Will There be Few or Many Sons of Perdition?

Commenting on whether there will be few or many Sons (and Daughters!) of Perdition, Owen K. Peterson wrote:

It is said that there will be few who become sons of perdition and who will therefore suffer the second death. However, a careful reading of the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, suggests that there may actually be more than a few who ultimately suffer that fate.

The view that only a very few will die the second death seems to be based on the idea that few had had the opportunity to receive the knowledge and enlightenment in this life necessary to qualify for such a condemnation. While it is true that there have been long periods in human history when the gospel in its fullness was not found among the known nations of the earth, there have been some significant periods when the gospel was on the earth and widely disseminated. During the dispensation of Adam the gospel was known among a population that must have grown very large because of the long lifespan of Adam’s descendants. In the days of Enoch the gospel resulted in a while city being translated. In the days of Noah the gospel was taught to all the people prior to the flood and as a result many were caught up to Zion thereby escaping the flood (see Moses 7:27) . . . It is true that the fullness of the gospel among the Gentiles of the old world in the era of the apostles had a fairly short duration, still there must have been many hundreds of thousands who heard its message during perhaps a 150-200 year period when some measure of priesthood authority must have been present. After a long period of darkness the gospel is now spreading throughout the world with upwards of 15 million members as of 2014. Besides these we have reason to believe that among the lost ten tribes the gospel has been present and that millions must have embraced it over the millennia. And then there is the millennium during which the gospel will fill the earth and many billions will be blessed by it.

Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that in the history of the world up to the present many multiple billions of people have had the opportunity to receive the fullness of the gospel and mong them there must be many who could have become sons of perdition through willful rebellion. In each dispensation there must have been many like the people in the Book of Mormon who, after nearly 200 years of righteousness, “did not dwindle in unbelief, but [who] did wilfully rebel against the gospel of Christ” (4 Nephi 1:38). Referring to such souls, Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I have no idea in my mind that every soul that has lived upon the face of the earth, who has died and gone to the spirit world, is going to repent and receive the gospel. There will be many that will not do that. Our scriptures point to that act. They are not going to receive the gospel in the spirit world, when their souls are full of bitterness and hate towards the truth, but they have a right to have it taught to them” (CR, April 1959, p. 23, emphasis added). Since Elder Smith has made it clear that those who inherit the telestial kingdom must accept the gospel and repent . . .it follows that any who ultimately cannot or will not repent must inherit a kingdom without glory—that is, they must suffer the second death. This agrees with Helaman 14:18 and D&C 29:44. See also Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 3, 194.

This statement by President Smith even allows that one could become a son of perdition without ever actually embracing the gospel. President Joseph F. Smith seemed to have suggested this also when he said: “the sons of perdition, men who once were in possession of the light and truth, but who turned away from them and denied the Lord, putting him to an open shame, as did the Jews when they crucified him”, will have it said to them “’Depart from me, ye cursed.’ (Matt. 25:41). I never knew you; depart into the second death, even banishment from the presence of God for ever and ever . . . from whence there is no redemption, neither in time nor in eternity” (Gospel Doctrine, 451, emphasis added). For this to be the case these must necessarily have received an absolute witness from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ and then to have wilfully turned from it and consented to his crucifixion.

Concerning those who live during the Millennium, Bruce R. McConkie said: “(Isa. 65:20.) Isaiah’s description of life and death during the Millennium seems to preserve the concept that even then—even in that blessed day when Satan is bound and righteousness overflows—even then men are free to come out in open rebellion and, as sinners, suffer the fate reserve for the sons of perdition. Manifestly they, being accursed, would die the death with which we are familiar, for their resurrection is destined to be in that final day when those shall come forth ‘who shall remain filthy still.’ (D&C 88:102.)” (The Millennial Messiah, 646). Such a fate must also await those who come out in open rebellion at the end of the Millennium, causing Satan to be loosed, and who join with him in the final battle against Michael and his angels for the souls of men . . . thorough study of the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon, with its strong emphasis on the fate of the wicked and the possibility of many suffering the second death, makes this conclusion seem likely. According to Samuel the Lamanite, the main requirement for avoiding the second death is repentance. D&C 76 clearly states that the sons of perdition are the only ones on whom the second death will have any power. (For some examples of the warnings against such a fate, see 1 Nephi 10:20, 1 Nephi 15:32-35, 2 Nephi 9:46, Jacob 3:11, Mosiah 2:36-39, Mosiah 16:10-12, Mosiah 26:25-27, Alma 12;14-18, 32, Alma 13:30, Alma 41:3-4, Helaman 14:17-19, D&CC 63:17, Revelations 21:8.) (Owen K. Peterson, The Joy of our Redemption: An LDS Scriptural Journey [4^th rev.; 2017], 100, 101-2, 103)

Can a Believer Ever Fall from the (Salvific) Love of God?

In a recent article, we again witness Michael’s Flournoy’s descent into spiritual madness and blasphemy:

I want you to know that nothing can separate you from the love of God, not even your own sins.  As a new believer, I sometimes questioned my salvation after sinning.  I would think: well salvation is supposed to produce good fruit and yet here I am sinning again, I guess I’m not a real believer after all.  If these thoughts enter your mind, show them the door.  The God who died for us isn’t about to let us go that easily.  We can pull a Jonah and flee from God, but he will leave the 99 to find His wayward sheep.  In other words, you can run but you can’t hide.

Sin has no more power over you because are no longer under the law, but grace (Romans 6:14).  And Jesus’ grace is more than enough to guarantee our safe arrival into the Kingdom of Heaven.  I want you to know that God loves you.  He is always with you, even in the darkest valleys of life, and He will wipe away your every tear when you enter His holy presence. It will be worth it all someday. (source)

It is, of course, a blasphemous lie that no matter the sin, even heinous ones, (1) we will always be eternally secure and (2) not even we can cut ourselves off from the love of God.

On #1, one has already addressed all the common texts for and against such a blasphemy that is common in many Protestant theologies, including:

James White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29

King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology (King David, one of the two examples of justification used by Paul in Romans 4, alone refutes Flournoy's nonsense)

Hebrews 6:4-9: Only Hypothetical?

 Does John 10:28-29 teach Eternal Security [cf. Does John 6:39 teach Eternal Security?])

