some heinous action(s), one can be disinherited.

Additionally, as with Rom 8:33-38, the New Testament writers are stating the faithfulness of God and Christ, and how they will not cut people off arbitrarily; further, the biblical authors are emphasising that nothing external to the person will remove them from God's saving love. However, as we know from other texts, a believer can indeed cut themselves off.

In reality, the believer has a down-payment of the Holy Spirit and the ramifications of which will not be seen until the life to come. In 2 Cor 1:22, the apostle Paul writes:

Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

This is repeated in 2 Cor 5:5:

Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given us the earnest of the Spirit.

The phrase translated as "the earnest" is αρραβων, meaning a deposit/pledge. Notice how it is used in the LXX to denote a down-payment:

And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge (αρραβων), till you send it? And he said, What pledge (αρραβων) shall I give unto thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him . . . And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge (αρραβων) from the woman's hand: but he found her not. (Gen 38:17-18, 20)

This meaning of αρραβων also appears in another important soteriological text where Paul is discussing the corporate election of the Church and the αρραβων of those therein:

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will; that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise. Which is the earnest (αρραβων) of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:11-14)

In reality, a believer has great confidence in their obtaining eternal life, which is qualitative (the type of life the Father has, per John 17); however, they only have a “pledge” or “down payment” at this point in time, with the full ramifications of which will not be seen until the life to come (cf. 1 Cor 2:9), predicated upon their being faithful to the end (Phil 2:12)

Did 1 Clement teach Sola Fide?

In 1 Clement 32:4, we read:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory or ever and ever. Amen.

This excerpt from Clement's lengthy letter has often been used by Protestant apologists to show that the earliest strata of the Patristic literature supported the Protestant concept of Sola Fide (e.g., James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification [1867]; James R. White in his 2000 debate vs. Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis [youtube]; William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [1995]). However, this represents eisegesis of 1 Clement.

When one reads 1 Clement in full (more on this below), one realises that Clement, as with other Patristic and even biblical authors, is stating the truth that no work obligates God to justify and save an individual (cf. Rom 4:1-8, which condemns works done to legally obligate God to give man salvation), but works stemming from an active faith that pleases God while done in a covenantal/saved state and He graciously rewards, something that has been discussed frequently on this blog. That this is the case can be seen when one examines the previous sentence(!) of this epistle:

For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also was descended our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him arose kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven. All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. (1 Clement 32:2-3)

These words match Titus 3:4-5, a pericope which is in full support of baptismal regeneration:

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

What is often ignored by the likes of Webster and other Evangelical apologists are the texts in 1 Clement that speak of meritorious good works. For instance, note the following from 1 Clement 30:3:

Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.

The phrase "justified by our works" is ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι, μὴ λόγοις, using the verb δικαιοω, the verb "to justify" and such is derived from one's works (εργοις), not by faith alone.

Clement continues writing, stating:

Let testimony to our good deeds (της αγαθης πραξεως) be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. (1 Clement 30:7)

In sharp contradistinction between many Evangelicals, Clement did not view our goods works as "filthy rags" (per the common eisegesis of Isa 64:6), but instead, were "good" and, per 30:3, meritorious when one is in a salvific relationship/covenant with God.

This is further strengthened by Clement's discussion of the near-sacrifice of Issac by Abraham in Gen 22 (a theme discussed in Jas 2 in the New Testament):

For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice. (1 Clement 31:2-3)

It is no surprise that, in light of the use of Gen 22, and how the New Testament authors understood Abraham's near-sacrifice of his Son to be an example of one is justified by works, and not faith alone, Clement would later write the following in the next chapter:

What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. (1 Clement 33:1)

These words are not to be understood, as some desperate Protestant apologists may twist it to mean (a reward for the saved), but works which determine whether one will be saved at all:

Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition. (1 Clement 35:4-5)

As we have seen, Protestant apologists have to engage in as much eisegesis of Patristic texts as they do for the biblical texts to try to prop up sola fide.

