Scriptural Mormonism: Easter for Protestants, or Jeremy Howard Cannot Exegete Hebrews 1:1-4 and Preaches a False Gospel

This morning I watched the following video posted on the Orchard Hill Bible Church:

Jeremy Howard, in his typical condescending (and as we will see, ignorant and superlow IQ arguments) makes a number of claims based on Heb 1:1-4 which only reveal he cannot exegete Hebrews. Indeed, as we will see, the Epistle to the Hebrews refutes, not supports, his false and blasphemous Protestant theology.

Heb 1:1-2 and the Cessation of Public Revelation

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.

Firstly, with respect to Heb 1:1, this does not state that there would be no prophets or apostles after Jesus or that God the Father would speak to us in other means than the Bible and other sources. Let us actually exegete the text:

In response, it could be enough to point out the obvious fact that Hebrews, probably written in the mid AD 60s, was not the last book of the New Testament to have been written and the implications of this fact are usually glossed over (i.e., it would not be God-breathed if the absolutist reading is true)

The problem is that, by taking the absolutist view that many critics all 27 books of the New Testament as being divinely inspired Scripture, because for it to be "God-breathed" revelation, God would have to inspire the authors of such texts. Indeed, it would mean that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not inspired when he wrote it, as it would preclude post-ascension revelation! In reality, all that these verses state is that God spoke in the past through the prophets and during the time of Christ, through His Son, Jesus Christ. It does not touch upon the question of post-ascension revelation, apostles, and prophets, so in reality, critics who bring up this passage against LDS teachings are, essentially, begging the question.

Interestingly enough, appealing to such an absolutised reading of Heb 1:1-2 results in one rejecting the personal pre-existence of Jesus, or at the very least, one would have to conclude that Jesus was passive, not active, during the Old Testament period. To quote Dave Burke, a Christadelphian apologist:

I find it interesting that you [Robert M. Bowman] cite Hebrews 1:1-13 as your text and then completely ignore verse 1. Perhaps it’s because you’re not sure how to deal with this verse, which clearly states that God formerly spoke to people through His prophets, but has spoken through His Son ‘in these last days.’ Such a statement has obvious implications for the concept of Jesus’ pre-existence and undermines the popular claim that OT angelic theophanies were actually appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.

In response to this, Bowman rather cogently. In spite of my disagreement with this critic about the essentials of the gospel, I think he is spot-on in (1) answering the common Socinian abuse of this pericope (Anthony Buzzard often appeals to this text, for instance) and (2) that it does not preclude post-ascension prophets and apostles:

You seem to reach for arguments from silence a lot, Dave. I said nothing specifically about verse 1 because I had a lot of ground to cover and little room to cover it. Verse 1 poses absolutely no problem for my Christology. God spoke in the past in the prophets; in these last days he has spoken to us in the Son. This statement has no implications, obvious or otherwise, as to when the Son began to exist. Nor does this statement mean that the Son could not have spoken as the preincarnate angel of the LORD. By your reasoning, the order is rigidly (1) prophets and no Son, (2) Son and no prophets. But we know, as it turns out, that there were prophets after the Son came (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). The author’s point is simply that the revelation that came through the Son “in these last days” represents the climax, the high point, of the history of revelation. (source)

Furthermore, note that the New Testament affirms true prophets after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, in Rev 11:3-12, there is a promise of two eschatological prophets who would serve as two (true) witnesses of God against a fallen world and who would be killed. See also Didache 11:3-12, where there is a debate about how one can discern true and false prophets and apostles (the Didache being a composite text, written between 50-90/100).

James Bannerman (1807-1868), who himself was a cessationist and a proponent of Sola Scriptura, wrote the following about prophets in the New Testament-era Church after the ascension:

. . . the order of prophets in the New Testament Church had the power of declaring the mind of God generally, and without reference to the future, being inspired to preach or proclaim Divine truth, as it was revealed to them in an extraordinary manner by the Spirit.

They were infallible interpreters of the Old Testament Scriptures and inspired preachers of Divine truth, declaring the Word of God for the conversion of sinners and the profit of the Church. The difference between the prophets and the ordinary pastors or teachers of the early Church was, that the one was inspired preachers of the Gospel, and the others were not inspired. The prophesying or preaching of the first was the fruit of immediate extraordinary revelation at the moment; the prophesying or preaching of the second was the fruit of their own unaided study of the Old Testament Scriptures, and personal understanding of Divine truth. That this was the case, is apparent from the instructions given by the Apostle Paul in the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians in regard to the use of the supernatural gifts conferred on that Church. “Let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge. If anything be revealed (αποκαλυφθη) to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace” (1 Cor. xiv. 29f). The prophesying or preaching of this order of office-bearers in the primitive Church was identical with the “revelations” given to certain of the early believers for the purpose of edifying the rest. (James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on The Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of The Christian Church, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960], 2:233)

Such is a very good refutation, from a Protestant theologian, against the naïve misreading of Heb 1:1-2 and other texts used to support the claim special revelation and inspired prophets ceased at the ascension.

It should also be noted that there is no biblical verse or pericope that teaches that public revelation would cease at the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament/death of the last apostle, and this is an essential "building-block" of Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism. As we have seen, Heb 1:1-2 does not support what Jeremy reads into the text (eisegesis).

Heb 1:3: Jesus being the "radiance" (απαυγασμα) of the Father's Glory

This is great evidence for Latter-day Saint theology about divine embodiment of God the Father. How so? D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text" offered the following exegesis of the verse:

There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.

Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.

Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek kai kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα aapaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.

Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”

In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.

Supporting the claim that απαυγασμα is passive in Heb 1:3, note the following non-LDS sources:

The meaning of απαυγασμα in Heb 1:3 is disputed. Actively, the word can denote radiance or effulgence (Phil, Spec. Leg. iv.123), or passively, reflection or the light that is reflected (Wis 7:26; Philo Op. 146; Plant. 50). The sentence structure in Heb 1:3 favors understanding απαυγασμα and → χαραχτηρ as synonyms and, therefore, interpreting απαυγασμα as pass.: Christ “reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature.” Both predicates characterize the Son as the perfect image of God and thus correspond to the expression → εικων του θεου (Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4). (Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 vols,[Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990], 1:118)

3a. The divine Son’s relation to the Father is expressed as a ‘reflection’ (apaugasma) of the Father’s glory and a ‘stamp’ or ‘imprint’ (charaktēr) of his nature. Apaugasma has been variously interpreted in an active sense (‘radiation, emanation’ of light) and in a passive sense (‘reflection’ of a luminary’s light on another surface). The active sense was the one commonly accepted in early exegesis, with conclusions at times orthodox, at times pantheistic or gnostic, but the parallel with charaktēr indicates that it is the passive sense which is intended by our author. Charaktēr is the imprint of a seal, the mark of one thing found in something else. ‘Glory’ is the form of God’s manifestation (Ex 24:16; 33:18; 40:34;cf Jn 1:14), and in late Judaism often meant God himself. Hypostasis is essence, substance, nature; to try to make the clear-cut metaphysical or speculative distinctions of a later theology is out of place; the word is chosen on the basis of theological imagery and metaphor. Without pressing these images further than the author intends, we may say that ‘reflection of his glory’ denotes the Son’s divine origin and perfect similarity to the Father, and ‘stamp of his nature’ that similarity qualified by his distinction from the Father. ‘Upholding the universe by his word of power’: pherōn has the double sense of maintaining the existence of creation and of governing, directing the course of history. The ‘word’ here is the dynamic OT ‘word’ which produces the physical or historical effects, and ‘word of power’, of course, is a Semitism for ‘powerful word’. (Dom Aelred Cody, “Hebrews” in Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1969], 1224, emphasis in bold added)

As an aside, Howard's comments about χαρακτηρ not being temporal is question-begging; it is a noun, not a verb. Notice how this word is used in the LXX (it is not used elsewhere in the NT) (the following are from the NETS):

But if the bright spot remains in one place and does not spread in the skin but is inconspicuous, it is a lesson from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is the style (χαρακτήρ) of the burn.

When the king assented and he came to the office, he at once shifted his compatriots over to the Greek way (χαρακτήρ) of life. (2 Maccabees 4:10)

How can I characterize the passions involved in the love of parents for their children? We impress upon the tender nature (χαρακτήρ) of a child a remarkable likeness both of soul and of form; especially is true of mothers because they are more sympathetic in their feelings towards their offspring than fathers. (4 Maccabees 15:4)

To make a Christological argument, one way or another, is to engage in question-begging. Furthermore, do note that Heb 1:1-4 is about the person of Jesus. Why is this significant? Unless Jeremy wants to (at least functionally) hold to a form of Nestorianism, it was the person of Jesus who was appointed (using the verb τιθημι) in v. 2 and having become (γενομενος, from γινομαι) than the angels in v. 4. Indeed, it would be better to say that, in light of Jesus’ exaltation, “God’s glory has impressed itself on Him as the One exalted by God” (TDNT 9:421). Also note the definition of χαρακτήρ in BDAG:

2. someth. produced as a representation, reproduction, representation, fig., of God ἄνθρωπον ἔπλασεν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα (God) formed a human being as reproduction of his own identity/reality (s. εἰκών 2) 1 Cl 33:4 (cp. OGI 383, 60 of a picture χ. μορφῆς ἐμῆς; 404, 25; Philo, Det. Pot. Ins. 83 calls the soul τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως). Christ is χαρ. τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ an exact representation of (God’s) real being Hb 1:3 (ὑπόστασις 1a).

With respect to the usage of this term in Christian literature contemporary with Hebrews, 1 Clement (usually dated to the mid-90s; a good case can be made for late 60s) and Ignatius (d. 107), TDNT notes the following:

1 Cl., 33, 4 [Above all, as the most excellent and exceeding great work of His intelligence, with His sacred and faultless hands He formed man in the impress of His own image] offers a unique exposition of Gn. 1:26 f.: ταῖς ἱεραῖς καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν (sc. ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον. τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. This is unique inasmuch as the κατʼ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος is not understood as himself the image of God but rather as the impress of God’s image. εἰκών here is the original whose image was impressed on man at creation. The εἰκών itself is God’s own image τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος, i.e., He Himself in His essential form. Possibly the hymnal tradition of Hb. 1:3 has influenced the usage here.