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 vs. Eternal Security

On #2, such is based on a misreading of Rom 8:33-39:

Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died-- more than that, who was raised to life-- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus. (NIV)

What is often overlooked by many Protestants, and obviously Flournoy is not immune to this common eisegesis, is that Paul is only arguing that nothing external to us can force us out of the salvific relationship we have with God; notice that he does not teach that the individual cannot choose to take himself out of the salvation plan of God nor does he list heinous sins (e.g., adultery; murder) from the list in Rom 8:33-39—the reason is simple: in his letters he clearly teaches that such sins will sever a believer from salvation (e.g., 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5). Even Paul himself believed that he could fall in 1 Cor 9:27:

No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV)

The term translated as “disqualified” is αδοκιμος and means “reprobate.” As one Lutheran scholar wrote about this term and the context it is used in:

This term implies that a test is made, and that whatever stands the test is accepted as δόκιμος, whatever fails to stand the test is rejected as ἀδόκιμος and is thrown out, cast away. The two adjectives and the cognate verb and the noun are frequently used with reference to ancient coins which were always weighed and otherwise carefully tested; the genuine and the full-weight coins were accepted as “proven,” the others were rejected as “disproven.” C.-K. 357.

What a calamity when a professing Christian finds himself “rejected” in the end! How much worse when one of the Lord’s own heralds has this experience! Paul regards his work and even the way in which he does his work with extreme seriousness. The fact that he is an apostle is not yet proof to him that he will be saved. He knows the test that he must face. He applies that test to himself in this chapter and so attains both the subjective and the objective certainty that he will indeed not be a castaway. (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Minneapolis:: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963], 388)

Another relevant text from Paul himself is Gal 5:4. In his translation of Gal 5:4, Craig Keener rendered the verse thusly:

You who seek to be righted by the law have been cut off from Christ; you’ve fallen away from God’s abundant generosity.

Some have tried to downplay this text by arguing that Paul is addressing unregenerate people in the Galatian congregation, not truly justified believers, so it is not a valid proof-text to use against various formulations of eternal security, such as the Perseverance of the Saints (the “P” of Calvinism’s TULIP). Notwithstanding, as Keener notes, Paul is actually teaching true believers can lose their salvation:

Cut off (καταργεω, katargeō) is the language of annulling something (as in 3:17) or rendering it ineffective (as in 5:11). It follows naturally from the idea of Christ no longer being of benefit to them (5:2) . . . it would seem special pleading to take Paul’s warnings of apostasy as something less than a real possibility. Paul elsewhere warns gentile believers that if they fall from faith, they too will be cut off as were Jewish people who failed to believe (Rom. 11:22; c. 8:13). Paul disciplines himself in order to avoid being disqualified (αδοκιμος, adokimos, 1 Cor. 9:27), going on to warn the Corinthians that despite their spiritual resources, they could be struck down as were many Israelites in the wilderness (10:1-11); they must stand and avoid falling (10:12). They must examine themselves to make sure that they remain in the faith and are not disqualified (αδοκιμος, 2 Cor. 13:5-6). Had persecution moved the Thessalonians to abandon faith in Christ, Paul’s labor among them would have been in vain (1 Thess. 3:5). Colossian believers would be presented blameless before God, provided they continued in the faith (Col. 1:23). Paul’s concern was their ultimate salvation; he does not address the question of some individuals falling away, yet later returning, since the conditions that facilitated their falling to begin with usually precluded their interest in returning. Gentile sources do reveal that many who had become Christians reconverted back to paganism afterward.

Already in Scripture, if the righteous turn to the way of sin, their righteousness will be forgotten (Ezek. 18:24, 27; 33:12-13, 18), but if the wicked turn to righteousness, they will live (33:14-16, 19). Jewish people lamented apostasy (1 Macc. 1:41-51), with some Jewish sects believing that even members of other Jewish sects had abandoned righteousness (e.g., 1QpHab 8.9). Some expected apostasy as one of the tragic signs of the end time (e.g., 1 En. 9:17; T. Iss. 6:1; T. Naph. 4:1; 3 En. 48A:5-6; m. Soṭah 9:15; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; cf. 4 Ezra 5:1-2; 14:16-18) as under previous persecutions. Early Judaism divided regarding whether apostates would be forgiven if they repented. Paul probably also envisioned the prophesied end-time apostasy (Mark 13:12-13; Matt. 24:12) as already occurring in his day (cf. 2 Thess. 2:3). Subsequent centuries of Christian thought also required perseverance in the faith.

Corinthians’ sexual sin contradicted Christian faith (1 Cor. 6:9-20), but Galatians were in danger of abandoning faith in Christ no less by adding to (and thus subtracting from) the faith. Like baptism, circumcision functioned as a demarcation, a rite of passage into a given community (in this case, of ethnicity; in the case of Christian baptism, of faith). By going under the law as if their baptism was inadequate, they would essentially deny the efficacy of their baptism. Paul certainly did not teach the popular doctrine today of “once saved, always saved”; a convert does not regularly move in and out of the saved community, but a convert who deconverts is again a nonbeliever. (Craig S. Kenner, Galatians: A Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2019], 453, 454-56)

Commenting on this text, Don Garlington, a New Testament scholar and leading advocate for the New Perspective on Paul, wrote the following which supports this thesis that this passage refutes eternal security:

Paul is worried not about circumcision as an isolated act or as a thing in itself, but rather what it will lead to: the endeavor to be justified “in the law.” The most emphatic element of the verse is placed forward into the clause: “You have been severed from Christ” (NASB). The verb translated “severed” (katargeō) frequently means to make ineffective or nullify (BDAG, 525). In the present case, it signifies the dissolution of a relationship, namely the Galatians’ former (covenant) relationship to Christ. But commentators point out that the verb can mean “cut off.” If this usage was in Paul’s mind at all, then there would be a deliberate play on circumcision: those who “cut” the flesh are “cut off” from Christ. A formal commitment to the Torah through circumcision is equivalent to ending the relationship with the Christ of Paul’s gospel . . . If those who want to be justified in the law have severed their relationship with Christ, they have, but the nature of the case, “fallen away from grace.” The verb “fall away” (ekpiptō) is used of a withering flower falling from its stem to the ground (Jas 1:11; 1 Pet 1:24) or of a ship failing to hold its course (Acts 27:26, 29). “God’s grace in Christ . . . is like the stem which supports the flower and through which the life-sustaining sustenance flows. Or like the channel which leads to safety between the rocks of disaster, a course from which they were in danger of being driven, by dangerous currents and cross winds” (Dunn, Galatians, 268-69). (Don Garlington, An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading from the New Perspective [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2007], 299-300)

Obviously the apostle Paul did not share Flournoy's (heretical) understanding of the security of the believer.

By having rejected “Mormonism” and embracing a flavour of Protestantism, Flournoy has placed himself in the unenviable position of having embraced an anti-biblical theology, one that falls under the anathema of Gal 1;6-9. He is to be truly pitied and prayed for before it is too late (cf. Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29).