Baptismal Regeneration and the Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas is an early Christian writing from the middle of the second century. It is also a very early Christian witness to how pervasive the doctrine that baptism is salvific truly is:

Further, what says He? "And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whoever shall eat of them shall live for ever." This meaneth, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God, and trust in Jesus in our spirit. (Epistle of Barnabas 11:10)

In this text, the person who is baptised is said to have their sins removed out of the water, showing that water baptism is the instrumental means of regeneration, only strenghtened by the fact that a person's nature, as a result of this baptism, is changed, again, showing that regeneration is the result of baptism. Furthermore, the Greek texts speaks of one "ascending" out of the water (αναβαινω), showing that the earliest Christian mode of baptism was that of immersion, consistent with LDS belief and practice.

For further discussion of the biblical and early Chrisitan understanding of baptism, see

Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgies in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009)

1 Corinthians 7:19 and keeping the commandments

A question that has been debated throughout Christian history is whether Christians/saved believers are expected to keep the commandments of God, and whether the commandments were abrogated alongside the other divisions of the Law of Moses, such as the ceremonial laws.

In 1 Cor 7:19, the apostle Paul's words cuts to the core of so many theologies:

For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. (ESV)

Here, the Christian is not bound by the ceremonial practices of circumcision (cf. Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem), as there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile; notwithstanding, the Christian is still expected to keep the commandments. Indeed, the phrase translated as "but the keeping the commandments" in the ESV is ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ. The term αλλα means "but," showing a strong contrast between these two categories, the former (circumcision [and the rest of the ceremonial practices] being unnecessary for salvation, but the latter being of salvific necessity. That is why some modern translations render the last phrase of this verse as "what is important is the keeping of God's commandments" (e.g., New Jerusalem Bible). This also sheds light on the "work of the law" that are not salvific in Rom 3:28. τηρησις is a noun which means both "keeping" and "imprisonment," emphasising the necessity of keeping the commandments to remain a believer (a la covenantal nomism).

Such is another text that is very problematic to much of Evangelical Protestantism, resulting in a lot of contortions of the biblical texts (e.g., Jas 2:22-24). However, such is part-and-parcel of Latter-day Saint soteriology.

John Tvedtnes, Elijah and the Priests of Baal

The following is a part 1 of a 6-part video presentation by John A. Tvedtnes, a leading LDS scholar, on 1 Kgs 18 and Elijah's encounter with the priests of Baal and Asherah (KJV: "Groves").

Does 1 John 5:1 prove the ordo salutis of Calvinism?

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. (1 John 5:1 ESV)

1 John 5:1 is a favourite “proof-text” by Reformed authors to prove their understanding of the ordo salutis, with regeneration preceding one being the recipient of (saving/true) faith.

Reformed apologists are correct, up to a point. The phrase "everyone who believes" is the Greek ὁ πιστεύων, which is a present active participle (lit. "the believing one"; cf. its usage in John 3:16) while the term "born" in the phrase "born of God" is γεγέννηται, which is the perfect passive of γενναω. Clearly, based on the theology of this verse, regeneration precedes the faith in view in 1 John 5:1, so faith is not the instrumental means of regeneration and one’s initial justification.

However, what many Reformed apologists tend to ignore is the question of what John viewed to be the instrumental means of this regeneration. In John 3:3-5, water baptism is clearly taught to be the instrumental means of one being "born again/from above." See my exegesis of this pericope here.

Furthermore, within the context of 1 John 5 itself, water baptism is the instrumental means of one being spiritually begotten/regenerated. In 1 John 5:6, 8, we read the following:

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth . . . And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These verses, especially when read in light of John 3:3-5 (as well as the myriad of other texts supporting the biblical teaching of baptism being salvific) supports the LDS view on soteriology and the ordo salutis, but not the Reformed understanding thereof.

It is only through the rebirth of water and of the spirit that one puts on Christ (per Gal 3:26-27) becomes a true believer. That is why John makes reference to Christ coming "by water and blood" (v.6) as water baptism is the instrumental means through which Christ's "blood" (atoning sacrifice) is applied to an individual; only by baptism and being the recipient of the benefits of Christ's atoning sacrifice does one become a son of God through adoption. V.8 strengthens this, where the Spirit, water, and blood are said to be "one"--in the act of baptism, the spirit of God sanctifies when one is baptised, while the "blood" of Christ cleanses the person from their past and then-present sins.

As with many claims by Reformed apologists, at best, they are advocating a half-truth. When one examines the context of 1 John 5, as well as the entirety of Johannine literature itself, John taught one was born again/from above through water baptism, resulting in one having the faith in view in 1 John 5:1.