Ign. Mg., 5, 2 [for just as there are two coinages, the one of God and the other of the world, and each of them hath its proper stamp impressed upon it, the unbelievers the stamp of this world, but the faithful in love the stamp of God the Father through Jesus Christ, through whom unless of our own free choice we accept to die unto His passion, His life is not in us:] uses the coin metaphor to express the distinction between those who belong to Christ and the children of the world: ὥσπερ γάρ ἐστιν νομίσματα δύο, ὃ μὲν θεοῦ, ὃ δὲ κόσμου, καὶ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα ἐπικείμενον ἔχει, οἱ ἄπιστοι τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, οἱ δὲ πιστοὶ ἐν ἀγάπῃ χαρακτῆρα θεοῦ πατρὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. As the continuation shows, the “character” of God which Christians have received through Jesus Christ is participation in His suffering as the presupposition of participation in His life, which “characterises” Christians as such. In Ign. Tr. Inscr.: ἀσπάζομαι … ἐν ἀποστολικῷ χαρακτῆρι, χαρακτήρ has a very weak sense: “I greet you in the manner (or: after the model) of the apostles.” This formulation expresses his sense of difference from the apostles, cf. in contrast 1 C. 9:2. (TDNT 9:423)

For more, see:

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

On whether Heb 1 supports strict numerical monotheism and/or a form of Trinitarianism (whether Latin or Eastern models), consider the following about vv. 8-9 which shows us that, after the ascension,the person of Jesus worships God the Father. Note the following:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Heb 1:8-9)

Here, the author of Hebrews quotes Psa 45, which, in its original context, is the wedding of a Davidic King, where the King is called “god” but in a subordinate sense to the greater God who anointed him. Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].

In the theology of the author of Hebrews, while Jesus is God, the person of Jesus, even after his super-exaltation (cf. Phil 2:5-11) is still subordinate to, not simply the Father, but “God.” I make reference to the person of Jesus as some will try to wrangle out of this by claiming that it is the human nature/will that was assumed by the eternal Logos, but what the New Testament authors do are speak of all of these actions as those of the person of Jesus. One will have to functionally treat Jesus as two persons, the heresy of Nestorianism. This also supports a plurality of Gods doctrine which Latter-day Saints teach.

To see an example of how desperate some Trinitarians are to get around and explain Psa 45 and its use in Heb 1:8-9, see Michael Vlach on the use of Psalm 45 in Hebrews 1:8-9.

Such a Christology is further explicated in Rev 1:1:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

Here, Jesus, again after his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation, does not know everything the Father does--the Greek explicitly states that the person of God gives the Revelation to the person of Jesus (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς – the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ which God gave to him [Jesus]). This fits well with a subordinationist Christology one finds within the Latter-day Saint tradition.

For more on texts that speak of the ontological ("real") existence of other Gods and other texts (e.g., Col 1:15-20), see

Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"

The Exaltation of Jesus and Christification

Heb 1:1-4 contains the theme of Jesus' exaltation. As this relates to Christification and has overlap with anthropology (theology of man) and the next section on Total Depravity, let us examine these concepts.

Commenting on the “exaltation” of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Peter C. Orr, lecturer in New Testament, Moore College, Sydney, Australia, wrote the following:

Although the focus is on Christ’s superiority over the angels following his exaltation (‘having become as much superior’), the author also maintains the exalted status of Christ before creation (1:2; 1:10). The author seems to be using angels as ‘midpoint’ between humanity and God. As such,

[t]hey mark out the cosmic territory. They function, so to speak, as measures of ontological status. To be above the angels is to be God, to be below the angels is to be human. Above the angels is to be human. Above the angels, Jesus transcends all creation, sharing the divine identity as Creator and Ruler even of the angels. Below the angels, Jesus shares the common identity of earthly humans in birth, suffering, and death. (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: ‘God Crucified’ and Other Studies in the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity [2008],241)

The Son, who was with God from the beginning of creation (1:2; 1:10), is in his incarnation made lower than the angels (2:9). Following his purification of sins, he is exalted and so made higher than them again. In that sense, he becomes again—as a human being—higher than the angels. (Peter Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens: The Risen and Ascended Christ [New Studies in Biblical Theology 47; London: Apollos, 2018], 21, emphasis in bold added)

Such shows that in New Testament theology, there is a positive view of the potential of humans. As Jesus, who is a single person, is exalted with reference to his humanity (in Orr’s Trinitarian theology), believers should expect, to some degree, a similar exaltation, too (cf. 1 John 3:1-3; Rev 3:9, 21 [the latter is discussed below]).

We can see this doctrine of “Christification” of believers in Col 2:9:

For in him dwells the fullness of deity bodily. (NRSV)

Commenting on this verse, as well as vv.10-15, Clinton Arnold wrote:

Participating in Christ’s Fullness Christ has not only delivered his people from the domain of darkness, but he has brought them into his kingdom and bestowed on them his salvation . . . What Paul says about Christ [in Col 2:9] he immediately applies to the church by declaring, “in him you are filled” (εστε εν αυτω πεπληρωμενοι). The “in him” (εν αυτω) marks a major motif of the entire theological section of 2:9-15. Paul is hereby attempting to help these believers understand the full significance of being in Christ, especially as it relates to their concern about supernatural powers and their temptation to follow the solution offered by “the philosophy.” His solution is for them to gain a fuller- appreciation for their resources in Christ and to grasp hold of their leader and supplier (2:19) and to concentrate on the things above where Christ is at the right hand of God (3:1).

The fullness of God—his power and his grace—are bestowed on believers by virtue of their incorporation into Christ. As Lightfoot has said, God’s πληρωμα is “transfused” into them. The perfect periphrastic construction (εστε . . .πεπληρωμενοι) emphasises their share in the divine fullness as part of their present experience. (Clinton Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995], 293-95; square brackets added for clarification)

Elsewhere, according to the New Testament, we will be, by grace, exalted to the same status and glory as Jesus. Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):

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

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

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

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

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

In 4Q246 from Qumran (AKA "the Son of God Text"; "Aramaic Apocalypse"), there is an expectation that believers who persevere will be the recipients of worship in the eschaton, strongly paralleling Rev 3:9, 21. In Column II we read:

4. Until the people of God arise; then all will have rest from warfare.

5. Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all their paths will be righteous. They will judge

6. the land justly, and all nations will make peace. Warfare will cease from the land,

7. and all the nations shall do obeisance to them . . . (source)

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

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

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

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

This is yet another area where Latter-day Saint theology and practice is more commensurate with “biblical Christianity” and not the theologies of our Evangelical opponents (for more, see Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology).

One may argue “well, if your theology is true, there is more than one ‘God Most High’ [El Elyon].” That does not follow. One can believe that the Father is singularly God Most High, and LDS theology allows for a consistent model of such, as do modern textual discoveries, such as the earliest text of Deut 32:7-9, 43. Even if the traditional interpretation of the King Follett Discourse is true, a Trinitarian has the same problem. Imagine if Jesus (who will be the God-man eternally, according to Chalcedon), alongside the persons of the Father and the Spirit (taking bodily form [a theophany]) appeared to someone and this person asked “hands up if you are ‘God Most High’” how many will raise their hands? If you answer more than 1, you have multiple persons who are “God Most High” (El Elyon). Simply claiming “but they are the same being” will not get you out of this dilemma; LDS believe angels, man, and exalted beings (Gods) to be the same genus (cf. Latter-day Saint Theology and Acts 17:28-29).

The "responses" will be largely the following:

(*) informed by a form of Nestorianism (all too common in modern Evangelical Protestantism, not on a creedal level, but a functional level)

(*) Engage in eisegesis of the texts discussed above and other relevant ones and/or engage in a lot of "nuh-uh"

(*) claim that the "historical church" has taught otherwise, which is rich, as the "historical church" contradicts Protestantism on core issues (e.g., the instrument of justification [the patristics were unanimous in affirming the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration]; the nature of justification; rejection of imputed righteousness; transformational model of justification).

Total Depravity/We Do not Truly Seek God

Howard made some comments implying Total Depravity. Let us examine some evidence from the Bible that refute this doctrine.

Commenting on the words used for man’s (active) seeking after God, thus refuting Total Depravity, Robert Sungenis wrote:

Paul uses three different words to describe man’s quest for God: The first word, ζητειν (“to seek”), is the ordinary word the New Testament uses for seeking God (e.g., Mt 6:33; 7:7-8; Lk 12:31; 17:33; Rm 2:7; Cl 3:1), and is used here as an infinitive of purpose, i.e., it is the purpose of God for men to seek him. The second word, ψηλαφησειαν (“reach out for him”), appears three other times in the New Testament in reference to feeling or touching God or Jesus (e.g., Lk 24:39; Hb 12:18; 1Jn 1:1). The third word, ευριεν is the ordinary word for “find.” Both ψηλαφησειαν and ευριεν are optative verb forms through which Paul is expressing a clear and distinct expectation from men. Paul reinforces this expectation by καιγε ου μακραν απο ενος εκαστου ημων υπαρχοντα (“though he is not far from each one of us”) preceded by the strong conditional ει αρα γε (“so that” or more emphatically “if then” or “if therefore” (as αρα γε is used in Mt 7:20; 17:26), and by the strengthened και with the addition of γε to read “even being not far from each one of us”). Also, the expectation of each individual to seek God, not merely men as a group seeking God, is made emphatic by Paul’s addition of “each one of us.” (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 398 n. 483)

Commenting on Rom 9:22 and Paul’s shift from the active voice in v. 21 (ποιῆσαι “made” [in reference to vessels “unto honour”) to passive voice (κατηρτισμένα "fitted" [used of vessels “prepared for destruction”), Sungenis noted:

The words, “prepared for destruction” are from the Greek words, κατηρτισμενα εις απωλειαν using the perfect, passive, participle of καταρτιζω which is normally understood as “perfected” (Mt 21:16; Lk 6:40; 1Co 1:10; 1Pt 5:10); “mended” (Mt 4:21); “formed” (Hb 11:3). The perfect tense can be translated “having been formed” or “having been made.” This verb could also be in the middle voice which would be translated, “having made themselves for destruction.” Whether middle or passive, this word is in contrast to the words “prepared in advance” (Greek: προητοιμασεν) in Rm 9:23 which is in the Greek active voice, denoting that God initiated the preparation for glory but did not necessarily take part in those who were “prepared for destruction.” Calvin ignores the distinction in the Greek voice, instead, attributing to God an active role in preparing the vessels of wrath for destruction. 1Pt 2:8 uses the phrase, “which is also what they were destined for” from the Greek aorist, passive ετεθησαν which normally refers to placement or appointment. Calvin likens this passage to his view of Romans 9 in which “Pharaoh is said to have been put into the position of resisting God, and all unbelievers are destined for the same purpose” (Calvin’s Commentary, op. cit., 1 Peter, p. 264). In like fashion, some have attempted to use Jude 4 to teach supralapsarianism by the KJV translation, “who were before of old ordained to this condemnation.” However, the Greek verb translated “ordained” by the KJV is the word, προγεγραμμενοι which should be translated “having been written before.” (Ibid., 432 n. 553)

A related verse is that of John 1:12:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

Both ελαβον ("received") and πιστευουσιν ("believe") are in the active voice, denoting the personal decision of the individual, as opposed to the passive which would mean that they were made (by God's infallible decree, a la Reformed theology) to receive and believe.