For previous posts responding to Flournoy's antics, see:

Responses to Michael Flournoy

Baptism and those who will Inherit the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms in LDS Theology

Addressing whether those who will inherit the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms require water baptism (whether in this life or via proxy), Owen K. Peterson, challenging the popular (but seemingly, errant) view of many, argues “yes”:

The current orthodox view among the brethren and other gospel writers is that baptism is for entrance into the celestial kingdom only . . . D& 88:21-24 is frequently cited [to support this view]. The “law of Christ” is generally understood to be equivalent to the “doctrine of Christ” or the “new and everlasting gospel,” therefore this passage appears to exclude the lesser kingdoms from being subject to the gospel. And yet it is clear from verse 99 that those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom “receive the gospel” so that they may “be judged according to men in the flesh” . . . Clearly there is a difference between the “law of the celestial kingdom” and the laws of the lesser kingdoms (D&C 88:22-24). It appears that in this case, the reference to the “law of Christ” in verse 21 is synonymous with the “law of the celestial kingdom” referred to in verse 22. To be sanctified through the law of the celestial kingdom requires more than baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Such sanctification also includes the fullness of the Priesthood which involves the higher ordinances of the temple in order to enter into the presence of the Father. From this we can conclude that entrance into the lesser kingdoms requires the gospel ordinances of baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, whereas entrance into the celestial kingdom requires the higher ordinances of the temple in addition to the basic ordinances of the gospel . . . George Q. Cannon said: “The time will come when those who do not at first accept the gospel even in the spirit world will, through the experience which they will have to suffer, be willing to bow the knee to King Emmanuel and acknowledge him to be the Lord, to the glory of God, the Father, and every ordinance performed for them will stand in its place and effect its object at some period or another” (CR, April 1918).

Charles W. Penrose said: “The gospel is to be preached to every responsible and accountable creature. They who do not hear it while in the body will hear it in the spirit world, and even those who through folly and darkness received it not will, after having been beaten with “many stripes” and having paid the “uttermost farthing” of the debt thus incurred, have mercy extended to them when justice has been satisfied, and at length through the ministrations of the holy priesthood of God of the race of Adam will come forth from the grave; and finally ‘every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ to the glory of God the Father’” (Rays of Living Light from the Doctrines of Christ, 169-70, emphasis added) . . . Brigham Young declared the saints to go and perform the ordinances of the house of God for those who have passed their probation without the Gospel, and for all who will receive any kind of salvation; bring them up to inherit the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 407, emphasis added). He also said, “I will now tell you something that 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, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; . . . 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, emphasis added)

B.H. Roberts wrote: “The work done by Elijah was to open the door of salvation for the dead. From that event comes the knowledge of the principles by which the saving power of the Gospel may be applied to men who have die without receiving its benefits in this life . . .[F]rom this mission of Elijah’s there comes the power to apply the principles and ordinances of salvation to all the children of men (save the sons of perdition; and these, thank God are but few) in all ages of the word, and whether living or dead! (HC, 7 volumes., introduction and notes, 2:, p. xxix-xxxi). (Owen K. Peterson, The Joy of our Redemption: An LDS Scriptural Journey [4^th rev.; 2017], 140, 141, 142)

Owen K. Peterson on "After All We Can Do"

The expression “after all we can do” is often misunderstood to mean that the grace by which we are saved kicks in only after we “have expanded our own best efforts” to save ourselves (see Grace, LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697). However, the Bible Dictionary also states, “It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means . . . Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings . . . This principle is expressed in Jesus’ parable of the vine and the branches” (see John 15:1-11). What this parable teaches is that “the divine means of help or strength” or “the enabling power” of grace is required in order for us to do all we can do, or, says the Savior, “without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5), 2 Nephi 25:23 is really saying it is by Grace that we are saved above and beyond all we can do, for without his grace we can do nothing to save ourselves. (Owen K. Peterson, The Joy of our Redemption: An LDS Scriptural Journey [4^th rev.; 2017], 162 n. 9)

Another non-LDS Apologist on the Importance of the Illumination of the Holy Spirit

By no means do I wish to disparage the work of the Holy Spirit in giving Christians discernment. Certainly all Christians must depend on the Holy Spirit to illuminate their minds that they may clearly see the difference between good and evil, truth and error. And many Christians who are ill-equipped to study doctrine in depth are remarkably discerning. (Robert M. Bowman, Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992], 19)

Jonathan Burke (Christadelphian) addresses the "Epicurean Paradox"

Responding to the “Epicurean Paradox,” Christadelphian apologist Jonathan Burke wrote:

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

This premise fails because it assumes only one sense of God being ‘not able’ to prevent evil; that He lacks the power to do so. It therefore draws the invalid conclusion that God cannot be omnipotent if He has the will to prevent evil but is unable to do so.

However, it is possible to assert God has both the will and the power to prevent evil, but is ‘not able’ to do so for reasons which have nothing to do with insufficient power. Two ways of asserting this are the free will defense (addressing human evil), and the cost of creation dense (addressing the evil of natural disasters).

The free will defense states that God, in order to provide humans with the free will necessary for His purpose, must necessarily permit them to commit acts of evil. God is therefore ‘not able’ to prevent some forms of evil, not because He lacks omnipotence but because He is restrained by His own purpose for creating humans . . .The cost of creation defense states that the physical laws which will occasionally result in natural disasters, are the very same physical laws required to create and sustain the kind of life God needs for His purpose.

Removal of these physical laws would prevent the evil of natural disasters, but would also prevent God creating and sustaining the kind of life God requires for His purpose. Consequently, God is ‘not able’ to prevent such evil . . . 

2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

This premise fails because it assumes only one sense of God being ‘not willing’ to prevent evil; that He lacks empathy with His creation. It therefore draws the invalid conclusion that God is malevolent if He has the ability to prevent evil and yet fails to do so because He is in some sense ‘not willing’.

However, it is possible to assert God is ‘not willing’ to prevent certain forms of evil for reasons which have nothing to do with malevolence. On the contrary, it is possible to assert that one reason why God is ‘not willing’ to prevent certain forms of evil, it is His benevolence; He understands that those forms of evil result in positive outcomes which ultimately provide greater benefit than the evil which is endured. This is an argument found in the Bible itself. The writer of Hebrews draws an analogy between the suffering we experience, and the discipline received by children from their parents.

Hebrews 12:7 Endure your suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what sons is there that a father does not discipline?