Baptism being salvific: The typological evidence

In biblical theology, there is the concept of a “type” and its “antitype.” The term “type” comes from the Greek word τυπικως which is actually used in the Greek New Testament:

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (τυπικως): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (1 Cor 10:11)

The term τυπικως is defined by Greek lexicons such as Thayer as "by way of example (prefiguratively)." The fulfillment of a type, an antitype, is a fulfillment which is greater than the type itself. As one potent example, one Old Testament type of Christ is the brazen serpent, which we read about in Num 21, which the Lord commissioned Moses to make and lift up as a means of physical salvation to the Israelites. In the Gospel of John, the author understood this event to be a prefigurement of a “type” of the crucifixion:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:14-17)

Jesus was prefigured by the brazen serpent in many respects—both were “lifted up” and both offered salvation to people. However, the life and death of Jesus was much greater than the Old Testament type found in the brazen serpent—the “salvation” the brazen serpent was physical/temporal, but the salvation offered by and through Christ is eternal life; furthermore, the brazen serpent was only for national Israel, while the atoning sacrifice of Christ was for the entire world. Here we see the relationship between a type and its antitype—important parallels, but the latter is, especially on a soteriological level, much greater.

A type/antitype argument can be made in favour of baptism being salvific. The following comes from an essay on Alexander Campbell, a leading 19th-century advocate of baptismal regeneration, and his arguments in favour of the doctrine following this line of reasoning:

Campbell states what the order of the “ancient gospel” is: first a belief in Jesus; next immersion; then forgiveness; then peace with God; then, joy in the Holy Spirit.” This is Campbell’s conclusion after three articles of argumentation.

He begins the explanation of the design of baptism by noting its relationship in typology, particularly basing his reasoning upon Hebrews 10:22. He asserts, as a thesis, that “Christian immersion stands in the same place in the Christian temple, or worship, that the laver, or both [bath] of purification stood in the Jewish; viz. BETWEEN THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST AND ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP.” Just as the High Priest had to wash on the day of atonement before entering the Holiest of Holies, so the believer, before he can worship acceptably, must also have his body washed in the rite of baptism. Calling upon John 3:5, Titus 3:5; and Ephesians 5:26, Campbell concludes that Christian immersion is the antitype of the bath of purification for priests in the Old Testament. This is signaled by the use of the term “washing” itself.

Since baptism corresponds to an Old Testament “ablution,” Campbell demonstrates the New Testament “plainly” affirms that “God forgives men’s sins in the act of immersion.” He argues that disciples were conscious of a particular moment when their sins were remitted, and “a certain act by, or in which their sins were forgiven.” That act was the washing which they could remember or forget. Campbell introduces Acts 2:38 to verify this connection between remitted sins and baptism. There Peter “made repentance, or reformation, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness,” and if no other word were written on the subject, Peter’s command there would be “quite sufficient.” In consequence of what Peter says here Campbell believers that “in the very instant in which” a person is “put under the water,” he receives “the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Consequently, “Christian immersion is the gospel in water.” (John Mark Hicks, “The Recovery of the Ancient Gospel: Alexander Campbell and the Design of Baptism,” in David W. Fletcher, ed. Baptism and the Remission of Sins: An Historical Perspective [Joplin, Miss.: College Press Publishing Company, 1992], 111-70, here, pp.149-50).

If the type/antitype relationship exists between the priestly ablutions and water baptism, we can see their external relationship—the priest is cleansed from ritual impurity by immersion, and a Christian is immersed ritually. However, only by understanding baptism to be salvific can baptism be a true antitype of the priestly ablutions. If one were to hold to a purely symbolic view of baptism, a la Zwingli, Calvin, and much of modern Evangelical Protestantism, baptism was just as (non-)salvific as the priestly ablutions, which would make the Old Testament type as being just as great, vis-à-vis salvation, as its New Testament fulfillment. Latter-day Saint soteriology, however, allows for one to have baptism as the antitype of the priestly ablutions, and, unlike the mere symbolic view of our Evangelical critics, allows the antitype to substantially excel the type thereof.