Interestingly, the very conversion of Paul himself disproves Total Depravity. As Sungenis (ibid., 238-39) noted:

Commenting on the conversion of the apostle Paul, one author wrote the following which soundly refutes the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity (the “T” of TULIP):

The Case of Paul

Another case of the interplay between God’s grace and the concept of gracious merit appears in how Paul speaks of his own conversion to Christianity. In 1Tm 1:13-16, Paul writes:

Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.

Here we see a connection between the mercy that God showed Paul for his sins and Paul’s ignorance and unbelief in committing such things. Although he calls himself “the worst of sinners,” mainly because of his utter hatred and persecution of the first Christians, Paul also tells us that it was in his zeal for the faith of his Judaistic fathers that he blasphemed and persecuted, because he simply did not know Jesus and his mission. In the accounts of Paul’s conversion in the book of Ac 9:1-19; 22:1-16; 26:9-23, we find that Paul was not the worst of sinners in the sense of living a malicious life of reckless abandon or having totally disregarded the commandments of God. He says of himself in Ph 3:6 that he was “faultless” in the righteousness of the law. Let us make clear that this is not to say that Paul gained any merit with God because of his law-keeping. Surely if Paul had died in this unconverted state he would have come under God’s judgment. Jesus, however, appearing to Paul on the Damascus road, is coming not as the vengeful God who wants to destroy Paul for his sins but as a gentle inquisitor asking, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Jesus speaks to Paul almost as if he had known him previously. Paul answers, “Who are you, Lord?” As soon as Paul hears Jesus’ answer, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting...now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do,” Paul obeys. He has finally found the answer he was looking for and responds immediately. We must notice, however, that there is something about Paul that Jesus seeks. Paul has misdirected his godly energies out of ignorance. Paul’s zeal and honesty for what he believes can now be pressed into service by Jesus for Christianity. While Paul was persecuting the Church in his zeal for God, Jesus had “patience” with him because Paul was acting in ignorance. All he needed was a push in the right direction and he would become the greatest missionary for Christianity the world had ever known. As God led Cornelius to Christianity, he likewise led Paul to Christianity — by a direct communication. As Cornelius was baptized, so Paul was baptized, that God’s grace could wash away his past sins. Acts 22:16 records God’s command to Paul: “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” [276]

Note for the Above:

[276] The concept of gracious merit — in which God does something good to the individual based either on the goodness God sees in the individual’s intentions or on his actual obedience — permeates Scripture, especially the Old Testament (cf. 1Kg 14:13; 2Kg 20:1-6; 2Ch 12:12; 19:3; 24:16; 30:18-20; Ps 37:4-9; 84:11; Pr 12:2; 13:21; Ec 2:26; Jr 5:25; 18:10; Ez 18:21; 33:14-16; Lk 8:15; Rm 2:10).

It is true that Eph 2:1 (and parallel texts in Rom 6:2 and Col 2:13) speaks of unregenerate man being “dead” in their sins. However, to read into this, as the author does, total depravity is eisegesis when one investigates the various ways Scripture uses the metaphor of spiritual death. For example, the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 portrays an image of spiritual death precisely opposite the Reformed concept. The story’s main concern is to illustrate the initial spiritual salvation of an individual (as opposed to the physical resurrection in the story of Lazarus). Hence, we see a context in which the New Testament author’s meaning of spiritually “dead” can be gleaned much more appropriately. In the story of the Prodigal Son, the son leaves the father’s house with his share of the wealth. After squandering the wealth, the son finally comes to his senses and returns by his own free will to the father. The father, in turn, greets his son with compassion and invites him back into the home. This sequence of events becomes very significant in our present discussion on the meaning of the metaphor “dead” since the father describes the son’s return specifically in Luke 15:23 as, “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.” Not without significance, verse 32 repeats verbatim the father’s description of his son’s return: “. . . for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” In light of the fact that the son himself came to his senses and subsequently made his way home, Jesus’ use of the metaphor “dead” to describe the father’s understanding of the son’s previous spiritual state connotes a state, not of “total depravity,” but rather of cooperation by the son with the father’s will. Moreover, since the story of the Prodigal Son is surrounded by other parables in Luke 15-16 which illustrate the nature of initial salvation (e.g., “The Lost Sheep” in Luke 15:1-7; “The Lost Coin” in Luke 15:8-10 and “The Shrewd Manager” in Luke 16:1-3), the medley of parables does far more to help us understand the extent and limitations of this spiritually "dead" state.

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

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

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

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.

The Greek of this text reads:

ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is common for some Calvinists such as R.C. Sproul and James White to tie John 11 and the physical raising of Lazarus with man being spiritually raised by God (as understood within the framework of Total Depravity) is to engage in false comparisons, a common exegetical fallacy Calvinists and others engage in. That certain theologies are forced to go down that (eisegetical) route should be strong evidence of how exegetically bankrupt their theological system is.

Jesus suffering and dying once-for-all

No Latter-day Saint would disagree with this. We do not believe Jesus suffers now and his death was once-for-all (εφαπαξ). For more on the implications of Jesus' actions being εξαπαξ/once-for-all, see my book, “Do This in Memory of Me”: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of Roman Catholic Dogmatic Teachings Concerning the Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass (2021) (anyone wants a free PDF, email me at ScripturalMormoismATgmailDOTcom).

Jesus' "sitting" (v. 4)

This will relate to the discussion about the question of whether one's then-future sins are forgiven at conversion and the nature of Christ's intercessory work which we will discuss below.

It is true that Jesus, in Heb 1:4, is sitting. However, Howard, either through deception and/or ignorance, does not discuss the rest of the New Testament data. Speaking of Jesus after the ascension, Jesus is said to be standing, not simply sitting, at the right hand of God, implying (priestly) action in heaven (which we will discuss more later):

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55-56)

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. (Rev 5:6)

And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. (Rev 14:1)

In Heb 8:1-3, Jesus is called a minister/ λειτουργος, a "liturgist" if you will (i.e. one engaged in cultic activity):

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister (λειτουργος) of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. (Heb 8:1-3)

This will be important when we discuss the nature of Christ's intercessory work.

At Conversion, is one's then-future sins (not simply past and then-present) forgiven?

This is false and one of the greatest blasphemies one finds within much of Protestantism.

This is absolutely false. The Bible affirms that, at justification (which is brought about by the instrumentality of water baptism), one receives a remission of one’s past and then-present sins, not one’s future sins. This can be seen in how believers are told that they can receive forgiveness of their post-baptismal sins by repenting and receiving a remission of these sins as a result of Christ’s intercession due to his being the present propitiation of the sins of believers. Consider two texts: 1 John 2:1-2 and Heb 2:17:

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation (Greek: ιλασμος [atoning sacrifice]) for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)

In this verse, John is speaking to Christian believers of his time and states that not only was/is Christ an atoning sacrifice (ιλασμος) for their then-past sins, but is presently an atoning sacrifice for their then-future sins. Why is this problematic? In Howard's soteriology, when an individual is pronounced “justified,” all their past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven, a “blanket forgiveness,” if you will. However, the text is pretty clear that a true believer will not only sin, but such sins will have to be repented of, and forgiven by Jesus Christ. This is brought out when one looks at the Greek:

The phrase, “we have an advocate” translates παράκλητον ἔχομεν, where the present text of “to have” εχω coupled with the Greek term παρακλητος, which refers to an advocate, an individual who pleads another's cause in their place, which is related to the intercessory work of Jesus Christ being tied into the perseverance of Christians and their ultimate salvation, something we find in a host of biblical texts, such as:

Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Rom 8:33-34)

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)

We see a very potent example of this in Rev 5:6:

And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

In this passage, John sees a vision of the heavenly tabernacle, where Jesus is presented as being a Lamb. The term “as it had been slain” translates the Greek term ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, where the term ως (like/as) coupled with perfect passive participle of the verb σφαζω (to slay), therefore, depicting Jesus, in His post-resurrection state, in a sacrificial role, paralleling the slaughter of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, Jesus is not sitting, but standing, indicating activity on his behalf (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1-3), namely, His intercessory work before God the Father, applying the benefits of His atoning sacrifice for His people until He comes in glory; further, as we learn in vv.8-9, the potency of the prayers offered by the disembodied elders have their basis on this intercessory work—similarly, the potency of our prayers have power due to the prayers and intercessory work of Christ, our mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).

The term “he is the propitiation for our sins” translates the Greek αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The ESV and other translations are correct in rendering Christ being a present atoning sacrifice (“propitiation”), as the verb “to be” (ειμι) is in the present tense (εστιν [“he is”]). This is commensurate with texts such as Heb 2:17 (discussed above), where the author of Hebrews presents Jesus as a present-propitiation, not merely a past-propitiation, for the sins of true believers.

1 John 1:5-10 confirms the focus on the present sins of the Christian that need forgiveness; verse 6 speaks of those who claim to have fellowship and yet walk in darkness (i.e. are engaged in unrepentant sin). In verse 7, the author provides the remedy to such, viz. the blood of Jesus Christ "that cleanseth us from all sin," allowing restoration of fellowship. This is reinforced in vv.8 and 10 that denies the claim that a Christian is without sin, while v. 9 encourages the sinner to repent, upon which God will "forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The pronouns used indicate that the author included himself in such warnings and as one who needs to engage in repentance and have his then-future sins forgiven, too.

When read exegetically, 1 John 2:1-2 shows that (1) Christ is a present propitiation for Christians; (2) the then-future sins of a Christian are not forgiven at justification, and, as a result, (3) repentance is not a once-off concept as some (not all) Evangelicals posit.