The analogy is highly appropriate, since parents are both willing that their children’s suffering be minimized, and able to reduce certain forms of suffering (by withholding disciple), yet they choose not to, for the reason that the suffering has positive outcomes for the child’s character and behavior. Yet no one would accuse parents being malevolent for applying such disciple.

Hebrews 12:9 Besides, we have experienced discipline from our earthly fathers and we respected them; shall we not submit ourselves all the more to the Father of spirits and receive life? 10 or they disciplined us for a little while as seemed good to them, but he does so for our benefit, that we may share his holiness. 11 Now all discipline seems painful at the time, not joyful. But later it produces the fruit o peace and righteousness for those trained by it.

3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence evil?

Since the major premises of the paradox have been addressed with the free will defense and the cost of creation defense, the answer to the question has already been supplied. The Epicurean Paradox is therefore an ineffectual argument against either the existence of God or the characteristics of the God of the Bible. (Jonathan Burke, Living on the Edge: Challenges to Faith [Reference Work Series vol. 1; Lulu Book, 2013], 371-73)

D. Chares Pyle on Women Being Depicted as Men (and vice versa) in Ancient Egyptian Iconography

Commenting on the Book of Abraham, D. Charles Pyle wrote the following which has implications for figures 2 and 4 of facsimile 3, wherein Joseph Smith identified female figures as being male (see this discussion from Jeff Lindsay on this, too):

many things have been claimed as demonstrative of the thought that the Book of Abraham was fabricated and an incorrect translation. One such claim that was made was that Egyptians did not worship other gods and goddesses of other peoples drawn like Egyptian ones, and that other nations did not worship their own national gods and goddesses depicted in Egyptian forms. Contrary to all the scholars, we now know that the Book of Abraham was right all along. The goddess of the city of Byblos was known as “Hathor of the West” by various of the people, and she was depicted in such a way that Egyptians saw her as Hathor. This occurred beginning prior to the time of Abraham, in the region near which Abraham lived. This same practice continued among even the Egyptians after the time of Abraham. We know this from an inscription from the time of Ramses II. Here is that inscription, which is located at the Brooklyn Museum:

What is depicted in the middle of the inscription fragment is the Canaanite goddess, ‘Anat. She is depicted as Osiris but is clearly named in the middle inscription as “‘Anat, Lady (of) heaven (and) of Ramesessu Meri-Amun.”

So, the Book of Abraham was right all along, as noted above. Ancient Egyptians, and other ancient nations under Egypt’s sphere of influence, indeed did dress non-Egyptian gods and goddesses just like Egyptian ones. As time has gone on, more and more evidences like the above have come forth in support of the claims of the Book of Abraham. But those scholars who limit themselves to certain kinds of evidences, and who ignore evidence such as the above, whether for bias or for other more or less worthy reasons, will come up with what Latter-day Saints inevitably will see as limited opinions regarding the alleged translation errors and/or fabrication of the Book of Abraham. (D. Charles Pyle, How do Mormons explain the Book of Abraham when many scholars view it as a completely fabricated, incorrect translation by Joseph Smith?)

The Two Resurrections in Jehovah's Witness Soteriology and Eschatology

Commenting on the belief in Jehovah’s Witness soteriology and eschatology (e.g., “first resurrection” being only for the “faithful class” [the 144,000 anointed ones] to the exclusion of the “great crowd,” as well as their belief that those who are “invincibly ignorant” [to borrow a Catholic term] during mortality can be saved [and even then, they would be destroyed by subsequent disobedience [!]), Jehovah’s Witness Cary Valentine wrote:

Jehovah’s Witnesses view the “first resurrection,” as mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6, to be the raising of those chosen to serve as king and priests with Christ during the Millennium. Witnesses identify the number of this group, as mentioned in Revelation 14:1-4, literally to be 144,000. These individuals give up the natural hope of living forever on earth, though they originated as flesh-and-blood entities. Their ascension is thought to be immediate, meaning that at the time of death those chosen to be part of the first resurrection is thought to be immediate, meaning that at the time of death those chosen to be part of the first resurrection are instantaneously caught away to join the Lord within the spirit realm “in the blink of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52 NWT).

Jehovah’s Witnesses also identify a second or earthly resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous individuals who have the potential to gain everlasting life on earth. Those deemed “righteous” but not appointed to serve with Christ in heaven (as part of the 144,000 or “anointed class”) made use of the opportunity given them here on earth to learning of Jehovah God’s plan and provision of the ransom sacrifice. These individuals repented, aligned their lives with God’s principles, and served as Witnesses to those who had not yet heard the message of salvation God gifted to imperfect humans.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that for some of those deemed unrighteous—but still resurrected in this second resurrection—there will be a resurrection of judgment. These individuals will still have an opportunity to gain eternal salvation during the Millennium. They will live as resurrected beings during the Millennium and, at its end, be judged by Christ and his 144,000 associates as either worthy of everlasting life or worthy of destruction. These are individuals who were in some way unable during mortality to learn of the life-saving provisions Jehovah had provided—either because they were not exposed to it during mortal life, or because they were otherwise unable to comprehend the message. Just as Adam was a perfect man choosing willingly to sin against Jehovah’s law (while in Eden), so too will resurrected humans have a chance to make the choice to either serve God willingly or reject him and his plan. If they then follow Jehovah God at the end of Millennium, they will be restored to perfection (“A Grand Millennium Approaching,” The Watchtower, 1 June 1990, 5-7).

Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that, at the end of Christ’s Millennium, Satan will be released from his abyss to mislead and test human’s resurrected to an earthly destiny. This will provide them with a choice to sere Jehovah God for the final time. Since humans will then be restored to a state of perfection, they will have the same simple choice Adam and Eve did at the time of creation—to serve God or to not. This Final Judgement involves those who reject Jehovah God and Christ’s Jesus ransom sacrifice and who will die a second time, never to be resurrected again. Indeed, they will cease to exist for eternity. At that time, the physical consequences of Adam’s rebellion will no longer weigh humans down with the wages of sin, so the choice made to serve God or not is, as it was for Adam, one that is just, fair, and made of free will. (Cary E. Valentine, “The Condition of the Dead in Jehovah’s Witness Soteriology” in Alonzo L. Gaskill and Robert L. Millet, eds. Life Beyond the Grave: Christian Interfaith Perspectives [Salt Lake City/Provo: Deseret Book/BYU Religious Studies Center, 2019], 137-51, here, pp. 145-46)

Tertullian on the Physical Resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15:50

Commenting on how Tertullian understood Paul’s words in 1 Cor 15:50 (" . . .  flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God . . . ") with belief in the physical nature of the resurrection, Anglican Dennis Okholm wrote:

At this point one might ask how these early Christian thinkers can affirm a bodily resurrection when the Apostle Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that “flesh and blood” do not inherit eternal life. There is consensus among many of these that Paul was not speaking of bodily flesh but of the works of the flesh. Tertullian puts it well: “For not that is condemned in which evil is done, but only the evil which is done in it. To administer poison is a crime, but the cup in which it is given is not guilty. So the body is the vessel of the works of the flesh, whilst the soul which is within it mixes the poison of a wicked act” (Against Marcion, 5.10). As he says elsewhere, “Flesh and blood are excluded from the kingdom of God in respect of their sin, not of their substance” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 46). (Dennis Okholm, “The Dead Are Raised—But How and Why? Conversations with the Church’s Fathers and Mothers of the First Five Centuries” in Alonzo L. Gaskill and Robert L. Millet, eds. Life Beyond the Grave: Christian Interfaith Perspectives [Salt Lake City/Provo: Deseret Book/BYU Religious Studies Center, 2019], ,27-51, here, p. 43)

Owen K. Peterson on the Nature of Christ's Infinite Atonement

In a volume on Latter-day Saint soteriology, one author, instead of opting for a “penal”/forensic understanding of the atonement, “hit the nail on the head” so to speak about the nature of the atonement and Christ’s sufferings:

It is important to recognize that an infinite atonement is, by definition, unlimited. The Father did not add up the debt incurred by each of his children for each of their sins on each of his “worlds without number,” past, present and future, and then ask his Beloved Son to suffer for them on a tit-for-tat basis. Rather, the price paid far exceeded the debt owed, for the price paid was infinite. Because of it we do not need to worry about how much of a burden our individual sins may have added to Christ’s suffering—infinite plus or minus n is still infinite. We need only be grateful that his sacrifice was sufficient to cover all of the sins of all men belonging to the family of our Heavenly Father, worlds without number. He suffered so we won’t have to suffer. All he requires is what we feel sorry for those things we have done or have failed to do that have brought pain and suffering and injustice to others, and to love him and to love one another, and to accept his gift of forgiveness and redemption through faith and repentance.

Some have imagined that in bearing our sins Christ somehow experienced each of our sins individually in some mystical, omniscient way. We believe what he experiences was the consequence of our sins—or of anyone’s sins, and not our sins themselves. It seems to us that to experience, even vicariously, anger or hate or covetousness or lust is to be angry, hateful, covetous or lustful. Whereas, to experience the consequence of such sins is to experience the pangs of conscience and alienation, and the withdrawal of violating the royal law of love. In Jesus’ case, that involved descending below all things, even to the lowest hell, by experiencing complete abandonment and withdrawal of the powers of heaven. (Owen K. Peterson, The Joy of our Redemption: An LDS Scriptural Journey [4^th rev.; 2017], 69 n. 1)

On Moses Seeing the "Face" and "Back Parts" of God

While going through my files on my laptop, I came across the following I saved from Kevin Graham's old LDS Website (no longer accessible, but the URL was http://kevingraham.org/religion/fog.htm). It addresses Moses seeing "the face of God" in response to J.P. Holding, author of The Mormon Defenders (2001).

The Face of God

Gen 32:30  And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved 
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Holding argues that the phrase “face to face” is an idiomatic phrase referring to awareness or presence, and would not necessarily refer to a literal face. We agree on this point. It is clear from parallel verses that the phrase means, “Being squared off with each other, front to front, and fully visible.” [1] However, this explanation doesn’t refute the prospect that God has a face, for this phrase was equally applied to Moses, who, I believe we can all agree, did have a literal face. Holding has provided a plausible explanation for this particular phrase, but this argument doesn’t help explain the phrase “eye to eye.” For example Moses declares to the Lord, “You, O LORD, are seen eye to eye.” [2]   This is an idiomatic expression in English which denotes agreement on a given point of view. But this is not the intent in the biblical context. These phrases are found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible:

Zedekiah king of Judah will not escape out of the hand of the Chaldeans, but he will surely be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will speak with him face to face and see him eye to eye...you will see the king of Babylon eye to eye, and he will speak with you face to face. [3]

The meaning behind each phrase is evident. “Face to face” is in the context of a verbal conversation while “eye to eye” is in the context of a visual encounter. Face can refer to inanimate objects such as water or earth, [4] but the phrase “eye to eye” only applies to things which have eyes. From this perspective, it logically follows that the Lord has eyes. It will not do to simply declare the phrase irrelevant to God’s anthropomorphic form when the biblical narrative as a whole reinforces such an interpretation.

Holding’s interpretation of Ex 33:18 deals with the “face” and “glory” by suggesting “the two are equivalent,” and then he draws our attention to the fact that Moses could not see God’s face. But there is no reasonable basis for assuming equality between these terms, since the narrative informs us that seeing God’s “face” would result in death. Meaning, if one thing kills you then so will the other. Yet, we know from many passages that the “glory” of God has been seen by humans who lived to tell about it.

Ex 16:10 … the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud
Ex 24:17 …the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire.
Lev 9:6 ... the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you.
Lev9:23 ...the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people.
Num 14:10 ...the glory of the LORD appeared…before all the children of Israel.
Num 14:22...all those men which have seen my glory.
Num 16:19 ...and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the congregation.
Num 16:42 ...the glory of the LORD appeared.
Num 20:6 ...the glory of the LORD appeared unto them.
Deut 5:24 ...the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory.
Ps 97:6 ...all the people see his glory.
Is 35:2 ...they shall see the glory of the LORD.
Is 66:18 ...they shall come, and see my glory.
Ezek 44:4 ...the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD: and I fell upon my face.

So where does Holding get the idea that glory and face are synonymous? Well, this is the only way he can make sense of the narrative while remaining loyal to his argument. The fact is the “danger motif” in seeing God’s face indicates that He really does have a face to see. If glory and spiritual essence were the only visual attribute to God’s nature, then how do we deal with the fact that this has been witnessed by those privileged few who didn’t die as a result? What is it that would actually kill him if not a literal face? Holding offers this theory:

The full, forward brunt of God's presence. Is that so hard to deduce?

Holding is forced to invent a concept that is nowhere to be found in the Bible (“full forward brunt”?). None of this is indicated from the text. “The logic of the whole passage,” says Orlov, “which employs such terms as God's ‘face’ and God’s ‘back,’ suggests that the term panim refers to the ‘forefront’.” [5] If God has no three-dimensional body then how would one be able to discern the difference between front and back? Holding didn’t even touch this issue in his book, but he comments in his response:

The issue is not whether God has a "three-dimensional body" but whether that body is human in form.