For further reading on the topic of typology, see Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures (Andrews University Press, 1981)

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament, Part 5: Mark 16:16

In Mark 16:16, we read the following:

He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

This verse has been used by Latter-day Saints as pretty strong evidence of baptism being salvific, as Christ ties both faith and baptism into the “requirements” of salvation. However, there has been much scripture-wrenching to avoid this conclusion. Evangelical critics of LDS soteriology have argued that, since damnation is tied into disbelief, with no reference to not being baptised, Jesus is teaching faith alone saves, and that baptism is a symbol thereof.

Needless to say, such is an utterly pathetic response. It is true that damnation is associated with disbelief, without reference to baptism. However, such a "counter" fails to deal with the fact that salvation is tied to both belief and baptism, as previously mentioned. The reason for the absence of baptism in the second clause of Mark 16:16 is due to the rather simple fact that if one does not believe, they will not be baptised. However, baptismal regeneration is clearly taught with the greatest of perspicuity in this text due to belief and baptism being associated with salvation.

On the issue of the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, the so-called “Longer ending of Mark,” this pericope was known to the authors of  Luke, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and, assuming the priority of Mark, Matthew, and other early Christian authors, and a solid case can be made for their authenticity. See Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (Pickwick Publications, 2014).

The problem posed to Sola Fide by 1 Corinthians 4:4

Often, Latter-day Saints are criticised by many Evangelicals who hold to some theology of eternal security. However, there are many texts (e.g., Heb 6:4-6) that exegetically demolish such theologies. 1 Cor 4:4 is another such verse. It reads as follows:

My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. (1 Cor 4:4 NIV)

As with many soteriological texts, the NIV fudges things. The term translated as "innocent" is the verb δικαιοω, which means "to justify." The KJV is more accurate in its translation than the NIV in this instance, rendering the verse as, "For I know nothing by myself; yet I am not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord." In this verse, the apostle Paul states that he is not infallibly sure that he will be accepted by God on judgement day (see v.5), something that is echoed in his sombre warning in 1 Cor 9:27:

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

The term "castaway" in the KJV is the Greek αδοκιμος which means a "reprobate"; Paul is warning the Corinthian church that even he could lose his salvation (see an exegesis of 1 Cor 9:27 here). This also poses a problem for many Evangelical theologies as Paul understands justification to be not just a once-off, static event in the life of a Christian, but something that also takes place in the future (in the context of 1 Cor 4:4-5, the eschaton).

Does Matthew 23:35 and Luke 24:44 support a Closed Old Testament Canon?

Some Protestant apologists cite Matt 23:35 as evidence that the Old Testament was closed at the time of Jesus (“From the blood of the righteous Abel . . . to the blood of Zechariah”). Proponents claim that this verse defined the limits of the entire Old Testament, understood by Jews to end at 2 Chronicles where the murder of one Zarcharias was recounted; some (e.g., Norman Geisler) have used this “fact” against Latter-day Saint claims (see his essay, “Scripture” in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism [1998]). This, however, simply muddies the water on the concept of both inerrancy and Sola Scriptura because Jesus referred to Zachariahs, the son of Barachias. The Zacharias referred to in 2 Chron 24:20 was the son of Jehoiada. But remember that such is used to support a closed canon--which would also place the New Testament outside the limits of scripture. It is likely that Jesus’ quotation referred not to the Zacharias of 2 Chronicles but to another Zacharias who lived much later and had been killed by the Jews in Jesus’ time. The Lord accused the Jews in his audience of being the murderers of Zacharias by stating, “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matt 23:35). If those Jews were the murderers, the Lord’s comments cannot apply like some (e.g., F.F. Bruce, Canon of Scripture) have contended.

Another problem, among many others, to such a line of argument is the a priori assumption that there was a fixed and clearly identifiable order of the Hebrew Bible by the time of Jesus and that the reference in Luke 24:44 to “the Law of Moses, prophets, and the psalms” does not interfere with that order. If the order of the Writings (Hebrew--Ketubim) was already set by the time of Luke’s writings (after 70 C.E.), it is strange that Josephus (around 95-100 C.E.) does not have such an ordering in his writings (Against Apion 1.37-41). Also, it is strange that none of the early Christians picked up on this three-part biblical canon, and it is not found in any of the church fathers. The best explanation of this, of course, is that the three-part biblical canon of the Jews was developed in the second century C.E., long after the Jews ceased having an influence on the scope of the Christian Scriptures.