John McLeod Campbell, a 19th-century Reformed theologian who was critical of much of Penal Substitution, captured the extent and meaning of the atonement when he wrote:

And He is the propitiation: for propitiation is not a thing which He has accomplished and on which we are thrown back on as a past fact. He is the propitiation. Propitiation for us sinners,--reconciliation to God,--oneness with God abides in Christ. When we sin, and so separate ourselves from God, if we would return and not continue in sin we must remember this. For it is in this view that the Apostle, writing to us “that we sin not,” reminds us of the propitiation—not a work of Christ, but the living Christ Himself: and so he proceeds—“Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments;” the direct effect of knowing Christ the propitiation for sin being keeping Christ’s commandments. And because of the power to keep Christ’s commandments, which is ours in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, the Apostle, in words similar to those which he had just used with reference to the claim to fellowship with God who is light, adds, “He that saith I know him,” that is Christ the propitiation for our sins, “and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected,”—the end of this gift of love accomplished. “Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked.” (John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life [2d ed.: London: Macmillan and Co., 1867], 197-98; emphasis in original).

One possible "counter" could be an appeal to Heb 10:10-14, another "proof-text" for such a view on the atonement. The Greek (with key terms in bold), followed by the KJV, reads:

ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ. ¹¹Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκεν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ¹² οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ¹³ τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ¹⁴ μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ¹¹ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: ¹² But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; ¹³ From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. ¹⁴ For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

In the view of many Evangelicals, this pericope “proves” that the believer cannot fall from their salvation and that salvation is a once-for-all event (being tied into one of the many theologies of “eternal security” [e.g. Perseverance of the Saints within Reformed soteriology]).

First, Hebrews 10:14 is a somewhat obscure grammatical choice of words by the writer.

It should first be noted that Heb 10:14 (“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”) is ambiguous in the Greek.

The verse contains the present participle τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους (“those being sanctified”). This present participle could be related to the perfect tense of τετελείωκεν (“he has perfected”). If this is the case, the sacrifice of Christ is indeed once-for-all (εφαπαξ), but is in a progressive relationship to us, that is, at least with respect to sanctification, Christ’s sacrifice does not give us a “blanket” forgiveness of one’s past, present, and then-future sins; instead, it gives us a perfect forgiveness of one’s past and present sins, but it is not applied all at once to us, as we know elsewhere from the New Testament that we must seek forgiveness of sins we commit post-conversion (e.g. 1 John 2:1-2).

Had the author of Hebrews wanted to convey such a “blanket” forgiveness as some wish to read into this pericope, he should have used a noun (e.g. τουν αγιουν [“the sanctified”]).

Something interesting appears in verse 10—the writer uses a perfect tense instead of a present participle. He says ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν (“we have been sanctified”). The difference apparently lies in the “we” of v. 10 (the author and his immediate hearers) in contrast to those addressed in v. 14 which is an open-ended inclusion of anyone who will experience the sanctification in the future. This being the case, in biblical Greek, it is better to use a present participle, because only that form can include those in the present who are being sanctified as well as those in the future who will be sanctified.

There is another possibility that τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους refers to the entire sanctification process, including “positional” sanctification, for the author and his hearers in v.10 (i.e. they have been sanctified [per v. 10] but they are also being sanctified [v.14]).

Scottish Reformed theologian James Denny (1856-1917) wrote the following about the atonement and its effects in the Epistle to the Hebrews, even linking the Pauline concept of justification to the “sanctification” spoken about in Heb 10:10-14:

The Epistle, of course, does not ignore the effect of Christ and His sacrifice upon men: it has, indeed, a variety of words to describe it. Sometimes the word employed is αγιαζειν (to sanctify). The priestly Christ and His people are He who sanctifies, and they who are sanctified (ii. 11). Christians have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (x. 10). By one offering He has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified (x. 14). It was Christ’s object in dying to sanctify the people through His own blood (xiii. 12).

There has been much discussion as to what sanctification in such passages means, and especially as to whether the word is to be taken in a religious or an ethical sense. Probably the distinction would not have been clear to the writer. One thing is certain, however; it is not to be taken in the sense of some Protestant theology. The people were sanctified, not when they were raised to moral perfection—a conception utterly strange to the New Testament as to the Old—but when, through the annulling of their sin by sacrifice, they had been constituted into a people of God and, in the person of their representative, had access to His presence. In short, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the word αγιαζειν, corresponds as nearly as possible to the Pauline δικαιουν. The sanctification of the one writer is the justification of the other; and the προσαγωγη or access to God, which Paul emphasizes as the primary blessing of justification (Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12), appears everywhere in Hebrews as the primary religious act of ‘drawing near’ to God through the great High Priest (iv. 16; vii. 19-25; x. 22). It seems fair, then, to argue that the immediate effect of Christ’s death upon men is religious rather than ethical. In technical language, it alters their relation to God, or is conceived as doing so, rather than their character. Their character, too, alters eventually, but it is on the basis of that initial and primary religious change. The religious change is not a result of the moral one, not an unreal abstraction from it.

A similar result follows if we consider another of the words used to explain the effect of Christ’s priestly and sacrificial work upon men—the word τελειουν, rendered ‘to make perfect’. It is widely used in the Epistle in other connections. Christ Himself was made perfect through sufferings (ii. 10); that is, He was made all that a High Priest, or an author of salvation, ought to be. It does not mean that suffering cured Him of moral faults, but that, apart from suffering and what He learned in it, He would not have been completely fitted for His character of representing and succouring moral men. So again, when we read that the law made nothing perfect (vii. 19), the meaning is that, under the ancient religion of Israel, nothing reached the ideal. The Sanctuary was a worldly or material sanctuary (ix. 1). The priests were sinful moral men, ever passing on their unsatisfactory functions to their successors (vii. 23). The sacrifices were of irrational creatures, ‘the blood of bulls and goats’, which would never make the worshipper perfect as touching the conscience (ix. 9), that is, they could never completely lift the load from within and give him boldness and joy n the presence of God. The access to the holiest of all was not abiding. As represented in the High Priestly ministry of the day of atonement, the way to God was open only for a moment and then shut again (ix. 7 f.).

There was nothing perfect there, nothing in that religious constitution which could be described as τελειον or αιωνιον. But with Christ, all this is changed. By one offering He has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified (x. 14). The word cannot mean that He has made them sinless, in the sense of having freed them completely from all the power of sin, from every trace of its presence. It means obviously that He has put them into the ideal religious relation to God. Because of His one offering, their sin no longer comes between them and God in the very least. It does not exclude them from His presence or intimidate them. They come with boldness to the throne of grace; they draw near with a true heart and in full assurance of faith; they have an ideal, an unimpeachable standing before God as His people (vi. 16, x. 22). In Pauline language, there is now no condemnation. Instead of standing afar off, in fear and trembling, they have access to the Father. They joy in God through the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom they have received the atonement (Rom. viii. 1, v. 2-11). (James Denny, The Death of Christ [Biblical Classics Library; London: Paternoster Press, 1997], 126-28, emphasis in bold added)

While, as a Calvinist, Denny would argue that the Pauline understanding of δικαιοω is to be understood in a purely forensic manner, he is correct in tying it into the concept of “sanctification” in Heb 10 as both are two sides of the same rope, so to speak. For a discussion of the transformative, not merely declarative, nature of justification, including a discussion of δικαιοω, see Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification".

Another significant text is Heb 2:17:

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

There are a number of interesting things when one examines this verse. Firstly, there are two “purpose clauses” in this verse; the first (“that he might be a merciful high priest”) is the Greek ινα clause; the second is the use of the Greek preposition εις which means “into” or “with a goal towards” and this is coupled with the present infinitive form of the verb ιλασκομαι “to make atonement” (ιλασκεσθαι), and this present “making of atonement” is “for the sins of the people” (τας αμαρτιας του λαου). The author of Hebrews views Christ’s on-going office of heavenly intercessor as one that allows for the continuing appeasement of the Father to win the forgiveness of sins committed by believers, sins that were not forgiven at one’s conversion. In other words, this verse presents Jesus as the heavenly high priest who, even at present, makes atonement for sins; this is alien to many theologies that think of one's forgiveness as being once-for-all. The author of Hebrews says Jesus makes atonement for sins on an ongoing basis. If ones’ then-future sins were already atoned for when one appropriated Jesus (esp. if one holds to imputed righteousness), and their justification can never be lost, this verse and its theology is nonsensical. However, Christ's ongoing work as High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle is ongoing in reference to our own sins. Thus, the present infinitive form in Heb 2:17 conclusively demonstrates the continuing need for the application of Christ's work for our own salvation. Protestants are in the unenviable position of having to advocate a soteriology that is at odds with the witness of biblical exegesis.

Paul Ellingworth, a Protestant, wrote the following about Heb 2:17 and the use of ιλασκεσθαι, further showing that Jesus is a present propitiation (cf. 1 John 2:1-2):

The present verse suggests that he “became” high priest in order that he might continuously deal (ἱλάσκεσθαι present) with the people’s sins . . . Ἱλάσκεσθαι (cf. ἱλαστήριον, 9:5*, “mercy-seat”) is used in the NT only here and in Lk. 18:13**, where ἱλάσθητι means “be merciful” (cf. Est. 4:17h LXX; Dn. Th. 9:19). The present ἱλάσκεσθαι denotes continuous activity by one who remains high priest εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (5:6 = Ps. 110[LXX109]:4) following his exaltation. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 186, 188, emphasis added)

This fits perfectly well with what we find in the Expositor's Greek New Testament (5 vols.), ed. Nicoll Robertson, where Protestant scholar Marcus Dods wrote the following on Heb 2:17:

εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι, “for the purpose of making propitiation,” εἰς indicating the special purpose to be served by Christ’s becoming Priest. ἱλάσκομαι (ἱλάσκω is not met with), from ἵλαος, Attic ἵλεως “propitious,” “merciful,” means “I render propitious to myself”. In the classics it is followed by the accusative of the person propitiated, sometimes of the anger felt. In the LXX it occurs twelve times, thrice as the translation of כִּפֵּר. The only instance in which it is followed by an accusative of the sin, as here, is Psalms 64 (65):3, τὰς ἀσεβείας ἡμῶν σὺ ἱλάσῃ. In the N.T., besides the present passage, it only occurs in Luke 18:13, in the passive form ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, cf. 2 Kings 5:18. The compound formἐξιλάσκομαι, although it does not occur in N.T., is more frequently used in the LXX than the simple verb, and from its construction something may be learnt. As in profane Greek, it is followed by an accusative of the person propitiated, as in Genesis 32:20, where Jacob says of Esau ἐξιλάσομαι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώροις κ.τ.λ.; Zechariah 7:2, ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸν Κύριον, and Zechariah 8:22, τὸ πρόσωπον Κυρίου, also Matthew 1:9. It is however also followed by an accusative of the thing on account of which propitiation is needed or which requires by some rite or process to be rendered acceptable to God, as in Sir 3:3; Sir 3:30; Sir 5:6; Sir 20:28, etc., where it is followed by ἀδικίαν, and ἁμαρτίας; and in Leviticus 16:16; Leviticus 16:20; Leviticus 16:33, where it is followed by τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ θυσιαστήριον, and in Ezekiel 45:20 by τὸν οἶκον. At least thirty-two times in Leviticus alone it is followed by περί, defining the persons for whom propitiation is made, περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξιλάσεται ὁ ἱερεύς or περὶ πάσης συναγωγῆς, or περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν. In this usage there is apparent a transition from the idea of propitiating God (which still survives in the passive ἱλάσθητι) to the idea of exerting some influence on that which was offensive to God and which must be removed or cleansed in order to complete entrance into His favour. In the present passage it is τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ which stand in the way of the full expression of God’s favour, and upon those therefore the propitiatory influence of Christ is to be exerted. In what manner precisely this is to be accomplished is not yet said. “The present infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι must be noticed. The one (eternal) act of Christ (c. x. 12–14) is here regarded in its continuous present application to men (cf. c. Hebrews 2:1-2).” (Marcus Dods, "The Epistle to the Hebrews" in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. The Expositor's Greek Testament, volume 4 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], 269-70)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs believers in how to pray:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Matt 6:9-13 [see here for a discussion of the doxology of v. 13])

This is significant as it is a text that is nonsense in light of Reformed theology. How so? If the Lord's Prayer were reflective of Reformed theology, instead of asking for forgiveness of present or future sins, Jesus should have instructed his followers to pray "thank you or having forgiven all my sins," as, in Reformed theology, at the moment of one’s justification, even one’s then-future sins are forgiven (any sins committed after justification might result in “fatherly discipline” but will still have been forgiven). Indeed, as Bryan Cross pointed out:

Either

(1) The Lord's Prayer is not perfectly theologically accurate as a prayer for those who know the gospel, because it implies that their sins have not all been forgiven, when in fact their sins (past, present, and future) were all forgiven at the moment of their initial justification. Therefore the Lord's Prayer should either be improved or not prayed by those who know the gospel.

(2) The Lord's Prayer is perfectly theologically accurate as a prayer to be prayed for those who know the gospel, because our sins (committed after our initial justification) are forgiven on a regular basis through our prayers and use of the means of grace, and so Christ's work on the cross is repeatedly applied to us throughout our lives for the forgiveness of our sins.

If Reformed Christians accept (2), then it seems to me that they are not so different from Catholics [RB: or Latter-day Saints] in that respect. (Taken from p. 54 of Robert Sungenis, Discussion with Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary and other Protestants on David’s Justification in Romans 4:5-8)

Such is borne out in v. 12, where the Christians' forgiving others is said to be like/as (ὡς [BDAG: "gives the reason for an action as one who, because" in reference to Matt 6:12]) God forgiving the Christian; in other words, God will forgive a Christian (who, in the Reformed view, has been once-for-all forensically justified and has even his then-future sins forgiven [!]) upon the contingency of their forgiving those who have offended them. Such is nonsensical in light of Reformed soteriology, notwithstanding the mental and exegetical gymnastics apologists for this theology engage in. Furthermore, such is part-and-parcel of both Latter-day Saint soteriology (cf. D&C 74:7-14) and the rest of Jesus' teachings, such as the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35). For more, see

Christina Darlington, D&C 82:7, and the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

One text related to this that Howard raises an aside in his video is that of 1 Pet 2:24:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

The verb translated as "bare" is αναφερω, which is a sacrificial term; it does not support forensic imputation/substitution, etc.. This verb is used ten times in the Greek New Testament in contexts of "lifting up" or "offering sacrifices" (e.g., Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 24:51; Heb 7:27; 9:28; 13:15; 1 Pet 2:5). Note how the verb is defined in BGAD (highlight added for emphasis):

3. to offer as a sacrifice, offer up, specif. a cultic t.t. (SIG 56, 68; Lev 17:5; 1 Esdr 5:49; Is 57:6; 2 Macc 1:18; 2:9 al.; ParJer 9:1f; Did., Gen. 219, 15) ἀ. θυσίας ὑπέρ τινος offer sacrifices for someth. Hb 7:27. ἀ. τινὰ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον (Gen 8:20; Lev 14:20; Bar 1:10; 1 Macc 4:53; Just., D. 118, 2 θυσίας) offer up someone on the altar Js 2:21. Of Jesus’ sacrifice: ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας when he offered up himself Hb 7:27. τὰς ἀμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον he himself brought our sins in his body to the cross 1 Pt 2:24 (cp. Dssm., B 83ff [BS 88f]). Pol 8:1 (Is 53:12).—Fig. (schol. on Apollon. Rhod. 2, 214b χάριν=render thanks to the divinity) ἀ. θυσίαν αἰνέσεως offer up a sacr. of praise Hb 13:15 (cp. 2 Ch 29:31). ἀ. πνευματικὰς θυσίας 1 Pt 2:5. ἀ. προσευχάς offer prayers 2 Cl 2:2. ἀ. δέησιν περί τινος offer up a petition for someth. B 12:7.

Additionally, note the following comment from two biblical scholars writing on the nature of the atonement with respect to related sacrificial terminology used in the gospels, including the Isa 53:10 text quoted above:

If the Johannine formula, “who takes away sin,” is understood as a reference to the “Servant of God,” it must be recalled that neither in vv. 4 nor 21 of Is 53 is the verb nāsā accompanied by the phrase, “upon himself,” in spite of the Greek translation in verse 4, tas hamartias hēmōn ferei, “he carries our sins.” When Matthew applies the statement of Is 53:4 to Christ, he wishes to say that he took away our illnesses, not that he took them upon himself. The same meaning is found in the Exultet of the Paschal liturgy: “he is the true Lamb who took away (absulit) the sins of the world,” and in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Thus Christ offered once for the taking-away of the sins of many, a second time—without sin—will be seen to those awaiting for salvation” [Heb 9:28]. (Stanislas Lyonnet and Léopold Sabourin, Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study [Analetcta Biblica Investigationes Scientificae In Res Biblicas 48; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970], 40)

Can One Lose their Salvation?

There is a plethora of texts that show a true believer can lose their salvation. Let us focus just on two passages:

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer a punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under the foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29 NASB)

On his Alpha and Omega Ministries Website, James R. White (who Jeremy is a fan of) has an article entitled, "Hebrews and the Atonement of Christ." Writing in response to Robert Sungenis in Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice (1st ed. 2000), White wrote the following:

Sungenis follows up these comments with a reference to Hebrews 10:29. He asserts this passage teaches one can fall away from sanctification. He does not show any familiarity with the question of who it is who is sanctified by the blood of the covenant in this passage. The great Puritan scholar, John Owen, wrote concerning who is the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29:

But the design of the apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself, -- to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office. (John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, vol. 22, p. 676)

I will admit that when I first read White’s comments, it struck me as rather desperate, but forced upon him due to his a priori assumption that Reformed soteriology must be biblical.

In an article responding to White (no longer accessible online, but a copy is in my possession for those who wish to read it), "James White's 'Feature Article' and the Calvinist Dance Around the Book of Hebrews," Sungenis wrote in response:

Obviously, Owen can’t admit that the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29 is a Christian, for that would mean that the Christian could lose his sanctification, and if he lost his sanctification, he would lose his justification, and if he lost his justification, it means he was never predestined to salvation in the first place, and thus, you see, the whole edifice of Calvinism would topple in one fell swoop. Suffice it to say, the only ones who even dare interpret Hebrews 10:29 in the way White is suggesting are the Calvinists.

But, of course, once they make such a claim, then they create other exegetical problems out of which there is no escape. They are stuck with explaining how Christ can be “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” when the word “sanctified” or its derivatives are never mentioned as occurring with or to Christ. Perhaps White would like to start a new religion based on the fact that he thinks Christ was “sanctified,” but it will be a religion that has no basis in the Bible, for the Bible simply does not teach such a heretical idea.

They also must explain how and why the Hebrew writer, in Hebrews 10:29, suddenly shifts from talking about the Christian (“and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant”) to an abrupt reference to Christ in mid-sentence (“by which he was sanctified”). I have searched all my Greek lexical and grammatical aids, and not one of them says that it is grammatically justifiable to say that the “he” of “by which he was sanctified” is anything but the Christian spoken about in “and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant.”

In short, this is an outlandish claim of White’s, and it is just as heretical as his suggestion that Christ is the one who is sanctified. But this is what White is reduced to saying of Hebrews 10:29 in order to attempt to save face for Calvinism. It’s obvious why White didn’t cite any Greek grammars to support his claim, since none of them do so. The only thing he could find is some centuries-old Calvinist writer, who didn’t even address the Greek of the passage, as his only authoritative source. That, speaks volumes of the shoddy research and poor exegetical abilities of James White. One fatal flaw leads to another.

While I disagree with Sungenis on the thesis of his book (that the Catholic Mass is both biblical and historical), he is both spot-on in his book in rejecting eternal security/perseverance of the saints as being biblical and this rather desperate attempt to avoid the clear meaning of Heb 10:26-29 from both White and Owen. While the verb αγιαζω can have the sense of "to consecrate" and is used of Jesus in John 10:35-36; 17:19 and 1 Pet 3:15, the meaning in Heb 10:29 is clearly soteriological, so cannot be used of Jesus but of redeemed/justified Christians. If Owen and White were consistent, they would have to argue, as do many Christadelphians, that Jesus offered up a sacrifice for himself for His own sin(s) (in the CD view, the sin of being human [not that White or Owen would hold to such--they would agree that Christ was sinless, but such is the precarious position one is placed with such eisegetical nonsense]).