Actually they are both at issue. The human form supports the LDS position while the “formlessness” would support Holding’s Evangelical position. The text indicates at the very least that God is by nature a three-dimensional form. Why doesn’t Holding apply this logic to his own position? If God is comparable to an incorporeal mass of white glory such as that of a glorious star, then what could possibly be used to determine which side is the front and which is the back?

Uh, the side that comes toward you is the front, and that goes away from you is the back.

And what if He isn’t moving at all? This explanation is absurd, and Holding is dodging the fact that the Bible not only refers to God’s “face” and “back,” but also His “back parts.” This makes absolutely no sense in the context of the Evangelical assumption, for how would “back parts” be explained as an attribute for a formless mass of invisible essence? A blinding light moving away is viewed just as well as a blinding light moving closer. What preserved Moses’ life was not distance between them; it was the fact that God turned his “back parts” towards Moses, thus hiding His face with his hand. If these are simply metaphors, then let Holding explain their metaphorical meaning. Until he does, it is reasonable to conclude that scripture affirms God as a being with dimensions and anthropomorphic parts.

Or, capable of manifesting in them. As for it being a permanent part of His nature, that doesn't wash out even if Graham is 100% right in his exegesis.

Unfortunately Holding doesn’t bother to explain why. The Evangelical apologetic gets more diverse when presented with these verses because they maintain God is invisible by nature. But then they have to maintain that He can appear as a human to reconcile the verses in question, but argue that this is done strictly for relational purposes. But here they agree God hides his true nature from Moses because it would kill anyone who saw it. Well, how can something “invisible by nature,” be seen to begin with? This is nothing more than back and forth apologetic maneuvering. Holding doesn’t bother to explain any of this, but the enigma of it all makes his apologetic untenable. We’re just supposed to believe God “assumes” a human appearance for a “relational purpose,” although, for some unknown reason God chose to appear as a formless mass of glory to Moses – so much for the “relationship” on that occasion! – whose “back parts” can be determined through its regression

.

Can God Be Seen?

As Kirk rightly notes, “The attitude of Old Testament writers towards the possibility of seeing God was not unequivocal.” [6] While a clear tradition is seen, whereby a man is forbidden to see God lest he forfeit his life, the Bible is also clear that men have seen God. To some it seemed that no man could see God and live, apart from “an exceptional manifestation of the divine favour.” [7] In general it was agreed that Moses was specially favored. So in the story of the insubordination of Aaron and Miriam, Yahweh says:

Hear now my words: if there be a prophet among you, I Yahweh will make myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all my house: with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of Yahweh shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses? [8]

So according to Yahweh, what Moses was permitted to view was “the form of Yahweh,” and he was the only person privileged to have this experience. This means all previous anthropomorphic visions reported by other prophets, are trumped by this unprecedented event on Sinai. Although Moses was forbidden to see God's face, his experience was unique because only he was permitted to see God up close and personal. Not in a vision or dream, but in reality.

So what of the danger motif? Samuel Meier, Associate Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Semitics at Ohio State University, had this to say:

A deity's physical manifestation is seen by human beings. The appearance of gods and their involvement with humans are common motifs in ancient Near Eastern and classical mythology. That similar phenomena are found in the Bible seems problematic at first, for a persistent tradition in the Hebrew Bible affirmed that death comes to any human who sees God. In most of these contexts, however, the narration undermines this sentiment by depicting the pleasant surprise of those who survive. The text presents this perspective as a misperception to which human beings subscribe, for no humans in the Bible ever die simply because they have seen God. On the contrary, throughout the Bible God wants to communicate intimately with humans. The problem of how God can adequately show himself to humankind without harm is a conundrum that is never really resolved in the Bible. [9]

Holding approaches this dilemma differently. He insists that the “danger motif” means that what these men saw couldn’t have really been God. But this assumption requires far more information than the Bible provides. Weinfeld and Orlov argue that the danger motif in seeing God, “support the idea that the human being actually can see the face of God.” [10] Holding asks how this is so, but the answer should be obvious. The text nowhere says man cannot see God’s face. It says man cannot see God’s face and live. Clearly this implies something above God’s shoulders that can be seen, or else the warning is dubious. At the least, with this information we can conclude that God’s natural state is not “invisible.”

Christi D. Bamford takes an interesting perspective and argues that since, “there is no record in the Hebrew Scriptures of anyone’s death as a result of seeing the God of Israel” that the warning was perhaps “hyperbolic” or would be eliminated “if God were the one to choose to reveal himself, and if the viewing were done under his conditions.” [11] To this Holding responds: “Exactly. Such as -- THEOPHANIES!”

But theophanies, as Holding understands them, have nothing to do with God’s true being, however the warnings against seeing God, have everything to do with seeing God for who he is. So the theophany excuse doesn't work in this instance. To support her argument Bamford draws our attention to the fact that,

The ark was dangerous only to someone who was not consecrated for the task. In 1 Samuel 6-7, when some of the men of Beth-Shemesh are slain by God for looking into the ark, “the men of Beth-shemesh said, ‘who is able to stand before the Lord, this holy God? And to whom shall he go up away from us?’”(1 Sam 6:20). The ark is then taken to the house of Abinadab, and after Eleazar is properly consecrated for the task all seems to go well (1 Sam 7:1). In addition, the sacred mountain seems to have been dangerous only to the average Israelites, as the leaders and priests were able to ascend it safely (Exod. 24:1,9-11). [12]

Here we find a direct parallel. The act of looking into the ark was synonymous with “standing before God.” Holding responds to this with:

That works nicely. Now then: How does this get around that "NO ONE" can see God's face and live? Obviously no "consecration" for seeing the face of God is described anywhere.

Holding is refusing to see the parallel and the problem it raises for his argument. Holding believes nobody can see God because the Bible says so. Yet, the same warning is found in the context of the ark. This shouldn’t be hard to deduce that a biblical warning in itself proves nothing, and this is the point which destroys Holding’s argument.

All Graham is doing is digging a deeper hole for his position.

No, what I am doing is providing parallel verses that shed light on this issue and make better sense of the narrative, whereas Holding is compelled by theological expediency to declare a paradox and call it quits. The fact is, the Bible is ambiguous on this issue, and Hendel concludes that Moses actually did see God, thus becoming an “exception that proved the rule.” [13]

Hendel here actually agrees with me in essence! He takes the tack that a paradox WAS created!