Rather than Chronicles being the last book in the Hebrew biblical canon, however, Noel A. Freedman argues convincingly that Chronicles stands in first place in the Writings, and he supports this by reference to the major medieval manuscripts, including the standard Masoretic Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex (Noel A. Freedman, “The Symmetry of the Hebrew Bible,” Studia Theologica 46 (1992): 83-108, here, pp. 95-96). Rather than concluding with 1-2 Chronicles, the Writings end with Ezra-Nehemiah (treated as one book in the Hebrew canon). A further argument against the position of F.F. Bruce is Freedman’s assertion (ibid., 96) that because 2 Chron 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4 are identical, the books were separated spatially since, had they been consecutive, there would have been no need for the repetition. By contrast, the primary historical books that are consecutive (i.e., 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings), have no repetitive texts connecting them.

For more on Matt 23:35 (cf. Luke 11:48-51), see Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 96-100.

Does clothing imagery support imputation?

I have sometimes encountered Evangelicals who claim that the clothing imagery supports the concept of imputed righteousness. However, when one reads the context of such passages, they support the clothing being an outward sign of an inward reality, not an imputed one (a legal fiction, if one is being honest [e.g., Gal 3:27, which teaches baptismal regeneration]). However, what they often overlook in their eisegesis of the Bible and in their (misdirected) zeal to prop up their made-man doctrines is that, if being clothed in righteousness means that the righteousness one possesses is not their own (whether intrinsically or through infusion), but an imputed one from an alien source, that means that Yahweh's qualities of honour, strength, and majesty are not actually His intrinsically but are merely imputed to him from an external source(!) Notice the following texts:

The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he had girded himself; the world also is stablished, that is cannot be moved. (Psa 93:1)

Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. (Psa 104:1)

In reality, Yahweh is said to be "clothed" with majesty, strength, and honour as such an image is a potent outward sign of an inward reality; the same is said when the concept is used of believers. There is nothing in support of imputed righteousness in this concept.

Does Galatians 2:20 and Colossians 2:14 support Forensic Justification?

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now life in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20 NIV)

Having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:14 NIV)

It is common for Protestants to cite these two passages from the Pauline corpus to support their understanding of the nature of justification. These passages are used to “prove” that (1) justification is purely forensic and (2) our past, present, and even then-future sins are forgiven at justification. However, both these conclusions are based on eisegesis.

Gal 2:20

As for Gal 2:20, one should firstly read the entire pericope (vv.16-20) to understand the entire context:

Here is the NRSV translation:

Yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:16-20)

The entire pericope is centred on the concept of the believer's participation in Christ's atoning sacrifice (cf. Col 1:24) and how it is by faith (not "faith alone"[!]) in Him that justifies; not the Law of Moses. As for v.20 (v.19 in some translations), many Protestants beg the question as to when a believer is "crucified with Christ" (Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι). For them, one has been (salvifically) united with Christ either in the eternal past and/or at the cross. However, this is to wrench the entire phrase out of its own immediate context; notice what follows, "nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God." This cannot be said of any person, elect or reprobate, prior to their being justified.

Furthermore, when does a believer become united with Christ? When one examines the entirety of Paul's own epistles, we learn that it is by water baptism:

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26-30)

In Gal 3:27, one is said to be “baptised into Christ” (εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε) and speaks of one “putting on” or “being clothed in” Christ (Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε), all language of a salvific union of a believer with Christ through the instrumentality of water baptism. Such flies in the face of much of modern (and historical) Protestantism.

Another related text would be Rom 6:1-4 (exegeted in detail here, here, here, and here):

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Again, water baptism is the instrumental means of this salvific union with Christ, not faith alone.

Indeed, Gal 3:1 seems to offer further support for this exegesis:

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

The term translated as "set forth" in the KJV (ESV: "publicly portrayed"; NRSV: "publicly exhibited"; NIV: "clearly portrayed") is the verb προεγράφη and means "to write before." Of course, one has to ask when was Christ publicly portrayed as crucified to the Galatians, or, "set forth in a public proclamation" (per BDAG)? Applying baptism as the relevant event (per Gal 3:27 and Rom 6:1-4) that allowed the Galatians to see Christ crucified with their own eyes makes perfect sense, as it is a sacramental re-enactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, per Paul's theology thereof. The salvific efficacy of baptism answers Gal 2:20 and how and when the believer is indeed crucified with Christ in great potency.