Indeed, the other Reformed commentators I have examined on this epistle, while agreeing with White’s soteriology and belief a true believer could never lose their salvation, reject this strained reading (i.e., Christ is the one sanctified in Heb 10:29, not a Christian). For instance, one recent commentary wrote the following:

We should also note that the author speaks of the blood “by which” the readers were “sanctified” (ηγιασθη). Here is powerful evidence that those addressed are truly believers, confirming what was argued in 6:4-5, for Jesus’ blood sanctifies, and sets them apart (cf. 13:12 and 2:11). Jesus by his once-for-all offering “perfected forever those who are sanctified” (10:14). Sanctification here is definitive and positional rather than progressive. It is awkward and unnatural to see a reference to Jesus in the pronoun instead of believers, for it makes little sense to say Jesus was sanctified by his own blood. Jesus is the one who sanctifies in Hebrews (2:11), not the one who is sanctified. Indeed, in chapters 10 and 13 the author clearly states three times that the death of Jesus sanctifies believers (10:10, 14, 12:12). Nor is it persuasive to say that the sanctification is not saving, comparing it to the sanctification under the old covenant (9:13), which only sanctified externally. The argument fails to persuade, for the point in Hebrews is that Jesus’ sacrifice stands in contrast to the sacrifices of the old covenant. His sacrifice is effective and truly brings sanctification. To say that his sacrifice only sanctifies externally, like the sacrifices of the old covenant, misses one of the major themes of the letter. Contrary to OT sacrifices, Jesus’ sacrifice truly cleanses the conscience. (Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews [Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation: Nashville: Holman Reference, 2015], 327)

James White's theological mentor, John Calvin, also believed that those who are said to be "sanctified" in Heb 10:29 are Christians, not the person of Christ:

The blood of the covenant, etc. He enhances ingratitude by a comparison with the benefits. It is the greatest indignity to count the blood of Christ unholy, by which our holiness is effected; this is done by those who depart from the faith. For our faith looks not on the naked doctrine, but on the blood by which our salvation has been ratified. He calls it the blood of the covenant, because then only were the promises made sure to us when this pledge was added. But he points out the manner of this confirmation by saying that we are sanctified; for the blood shed would avail us nothing, except we were sprinkled with it by the Holy Spirit; and hence come our expiation and sanctification. The apostle at the same time alludes to the ancient rite of sprinkling, which availed not to real sanctification, but was only its shadow or image

As with so many areas, James White fails on (1) biblical-exegetical grounds and (2) presents a marginal interpretation (out of desperation to prop up belief in Calvinism) of Heb 10:29 that is a rejected view even within Reformed circles, both historical and modern.

It should be noted that even White's fellow Reformed apologists who are also fellow anti-Mormons reject White's (and Owen's) eisegesis of Heb 10:29. Robert Bowman, on an LDS/Evangelical facebook page:

I'm not defending White's exegesis. It is a stretch to interpret "in which he was sanctified" to have "the Son of God" as its grammatical antecedent.

As an aside, for a detailed exegetical response to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (a work White is rather fond of), see Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (2d ed; Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1978).

Commenting on this pericope, and in particular, how v. 29 (in bold above) teaches that a truly justified Christian (not a false believer) can fall from their salvation, B.J. Oropeza wrote:

Regarding the first description (Heb 10:29a), καταπατεω is used of trampling something underfoot (cf. Matt 5:13; Luke 8:5; 12:1). In matt 7:6 the “pigs” that trample on pearls probably identify apostates and false teaches as unclean persons who reject the gospel message, perhaps violently (cf. 2 Pet 2:22). At its most basic level the notion of trampling in Hebrews refers to the apostate rejecting the Son of God. More specifically the thought may connote breaking an oath (cf. Homer, Iliad 4.157), or it conveys a “cosmic reversal of fortune” when compared with Christ placing his enemies under his feet (Heb 1:13; 10:13). Another alternative relates the trampling to πατεω, which is associated with the profanation of that which is holy, such as Jerusalem or its temple being trampled underfoot. If so, then to trample on the Son of God conveys for our author a profanation similar to the enemies of God defiling God’s holy places. In any case the author’s use of the term “Son of God” implies repudiation of Jesus as the Son of God and eschatological ruler of the cosmos (Heb 1), a reversal of the Christian confession that was considered a brash challenge to Caesar according to Roman opponents and blasphemy according to Jewish opponents.

Regarding the second description (10:29b), the thought of reckoning unclean the blood of the covenant refers to a repudiation of the new covenant work of Christ involving his sacrificial death that provides the forgiveness of sin (cf. Heb 9:12, 13-14, 20; 10:19; Acts 21:28; Rev 21:17). Here the atoning death of Christ related to the new covenant is being denied, Johnson astutely writes, “The apostasy, in effect, reverses the effect of God’s priestly work” (Johnson, Hebrews, 265). Also significant in 10:29b is that the apostate was at one time “sanctified” (εν ω ηγασθη) through Christ’ sacrifice. There is no doubt that the author considers the apostate as being once a genuine Christ-follower thoroughly converted and cleansed from sin before his repudiation of the new covenant.

The third description (10:29c) asserts that the apostate outrages or insults (ενυβριζω) the Spirit of grace, implying insolence of the arrogant sort. Some interpreters associate the thought with blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This is certainly possible, but the author probably intends to convey something more than this. The “Spirit of grace” relates to the arrival of the eschatological era and may echo Zech 12:10, a passage that our author would probably interpret as Christ’s death on the cross (cf. John 19:34-37; Rev 1:7). The idea, then, may refer to a repudiation of the baptism and outpouring of the Spirit during the end times, which was considered a gift (i.e., “grace”) associated with miraculous signs, conversion, and the believers’ new life in Christ (cf. Heb 2:4; 6:4; Acts 2:4, 38-39; 11:15-18; 1 Cor 12:13; Rom 8:9; John 3:5).

The person in Heb 10:26-29 commits the sign of apostasy: he repudiates the confession of Jesus as Son of God, reverses his atoning death, and arrogantly rejects the gift of God’s Spirit. This apostate seems antagonistic towards his former faith. There is no longer remains a sacrifice that could bring this person back to right standing with God. Since Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice is considered unrepeatable, and this person has rejected this sacrifice, he cannot be renewed, nor can he turn to the old covenant priestly sacrifices that were offered yearly to cover sins, because according to our author such things were rendered obsolete by Christ’s sacrificial death (cf. 10:9, 18). In essence 10:26, similar to 6:4-6, teaches that it is impossible for the apostate to be restored (Lane, Hebrews, 2.291 adds some interesting parallels between 6:4-6 and 10:26-29, including past experiences [6:4-5; 10:26], the apostasy [6:6; 10:29], impossibility of renewal [6:4, 6; 10:26], and covenantal curse due to the apostasy [6:8; 10:27]. The main distinction for Lane is the cultic formulation of the last passage), and in 10:29, similar to 6:4-6, teaches that the apostate was once an authentic believer. (B.J. Oropoeza, Churches Under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation: The General Epistles and Revelation [Apostasy in the New Testament Communities 3; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2012], 50-52, italics in original)

In a footnote for the above, Oropeza, responding to another commentator on the phrase “ by which they were sanctified,” noted:

Contrast Guthrie, Hebrews, 230, who translates the phrase εν ω ηγασθη as impersonal: “by which one is sanctified.” However, all the other singular verbs in 10:29 refer to the apostate (i.e., αξιωθησται, καταπατησας, ηγησαμενος, ενυβρισας). Also, if the author wanted to express that he was not referring to the apostate, he could have easily used a first or second person plural instead of a third person singular for αγιαζω in order to clarify this, similar to what he does by using οιδαμεν in 10:30 and δοκειτε in 10:29. More on target is Lane, Hebrews, 2.294, who writes: “This phrase [“by means of which he was consecrated”] in v. 29 corroborates that 10:26-31 is descriptive of the Christian who has experienced the action of Christ upon his life. (Ibid., 51 n. 218)

There is absolutely no exegetical “wiggle room”: eternal security/perseverance of the saints is explicitly refuted by this pericope.

In Rom 4:5-8, we read the following:

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)

In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)

In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.

Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.

The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Darington's perverse soteriology, is "no."

The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.

As one writer put it:

We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, 253)

Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. This disproves the blasphemous view espoused by Howard et al. that justification is once-for-all, and can never be lost.

The Salvific Efficacy of Jesus' Resurrection

This is rather apropos as I am writing this response on "Good Friday" (April 15, 2022). In Rom 4:25, we read

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for (δια here has a causal sense [i.e. for the sake of]) our justification.

On the salvific importance of the resurrection of Jesus, Reformed apologist Tony Costa, critiquing the likes of Leon Morris and other Reformed authors, wrote the following:

Paul usually couples the death of Jesus with his resurrection (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3-4), but here in Rom 10:9 he focuses primarily on his resurrection, for as Paul asserts in 1 Cor 15:14, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then all Christian faith is vain and futile, which includes the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death . . . Following Rom 10:9 where Paul lays down the confession of Jesus as Lord and the belief in his resurrection from the dead, Paul goes on to introduce his points in Rom 10:10-13 with the preposition γαρ beginning in each of the verses, which is intended in these cases to denote a reason or explanation of the preceding statement. Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 386-88. The preposition γαρ of course never stands first at the beginning of a sentence. (Tony Costa, Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters [Studies in Biblical Literature vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013], p. 375 notes 107 and 109)

Morris is therefore incorrect to maintain that the gospel of God’s Son, which Paul announces (Rom 1:9), “centers on Christ’s atoning act. Without that there would be no gospel.” Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 58. On the contrary, without the resurrection of Jesus the gospel would be rendered superfluous and empty (1 Cor 15:12-20). The atoning act of Jesus is only validated by the resurrection, for it is the resurrection of Jesus itself that gives the cross any soteriological significance. (Ibid., 319-20, n. 39)

One conservative Reformed theologian, W.E. Best, wrote the following on the "finished" and "unfinished" aspects of Christ's salvific work:

Salvation is finished and unfinished. The Lord’s statement on the cross in John 19:30, “It is finished,” means that it was completed, executed, concluded, finished, and accomplished. What was accomplished? Jesus Christ finished the work of offering Himself for the sins of the elect, the purpose for which God sent Him into the world: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4). God had sent Christ into the world not to be a teacher, although He taught. He did not send Him to be a healer, although He healed. God sent His Son to give Himself, an offering for sin. He sent Him to stand in the place of those the Father had given the Son in the covenant of redemption. The Lord Jesus Christ accomplished that work.

Believers stand between Christ’s two statements: “It is finished” and “It is done” (John 19:30; Rev. 21:6). The latter statement does not occur until all things are made new (Rev. 21:5). We stand between the finished work of Calvary and making all things new.

The finished work of Christ is typified by (1) the covering of coats of skins (Gen. 3:21), (2) Abel’s more excellent offering (Gen. 4:4), (3) Noah’s sheltering ark (Heb. 11:7), (4) the offering of Isaac (Heb. 11:17), (5) the blood of the passover lamb (Ex. 12:1-14), (6) the life-giving fountain (Ex. 17:6), and (7) the serpent of brass (Num. 21:9).