Actually, he doesn’t. Hendel says that, “the biblical rule that no one can see God and live has an exception in Moses, but that his example is unattainable for ordinary humans.” [14] Thus, he believes God was seen by Moses, in spite of the rule to the contrary.

But back to Bamford’s point. She notes that death was certainly expected of anyone who attempted to look inside the ark, but those whom God had set aside for the task were spared. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if there was something special about the men who stood before God and lived.

We must not only "ask ourselves," we must provide direct proof that there was something special about them. The "set aside" for priests is documented. What "set aside" Jacob and the elders is NOT specified.

Holding is missing the point. The fact is that there were other similar rules of “you can’t see that and live.” These rules were proved to be qualified without the paradox explanation. The narrative of the Sinai experience indicates much more that would support the LDS explanation. Detailed documentation for every single point of doctrine has hardly been a concern for Evangelical apologists, so why does Holding demand “proof” at this time for LDS? The LDS position responds to this so-called “paradox” with the following revelation: “no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God” (D&C 67:11). Further,

Because God is a being of transcendent glory, it is impossible for men and women to enter his presence without their physical bodies being spiritually “quickened.” The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that God “dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. ‘Our God is a consuming fire’” (TPJS, p. 367; cf. Heb. 12:29; Deut. 4:24). Transfiguration bestows on individuals a temporary condition compatible to that of deity and allows them to see God face-to-face. [15]

Holding responds,

Obviously, this is of use only if we accept the Mormon paradigm to begin with.

It is of use to anyone who wants to avoid having to rely on the cop-out argument of a “paradox.” I understand the unfortunate state of Evangelicalism, which hasn't the benefit of modern revelation, but that is beside the point. While there is no clear textual indication that Jacob had been “transfigured,” we do know that this was true of Moses and also Jesus. The Bible tells us that Moses was transfigured during his encounter with God (Ex 34:29) and we see in the New Testament that Christ was transfigured during his encounter with the heavenly messengers Moses and Elijah. (Matthew 17:1-6) The Greek term used (metamorphoo) is the root word for metamorphosis, which we use to describe the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly or a tadpole to a frog. The beings were not only changed in physical appearance, but were temporarily transformed to what we might consider a higher plain of existence. The purpose of this transformation was to spare their physical bodies from destruction. This also is explicated in LDS scripture: “But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him”(Moses 1.10-11).

It is clear that Moses' transformation was the result of his experience, not a precursor form of protection!

How is this “clear” when all we have is a description given by the Israelites who saw Moses coming down the mountain after the event? It is hardly “clear” that the transfiguration couldn’t have occurred before the event when we have no details of the 40 days and 40 nights prior to the event.

Holding is nit-picking, being hypercritical of a perfectly sound explanation, while at the same time ignoring the plethora of inconsistencies in his own. Ultimately, the Evangelical position does nothing to resolve the following problems. How is it that God is invisible by nature, yet He was visible to Moses?   For what purpose was Moses transfigured? What is the “metaphorical” meaning behind the “back parts” of God’s form? Holding provides none. He merely insists it must be a metaphor.

---

[1] Holman Bible Dictionary, Face.

[2] Numbers 14:14

[3] Jeremiah 32:4; 34:3

[4] Gen 1:2;29;2:6;4:14.

[5] Andrei Orlov, Seminar Papers 39, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting 2000 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) 130-147.

[6] Kenneth E. Kirk, The Christian Doctrine of the Summum Bonum, The Bampton Lectures for 1928 (Longmans, Green and Co. London:1932) p.11

[7] C.F. Burney, The Book of Judges, (London: Rivingtons) p.193

[8] Num 12:6-8

[9] Samual A. Meier, “Theophany.” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the BIble (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 740.

[10] Orlov, 135. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 207

[11] Christi D.Bamford, “Seeing God in the Hebrew Bible: The Name, The Glory, and The Messenger,” Masters Thesis 2001. Bamford is a Hebrew Professor - University of Georgia Dept of Religion.

[12] Ibib. Note 13.

[13] Ronald S. Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in The Image and the Book, 220-224.

[14] Email to Graham.

[15] Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1484

Further Reading

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

175th anniversary of Joseph and Hyrum Smith's Deaths and "Joseph Smith Worship" Addressed

As today is the 175th anniversary of the murders of both Joseph and Hyrum Smith, it appears rather apropos to share this article from a few years ago:

Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology

A.J.B. Higgins on "Remembrance" and the Eucharist

Commenting on the command to celebrate the Eucharist “in remembrance of [Christ]” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23-24), A.J.B. Higgins wrote:

The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, however, is in fact far more than a memorial feast. It possesses a strong eschatological outlook; and on his last night our Lord looked forward with confidence to a rendezvous with his friends in the Kingdom of God. Moreover, the Last Supper was in all probability a Passover meal, and therefore a firm feature of that festival may explain the injunction that the Last Supper was to be repeated as a remembrance.

The following key passages illustrate the centrality of the idea of remembrance in the Passover.

Ex. 12.14: ‘And this day shall be unto you for a memorial (lezikkaron, LXX μνημοσυνον), and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord: throughout your generations you shall keep it a fast y an ordinance for ever.’

Deut. 16.3: ‘That thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the Lord of Egypt all the days of thy life.’

Ex. 13.3: ‘Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt.’

Ex. 13.9: ‘And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial (lezikkaron, LXX μνημοσυνον) between thine eyes.’

The precept to tell the children the meaning of the festival (Ex. 12.26f; 138) is the basis of the Passover Haggadah, by which the memory of the event is to be kept fresh, and each individual in every generation is to feel that he shares in the deliverance from Egypt.

It is held by W.D. Davies, but from quite a different angle than that of Lietzmann, that the command to repeat ‘in remembrance’ is due to Paul, who, regarding the Last Supper as a new Passover, has imported into it the element of remembrance which is characteristic of the latter. One wonders, however, how Paul could have been the first to do this, though Davies, it is true, does allow that he was but making explicit what was already implicit, and even in the mind of Jesus himself.