Col 2:14

Firstly, we should note that, in his epistle to the Colossians, like his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, Paul teaches the salvific necessity of baptism; notice Col 2:12-13, which precede v.14(!):

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith and operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. (see this blog post on the relationship between Col 2:12-13 and Eph 2:8-10)

This pericope, mirroring Rom 6:1-4, teaches that a believer is united and "buried with" Christ in baptism, and that is the instrumental means through which God the Father raises a believer, in the same manner, He raised His Son. This is paralleled in Col 3:10:

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.

The verb "to put on" is ενδουω, the same verb used by Paul in Gal 3:27 in the context of water baptism. Again, what is in view here is that one becomes a new creature through the instrumentality of water baptism, not faith alone a la historical and modern Protestantism.

Another important text to consider would be Col 1:23-24 (discussed here):

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church.

As with a number of soteriological texts, the NIV obscures things due to the sola fide bias of its translators (see some of N.T. Wright's criticisms of the NIV here). The underlying Greek of the text reads:

ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ

The KJV rendering is:

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

What is in view here is not the nailing of our sins (past, present, and even then-future) on the cross, á la many models of forensic atonement (read: Penal Substitution), but instead, the "ordinances" of the Law of Moses. The Greek term τοις δογμασιν means "the ordinances" and is coupled with χειρογραφων, referring to a written record of one's debts/sins under this division of the Law of Moses.

One has to realise that there were three divisions of the Law of Moses—the commandments,  the statutes/ordinances, and judgements, and Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and resurrection abrogated the latter two divisions (which is in view in Col 2:14). As LDS scholar, John A. Tvedtnes notes:

To the Galatians, the apostle Paul wrote, "Wherefore then serveth the law [of Moses] it was added because of transgressions, till the seed [Christ] should come to whom the promise was made" (Galatians 3:19; cf. Mosiah 3:14). This suggests that the carnal law, with which the Israelites were cursed according to Joseph Smith, was superimposed atop something else they had received from God--presumably something that was part of the higher law. Because the ten commandments are authoritatively cited as the word of God in the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, they must be part of the higher law that remained under the covenant made at Sinai. They would therefore not be part of the lesser "handwriting of ordinances" of which Paul said that Christ "took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14)

Christ told the Nephites, "in me is the law of Moses fulfilled" (3 Nephi 9:17; see also 3 Nephi 12:18-19; 15:4-5, 8). but he seems to have suggested that only the lesser portion of that law was fulfilled when he said, "Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled" (3 Nephi 12:19). . .  In order to understand this subject, we must note that the law of Moses was comprised of three division, the commandments (sometimes called "law" or "testimonies"), the statutes (sometimes called "ordinances"), and the judgments (Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 13-14; 5:28; 6:20, 26; 26:17; 28:45;  Kings 17:34, 37; 2 Chronicles 19:10; 29:19; 33:8; 34:31; Nehemiah 9:13-14; 10:30; Jeremiah 32:11) . . . [in Scripture] we learn that it was the statutes and judgments (or ordinances and performances) that would be done away in Christ, while the commandments would remain as part of the higher law that Christ revealed during his ministry. (The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar [Salt Lake City: Cornerstone, 1999], 251-52).

One final issue to consider is Eph 2:15, the parallel text to Col 2:14, which reads:

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (δογματα); for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.

Commenting on how Eph 2:15 helps us understand the meaning of “handwriting” (χειρογραφον) as being that of the Law of Moses, Allan R. Bevere noted:

  

[If] the ‘ascetic regulations’ of the Colossian philosophy are ethnically Jewish practices, as I and others maintain, then Ephesians 2:15 is indeed helpful in this matter. The writer of Ephesians does not use the term χειρογραφον, but it is the only other Pauline letter that employs δογματα as found in Colossians 2:14. In Ephesians, Christ’s death nullifies the Law together with its commandments and regulations. In Colossians, the χειρογραφον (the Law) with its regulations is erased as it is nailed to the cross of Christ. In Ephesians, the cross abolishes the Mosaic Law as a dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile; and while the language of division between Jew and Gentile is not explicit in Colossians, the χειρογραφον as a barrier that stands in the way is obvious – it is ‘against us’ (το καθ ημων) and ‘hostile to us’ (ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν). The imagery conveyed in both letters is so similar that it is not unreasonable to suggest that both refer to the same thing.