The finished and unfinished works of Jesus Christ include the following things: (1) His work as Redeemer is finished, but His work as Restorer will remain unfinished until the perfection of every elect person. (2) Christ’s work as Saviour at the cross is finished, but His work as Sustainer is unfinished. Those who have been reconciled to Christ are saved or sustained by the living Christ (Rom. 5:10). “Saved” is added to “saved.” (3) His work as Atoner is finished, but His work as Advocate is unfinished. Provision is made for the sinning believer (I John 2:1). (4) Christ’s work as Sanctifier is both finished and unfinished. The elect are positionally sanctified at regeneration, progressively sanctified in their Christian lives, and shall be ultimately sanctified in the presence of Jesus Christ. (5) The Saviour’s work of putting away sin “from” the believer is finished, but His work of putting away sin from “within” the believer is unfinished. Sin was judicially put away from the elect in the death of Jesus Christ. Sin is put away from within the believer by Christ’s living at the right hand of the Father and the Holy Spirit’s living within the believer. (6) Christ’s dying to destroy sin’s penalty in the elect of God is finished, but His living to destroy sin’s power over him is unfinished. (W.E. Best, The Savior’s Definite Redemption: Studies in Isaiah 53 [Houston: W.E. Best Book Missionary Trust, 1982], 18-19)

Note also the following from N.T. Wright (Anglican) and Raymond E. Brown (Catholic) on John 19:30:

So Jesus is executed as the ‘king of the Jews’. All four gospels report that this phrase was written out and nailed above his head on the cross. Just as condemned criminals in early modern Britain used to carry a placard telling the onlookers of their crime, so the Romans would put such a notice on the cross, as a warning to others. The gospel writers, of course, see the sign over Jesus’ head as heavily ironic, charged with meaning of which the Roman governor and his soldiers were ignorant—just as John sees Caiaphas’s statement about Jesus dying for the people (11.50). Pilate’s words point, despite his cynical intention, to the reality: the ‘king of the Jews’ must complete his scripturally rooted vocation by giving his life for his people, for the world, expressing and embodying the saving, healing, sovereign love of Israel’s God, the world’s creator. He should die, say the Jewish leaders, because ‘he made himself the son of God’ (19.7), just ass in Mark and elsewhere the bystanders at the cross mock Jesus and challenge him to come down from the cross if he is the son of God. But John’s readers and Mark’s readers know by now that it is because he is son of God that Jesus must go to the cross, that he must stay there, that he must drink the cup to the dregs. And he must do so not in order to rescue people from this world for a faraway heaven, but in order that God’s kingdom may be established on earth as in heaven.

That is why, in John’s account, the last words of Jesus are reported as being, ‘It’s all done’ (19.30), in other words, ‘It’s accomplished’, or ‘It’s completed.’ The echo is of Genesis: at the end of the sixth day, God completed all the work that he had done. The point was not to rescue people from creation, but to rescue creation itself. With the death of Jesus, that work is complete. Now, and only now, and only in this way can new creation come about. (Tom Wright, Simply Jesus: Who he was, what he did, why it matters [London: SPCK, 2011] 179-180, italics in original, bold added for emphasis)

The cry “It is finished” (vs. 30), which constitutes Jesus’ last words in John, has often been contrasted with the agonized “My God, my word, why have you forsaken me?” which constitutes Jesus’ last words in Mark/Matthew. (John is closer in tone, at least, to the last words reported by Luke: “Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit.”) . . . If “It is finished” is a victory cry, the victory it heralds is that of obediently fulfilling the Father’s will. It is similar to the “It is done” of Rev xvi 17, uttered from the throne of God and of the Lamb when the seventh angel pours out the final bowl of God’s wrath. What God has decreed has been accomplished.

The very last words of vs. 30 are so phrased as to suggest another theme in Johannine theology. Although Matthew and Luke also describe Jesus’ death in terms of his yielding up his life spirit. John seems to play upon the idea that Jesus handed over the (Holy) Spirit to those at the foot of the cross, in particular, to hiss smother who symbolizes the Church or new people of God and to the Beloved Disciple who symbolizes the Christian. In vii 39 John affirmed that those who believed in Jesus were to receive the Spirit once Jesus had been glorified, and so it would not be inappropriate that at this climactic moment in the hour of glorification there would be a symbolic reference to the giving of the Spirit. I such an interpretation of “he handed over the spirit” has any plausibility, we would stress that this symbolic reference is evocative and proleptic, reminding the reader of the ultimate purpose for which Jesus has been lifted up on the cross. In Johannine thought the actual giving of the Spirit does not come now but in xx 22 after the resurrection. (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi) [AB 29A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970], 930, 931, italics in original)

Thomas Torrance (1913-2007) was a well-respected Protestant theologian, an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland, and was professor of Christian dogmatics at New College, Edinburgh for twenty-seven years. He wrote the following which captures the internal inconsistencies within some Protestant (especially Reformed/Calvinistic) understandings of the justification vis-à-vis the resurrection of Jesus and the nature of the atonement:

A purely forensic doctrine of justification bypasses the resurrection, and is empty without an active sharing in Christ’s righteousness.

When, therefore, the Protestant doctrine of justification is formulated only in terms of forensic ‘imputation’ of righteousness or the non-imputation of sins in such a way as to avoid saying that to justify is to make righteous, it is the resurrection which is being bypassed. If we think of justification only in light of the crucifixion as non-imputation of sins because of what Christ has borne for our sakes, then we have mutilated it severely. No doubt we can fill it out with more positive content by relating it to the incarnate life of Christ and to his active obedience, that is, fill it out with his positive divine-human righteousness—and that would be right, for then justification becomes not only the non-imputation of sins but the clothing of the sinner with the righteousness of Christ. Nevertheless, that would still be empty and unreal, merely a judicial transaction, unless the doctrine of justification bears in its heart a relation of real union with Christ. Apart from such a union with him through the power of his Spirit, as Calvin puts it, Christ would remain, as it were, inert or idle [Institute 3.1.1]. We require an active relation to Christ as our righteousness, an active and an actual sharing in his righteousness. This is possible only through the resurrection—when we approach justification in this light we see that it is a creative event in which our regeneration or renewal is already included within it. (Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, ed. Robert T. Walker [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009], 224)

Elsewhere, (Ibid., 127-28), Torrance wrote:

The resurrection is the ground of justification

Had Christ succumbed to the death of the cross, that would only have indicated that his union of God and man was not real, that it had not actually been achieved, and therefore that the ethical or legal relation, with its gap between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ and its order of distance from God, still stood valid and therefore that every moral or other objection in regard to it was valid. Had Christ succumbed to the death of the cross, its substitutionary sacrifice would have been the most immoral deed in all the universe and, and the only doctrine that would be got out if would be the pagan idea of humanity placating an angry god by human sacrifice. That is partly why Paul lays such stress upon the resurrection as the ground of justification. He speaks of Jesus being put to death for our trespasses and raised for out justification [Rom 4.25], and asks rhetorically, ‘who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead’? [Rom 8.34] It is because of this resurrection out of the death of the cross that God and humanity have been reconciled in Christ, and therefore that our life has been set on a wholly new basis. (Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, ed. Robert T. Talker [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009], 127-28)

Finally, commenting on Rom 4:25 (cf. 2 Cor 5:14-15), Catholic theologian F.X. Durwell noted:

That the death of Christ also plays a leading part in Paul’s soteriology, no-one ever doubted. We find the importance of the two events balanced in a text which contrasts their two roles in the strictest parallelism: “It is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto justice, but also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe in him that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead, who was delivered up for [δια] our sins and rose again for [δια] our justification” (Rom. iv.23-5.)

The distinction for the Apostle makes between two aspects of the one salvation is curious. And many attempts have been made to dispose of the difficulties it creates and restore the monopoly of the Redemption to Christ’s death alone . . . For Christians, according to St. Paul, Christ’s resurrection is not merely a motive of credibility, a miracle that elicits faith; it is the object of their faith: “If thou . . . believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. x. 9.) And if this faith has power to save us, surely that power must come from its object.

Considering the effectiveness the parallel phrase attributes to Christ’s death, and since the context does not allow of a restrictive interpretation, we must admit a direct connection between the Resurrection and our justification. But since the death of Jesus is of itself sufficient to expiate sin, some exegetes have fixed upon the one relationship which in no way robs the death of its monopoly, the lowest form of causality—exemplar causality. The death of Christ, they say, is an image of our death to sin, the Resurrection if the exemplar of our justification. Some see only an exemplar causality in the opening words, “He was delivered up for our sins”; others destroy the balance of the sentence by letting our Lord’s death bear all the weight of our salvation, while allowing his resurrection no more than the value of an example. That Christ in his glory is an example is frequently stated by the Apostle. (Rom. vi. 4; I Cor. xv. 47-9). But it is a very arbitrary exegesis that sees no more than that here. Christ’s death makes expiation for sin, declares the text; it is not also fully serious in saying that the Resurrection effects our justification? If we are to be faithful to the parallelism of the statement, we must place our Lord’s resurrection beside his death as fully effective for our salvation . . . to this major text we may add another, not at first very striking but most significant: “The charity of Christ presseth us: judging this, not if one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all; that they also, who live, may not now live for themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.” (2 Cor. v. 14-15.) The death and resurrection of Jesus are both working towards our salvation. Each plays a different part in it. If Christ is dead, we who are united to Christ are also dead. This death signifies the end of our life according to the flesh (16ff.) We now have no right to live for ourselves, for this would be to live according to the flesh. Henceforward we shall live for him—and here the Apostle suddenly brings in a new element, Christ’s resurrection—who died and rose again.

This new lie must be linked with the resurrection of Christ, for the Apostle cannot mention one without the other. Our death stands alongside his death; therefore when our new life is spoken o, his resurrection must be, too. Paul leaves it to us to understand his train of thought: “And if one is raised up or all to a new life, we are all raised to that life.” Dead to ourselves in his death, brought to life by his resurrection, we live from now on for him who, for our salvation, died and rose again. (F.X. Durrwell, The Resurrection: A Biblical Study [2d ed.; trans. Rosemary Sheed; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960], 25, 26-28)

On John 19:30 and the common Protestant misunderstanding of τετελεσται, see my article Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30.

1 Tim 3:16 and the Resurrected Jesus being "justified"/"vindicated" (δικαιοω) in the Spirit

This is keeping with the Easter theme of this post. peaking of Christ and His glorious resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote:

Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory (NRSV)

The underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also has a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life.