Strongly in favour of the possibility that the words ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ should be attributed not to Paul, but to a tradition used by him is the un-Pauline language of the whole pericope. (A.J.B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament [Studies in Biblical Theology 5; London: SCM Press, 1952, 1964], 35-36)

Henry Hudson: Declaring of True and False Doctrines are Encompassed in "Binding" and "Loosing" in Matthew 16

In a rather hit-and-miss (largely miss, to be honest) critique of Catholic teachings about the papacy, one Protestant (Calvary Chapel) apologist, wrote the following about the meaning of “binding and loosing,” and (perhaps unintentionally) argues for a rather Catholic/Eastern Orthodoxy/LDS understanding thereof, as it relates, not just to morals, but also the issue of declaring doctrines (something many Protestant apologists claim is not in view in Matt 16:18-19; cf. D&C 124:93):

What the notion of this authoritative binding and loosing means can be gleaned from both biblical and contemporary rabbinical source. John Lightfoot wrote of the possibility of producing thousands of examples of this particular concept from rabbinical writings. He asked, ‘To think that Christ, when he used the common phrase, was not understood by his headers in the common and vulgar sense, shall I call it a matter of laughter or of madness?’ (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations [Oxford: University Press, 1859], p. 234-40) From all examples cited from the school of Shammai, and from the school of Hillel, both of which were influential in the days of Christ, the meaning of quite clear. The phrase was used with reference to doctrines and judgements, and the idea of binding conveyed the meaning of forbidding and loosing signified permission. That such was indeed the intention may be inferred from such New Testament references as Matthew 13:52; 23:13; Luke 11:52. The last reference is particularly noteworthy for it connects the concept of ‘the key of knowledge’, that is, the truth concerning entrance into the kingdom of God. Peter and the other apostles were instructed in this matter, and they exercised their binding and loosing authority frequently throughout the early history of the book of Acts (see Acts 2:37-47; 3:1-26; 4:1-12; 5:17-32; 15:1-29; 21:17-26). (Henry T. Hudson, Papal Power: Its Origins and Developments [Evangelical Press, 1981], 103, emphasis added)

Answering Ken Lenz on Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 1:17, and Baptismal Regeneration

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NASB)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (1 Cor 1:17 NASB)

 Attempting to explain away Acts 2:38, one defender of a symbolic understanding of water baptism wrote the following:

For those who believe that water baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, this verse appears to serve as a convincing proof text. For those who understand the broader context of Scripture as teaching that water baptism is not required for the remission of sins or for salvation as a whole, there is a plausible explanation of this verse. In the phrase, “for the remission of sins,” the word “for” is a translation of the Greek word “eis,” which can be understood as “because of,” rendering the meaning of the verse as exhorting repentance, and then being baptized “because of the forgiveness of sins” already granted on the basis of that repentance, and as a testimony to it.

An illustration of this rendering could be seen even from the English usage of the word “for” in the following example. If someone were to say, “Take two aspirin tablets ‘for’ a headache,” you could interpret that as meaning either to take two aspirins to receive a headache or “because of” already having a headache. In a similar way, it is believed that this verse means that these Jews were exhorted to be baptized “[because of] the remission of sins” they would have already received—and to demonstrate the sincerity of their repentance and faith.

Actually, the Greek word “eis” (whose primary meaning is “into”) is translated several ways in the New Testament, depending on the context. In Matthew 12:41 we see the word as follows: “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at [Gk.: eis] the preaching Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.” The clear understanding is that the Ninevites repented “because of” the preaching of Jonah. (Notice, too, the emphasis on repentance; also, of course, there was no requirement of baptism.) Dr. Warren Wiersbe wrote in his commentary:

It is unfortunate that the translation of Acts 2:38 in the King James Version suggests that people must be baptized in order to be saved, because this is not what the Bible teaches. The Greek word eis (which is translated “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins”) can mean “on account of” or “on the basis of.” In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist baptized on the basis that people had repented. Acts 2:38 should not be used to teach salvation by baptism. If baptism is essential to salvation, it seems strange that Peter said nothing about it in his other sermons (Acts 3:12-26; 5:29-32; 10:34-43). In fact, the people in the home of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized (Acts 10:44-48)! (Wiersbe, vol. 1, p. 410); emphasis in original)

We could also note that the Greek grammar suggests that the word “repent” (being in the second person, plural) is more closely associated with the phrase “and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (“you” being also in the second person, plural); while (literally) “be baptized each of you” is in the singular form, as is also the phrase “[because of] the remission of [your] sins.” Those who have repentant faith in Christ are to be baptized, each one, because of having already been forgiven, individually! (Ken Lenz, Water Baptism and Spirit Baptism: As Taught in the Scriptures [Bloomington, Ind.: Xlibris, 2017] 119-20, emphasis in original; note that the author is forced to admit that the primary meaning of εις in “into” on p. 120)

Elsewhere, on 1 Cor 1:17, the same apologist wrote:

What is most noteworthy about I Corinthian 1:10-17 in regard to water baptism is (1) the relatively few people that the Apostle Paul baptized, (2) the relative unimportance Paul placed upon it, (3) the emphasis on Paul’s calling to “preach the gospel,” and (4) the divisiveness and misuse of baptism that had so soon emerged.

As with many churches today, the misuse of baptism in Corinth was based on both the elevated importance assigned to it and the veneration of humans arising out of it. Paul opposed such perversions, bringing the focus back onto Christ and His crucifixion, and to the preaching of the gospel. Many denominations and even branches of Christianity assign to water baptism the significance of being a means through which God’s grace is bestowed; however, such a doctrine is not taught in Scripture, nor is it seen in the example given in Scripture. Then too, entire branches of Christianity venerate certain “saints,” while the Scriptures teach that we are not to exalt others, and that actually all believers are “saints” (e.g., Acts 26:10; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; 4:12; etc.)

The Apostle mentioned those whom he baptized, merely to serve as an illustration of the relative unimportance of this religious rite when compared to salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ. He went so far as to state, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except . . .” and then he named only a couple of individuals. Would he have expressed such a perspective (under the inspiration of God) if baptism were a means through which God dispenses His grace—either saving grace or sanctifying grace? After mentioning a few names (including one as an after-thought, as if to further imply its relative unimportance), Paul then stated, “Besides [these], I do not know whether I baptized any other” (1:16).

The point is not that Paul had a poor memory, but that water baptism is not to be regarded as essential to one’s faith or spiritual development, or to one’s ministry (i.e., service to others). If it were, Paul would not have written of it in such a manner. He goes so far as to write, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1:17). It is through the preaching of the gospel that men, women, boys and girls come to faith in Christ. This is what brings salvation and spiritual growth. (Ibid., 188-89, emphasis in original)

 To see why Lenz is simply wrong in his (pathetic, frankly) attempt to downplay the salvific role of water baptism, see the following where one will find a detailed exegesis of Acts 2:38 and 1 Cor 1:17, including a discussion of the preposition εις ("for"/"into"):

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

As for Cornelius and his household, such is not problematic for water baptism being salvific; see:

Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration; Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration?; Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?; and Ernst Käsemann on Baptism and the Spirit in Acts 8 and 10