 

It would be even more significant if there were a common connection and a similar situation shared by the two letters. Ben Witherington argues at length for Pauline authorship of both Colossians and Ephesians based on, among other things, the Asiatic rhetorical style of both letters (Witherington, Colossians, 2). At the same time, there are rhetorical differences based on the different rhetorical situations occasioning each letter. Ephesians, unlike Colossians, reflects epideictic rhetoric, making it less an epistle and more of a homily characteristic of a document that is not addressed to one specific audience with a particular crisis. Instead Ephesians may be a circular in nature, mindful of a clear but larger geographical area where similar concerns of a wider community are generally at stake (Witherington, Colossians, 7 [cf. 215-17]). What is the significance of this for our concerns over the identification of the χειρογραφον?

 

First, while a minority of scholars question the arguments in favor of Colossian priority, most see an obvious connection between the two letters and Ephesians’ dependence on Colossians. As Margaret MacDonald observes, ‘Of all the letters in the Pauline corpus, no two works are so closely linked . . . Indeed, it seems that the author of Ephesians was very familiar with Colossians, drawing upon the epistle’s language, style, and concepts. In fact, more than one third of the words found in Colossians are also in Ephesians. For this reason alone it makes sense to study these two epistles together’ (MacDonald, Colossians, 4). Both epistles address household concerns as well as marriage. Ephesians, drawing upon Colossians expands on these concerns, addressing them to a more general audience. IT seems also to be the case that Ephesians does the same with the Law of Moses, expanding on it in language that reflects general concerns rather than the specific issues related to Colossians and the Law. If there is ambiguity of language at certain places in Colossians in reference to the Law, it is likely because of the specific nature of the problem the Colossians are having in relation to the Law. Much between writer and readers is assumed. If Ephesians is a circular letter, then less is assumed and terminology becomes more explicit in order for the letter to make sense to the readers of the various church communities. One of this denies the differences between the two letters. Nevertheless, the likelihood that Ephesians draws on Colossians also suggests a similarity of concerns, including the Law of Moses.

 

Second, if Witherington’s argument for Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians based upon its rhetoric (among other things) is strong, then one can envisage a situation in which Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians were written in an interconnected way. Dunn suggests that Paul’s personal concern for Onesimus may have prompted him to give direct attention to the letter he would write to Philemon while leaving the composition of Colossians to Timothy (Col. 1:1) (Dunn, Colossians, 40). It is conceivable as well that, given the situation in Colossae in which the target of the letter is the synagogue, Paul would have believed it important to write a more general composition reminding the Christians in Asia Minor of the inheritance that Jews and Gentiles share on account of the work of Christ. The significance of covenant problems related to the status of Gentiles, as views so prevalently in the New Testament, may have motivated Paul to commission a homily. It would not be inconceivable that Paul and Timothy drew on what was already written in Colossians, and expanded on it to create the letter now known to us as Ephesians. If Ephesians is the letter referred to in Colossians as ‘the letter from Laodicea’ (4;16), it may be that Laodicea was the document’s first stop, and Ephesus was the letter’s last place of public reading. This may explain why we know the letter today as ‘Ephesians.’ Given the clear relationship between Colossians and Ephesians, the Ephesian interest in the Law of Moses, if anything, moves us in the direction of affirming once again the case that the target of the letter to the Colossians is fundamentally Jewish. (Allan R. Bevere, “The Cheirograph in Colossians 2:14 and the Ephesian Connection,” in B.J. Oropeza, C.K. Robertson and Douglas C. Mohrmann, Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D.G. Dunn. A Festschrift for his 70th Birthday [Library of New Testament Studies 414; London: T&T Clark, 2009, 2019], 199-206, here, pp. 204-6)

 

When read contextually, and in light of the entirety of Paul’s soteriology, there is nothing in Gal 2:20 or Col 2:14 to support forensic models of justification and, furthermore, when one examines such texts contextually and exegetically, there is much to support Latter-day Saint soteriology. Yet again, in spite of the eisegesis-fuelled protestations of our Evangelical Protestant critics, “Mormonism” is indeed reflective of “biblical Christianity.”