John Calvin attempted (rather lamely) in his commentary on the New Testament to get around this verse and its implications:

Justified in the Spirit. As the Son of God "emptied himself," (Php 2:7), by taking upon him our flesh, so there was displayed in him a spiritual power which testified that he is God. This passage has received various interpretations; but, for my own part, satisfied with having explained the Apostle’s real meaning, as far as I understand it, I shall add nothing more. First, justification here denotes an acknowledgment of divine power; as in Ps 19:9 where it is said, that

"the judgments of God are justified,"

that is, are wonderfully and absolutely perfect; and in Ps 51:4, that "God is justified," meaning that the praise of his justice is illustriously displayed. So also, (Mt 11:19, and Lu 7:35,), when Christ says, that

"Wisdom hath been justified by her children,"

he means that they have given honor unto her; and when Luke (Lu 7:29) relates that the publicans "justified God," he means that they acknowledged, with due reverence and gratitude, the grace of God which they beheld in Christ. What we read here has, therefore, the same meaning as if Paul had said, that he who appeared clothed with human flesh was, at the same time, declared to be the Son of God, so that the weakness of the flesh made no diminution of his glory.

Under the word Spirit, he includes everything in Christ that was divine and superior to man; and he does so for two reasons: First, because he had been humbled in "the flesh," the Apostle now, by exhibiting the illustration of his glory, contrasts "the Spirit" with "the flesh." Secondly, that glory, worthy of the only-begotten Son of God, which John affirms to have been seen in Christ, (Joh 1:14), did not consist in outward display, or in earthly splendor, but was almost wholly spiritual. The same form of expression is used by him, (Ro 1:3-4),

"Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared by the power of the Spirit to be the Son of God;"

but with this difference, that in that passage he mentions one kind of manifestation, namely, the resurrection.

Such a "response" is mirrored by the following from Morris:

When we turn to those passages where the verb ‘to justify’ occurs, there can be no doubt that the meaning is to declare righteous rather than to make righteous. Thus we find a direction that the judges ‘shall justify the righteous’ or ‘to acquit.’ The same usage is seen in ‘I will not justify the wicked’ (Ex. 23:7), and in the woe to them that ‘justify the wicked for reward’ (Is 5:23). (Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 259)

We can see how desperate Calvin is to force forensic justification into (1) this verse and (2) the cognate terms for δικαιοω.

Firstly, texts such as Psa 19:9 are not soteriological in nature.

Secondly, notice that Psa 19:9 and other like-verses actually refute Calvin's soteriology. How? In the theologies of Calvin, Howard,, and Morris, justification is a legal declaration wherein one is declared "justified" or "righteous" based, not on an intrinsic or infused righteousness, but an imputed/alien righteousness--that is, the person is not actually righteous/justified, whence Luther's "simul iustus et peccator" (sinful and just at the same moment). However, God's judgments are not merely "declared" righteous, they truly are righteous. Indeed, this leads to a problem that permeates much of Protestantism--an "either-or" fallacy; just as Protestants are "either-or" with respect to faith and works, they are "either-or" with respect to the meaning of δικαι-terms--it is either a legal declaration or something infused or intrinsic within the person (and the latter is always precluded)--it can be both, depending on the context. Indeed, even in contexts in both the OT and NT where the term is used in a legal context, it never means anything near the legal fiction meaning Protestant theology calls for (see this post discussing Lev 17:3-4 and Deut 25:1). It should be enough, to consider Deut 25:13-16 to see how the Hebrew and Greek terms צֶדֶק and δικαιος are to be interpreted in v. 1 of the same chapter:

Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures; a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just (Heb: צֶדֶק; LXX: δικαιος) measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteousness, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.

One will be struck on how צֶדֶק is used in this pericope; it is used to denote the intrinsic reality of the weights and measures one is using and one’s behaviour vis-à-vis one’s use thereof; there is no mere labelling the weights and measures which do not reflect their reality (the very concept of imputation which is read into [via eisegesis] of v. 1). Further, compare the above with the following commentary from Chris VanLandingham:

Deuteronomy 25:1—ἐὰν δὲ γένηται ἀντιλογία ἀνὰ μέσον ἀνθρώπων καὶ προσέλθωσιν εἰς κρίσιν καὶ κρίνωσιν καὶ δικαιώσωσιν τὸν δίκαιον καὶ καταγνῶσιν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς: “Now if there is a dispute between men and they enter into litigation and (the judges) rule and they give justice to the righteous and pass sentence on the impious.” The sense is difficult to determine. It could mean “to declare righteous and righteous one,” but besides being redundant, the righteous do not go to court to get a simple declaration, they go to seek and get justice (flogging, in this text). On the other hand, “to find righteous” works well because it stands nicely antithetic to καταγιγνωσκω. The emphasis, nevertheless, focuses on the action that the judges impose not, not on what they find. Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], 257)

Thirdly, with respect to Matt 11:19 and its parallel in Luke 7:35, it is true that δικαιοω is used in a sense of "vindication." However, it is being used as a metaphor and, furthermore, is not being used in a soteriological context. It is only because the context of these verses does not concern themselves with justification and related issues. Something similar happens in English--if you refer to your wife as "the apple of my eye," such clearly uses "apple" in a metaphorical sense, not the "normative" sense of "apple"--to claim otherwise would result in utter inanity! Obviously, "wisdom" cannot be justified in a soteriological sense, as it is a virtue, so "justified" changes from its "normative" meaning to be accommodated to the metaphorical context it is used in.

As for 1 Tim 3:16 itself, such proves too much, as it shows that δικαιοω has, not just a legal/declarative meaning, but also a transformative meaning. As previously mentioned, the underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also have a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life.

With respect to other instances of δικαι-words, consider the following from a leading scholar of Pauline New Testament texts and theology whose work has refuted the concept Paul taught forensic justification:

I contend that even if on occasion δικαι- terms are forensic, in Paul at least, the terms do not refer to the Last Judgment. Paul does not, in fact, use δικαι- terms (in conjunction with “faith”), however, does not evoke any judgment that determine one’s eternal destiny. The issue does not need to be whether the terms (in conjunction with “faith" are forensic, but whether they refer specifically to the Last Judgment. Paul’s use of the δικαι- terms to embrace both the notions of (1) forgiveness, cleansing, and purification of past sins and (2) an emancipation from sin as a ruler over humanity. The various δικαι- terms all refer to the same quality or effect of Jesus’ death on the believer. In other words, despite their grammatical distinctions, δικαιοσυνη, δικαιος, δικαωσις, and even δικαιοω all have the same sense; therefore, the best rendering of δικαιοσυνη is “righteousness,” of δικαιος, “righteous,” and of δικαιοω, “make righteous.” (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, 245-46; emphasis added; see the entire chapter, Chapter 4: “Justification by Faith”—A Mistranslated Phrase and Misunderstood Concept [pp. 242-332] for a full-length refutation of the historical Protestant understanding of “justification”).

Commenting on a long-standing “proof-text” for sola fide, Rom 3:21-26, VanLandingham writes that:

The verb δικαιοω can be causative, because aside from the fact that the –οω verbs normally are (as φανερω in 3:21), the verb most often renders the causative hip’il of צדק in the Septuagint. In this case, it would mean “to make δικαιος.” Admittedly, δικαιοω does not often have this sense; however, as previously stated, this rendering fits very well in Ps 72:13 (LXX); Luke 18:14; Rom 4:5; 1 Cor 6:11; and Jas 2:21, 24, 25, and with a nearly synonymous meaning in T. Sim. 6:1; Sir 26:29; and Acts 13:38-39. The causative sense also works well; but considering that Paul uses the verb synonymously with the δικαι- terms (δικαιος, δικαιοσυνη) that occur in the proof-texts of Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6, it makes the most sense that here δικαιοω means “to make δικαιος.” Paul uses the verb as a convenient way to indicate the transferal of believers from a state of unrighteousness to the state of righteousness. This transferal, of course, is precisely what Paul says in Rom 5:19: “By means of obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous” (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται) (Ibid., 320-31)

Such a view of the δικαι- word group (and its Hebrew equivalent, the צדק – word group) can be found all throughout the Hebrew OT and the LXX and Greek NT. Consider, for example, Psa 73:13 (LXX 72:13 [referenced above by VanLandingham]):

Verily I have cleansed (δικαιοω) my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.

Similarly, the Hebrew term “to justify” (צדק), which is the word usually translated with δικαιοω in the LXX, can also mean “purify”:

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (צדק).

As Derek Flood, in his book, Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2012), pp. 103-104 notes:

Even where dikaioo appears to mean “declare righteous” linguistically in Romans, I would argue that it nevertheless always includes the restorative sense of God making-righteous the unrighteous in Paul’s thought. We can see this connection explicitly drawn out in Romans 5 where Paul juxtaposes two parallel formulations:

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification (dikaoisis) and life for all people. (v.18)

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (v. 19)

Here we can see that, whatever Paul understands dikaioo to mean, he directly connotes that meaning with our being “made righteous” in this parallel verse. The NET renders the Greek dikaiosin zoes (literally “the making right of/from life”) as “righteousness leading to life” (v. 18). Justification is an act of God that results in life because it “makes righteous.”

When Paul says that “God justifies the ungodly,” he is not proposing [that] God is a participant in the kind of legal fiction that the Old Testament expressly condemns [Isa 5:23; Exo 23:7]. Indeed, one of Pau’s central points in Romans is to demonstrate that God was not unjust in showing mercy to sinners rather than punishing them. The way that God demonstrates justice is not by acquitting the unrighteous, but by making them good. It is a gospel of God’s act of restorative justice in us. God’s actions are life-giving and transforming.

As we have seen, the arguments of Leon Morris et al on -οω verbs and δικαιοω fail when examined carefully. For more against forensic justification, see, for e.g.

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (this is a response to John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” in Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018], 273-81, 339)

As we have seen:

Jeremy Howard cannot exegete Scripture, he can only engage in eisegesis.
Jeremy Howard and his flavour of Protestantism is anti-biblical and a false, blasphemous "gospel."
Latter-day Saint theology is consistent with Heb 1:1-4, the epistle to the Hebrews itself, as well as the Bible taken as a whole, in light of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.

Scriptural Mormonism

Friday, April 15, 2022

Easter for Protestants, or Jeremy Howard Cannot Exegete Hebrews 1:1-4 and Preaches a False Gospel

Blog Archive

About Me

Search This Blog