Donald W. Parry on Numbers without a Noun in Biblical Hebrew and the Book of Mormon

In his Preserved in Translation: Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon, Donald W. Parry wrote the following which reminded me of the Hebraism one finds in the earlier readings of Alma 46:19):

 

Book of Mormon Echoes of Biblical Hebrew: Numbers Without a Noun

 

In Biblical Hebrew a number might be given without an accompanying noun. For instance, Genesis 45:22 states that Joseph “gave three hundred of silver” to Benjamin. For clarity the King James translation supplied the word pieces, distinguished by smaller type in a different font (later italicized) to show it was not part of the original text. Other biblical examples are “ten shekels weight of gold” (Genesis 24:22) and “he measured six measures of barley” (Ruth 3:15).

 

In the Book of Mormon, Laban is described as a “mighty man” who can “command fifty, yea, even he can clay fifty” (1 Nephi 3:31). Do the two instances of fifty refer to men, warriors, princes, or commanders of armies? We can guess, but the translation does not specify. The verbs command and slay in the parallelism heighten the principal idea that further dealings with Laban will put Lehi’s sons in jeopardy of their lives. One mighty enough to slay fifty is certainly more powerful and dangerous than one who can command fifty.

 

Other Book of Mormon examples that follow the Hebrew pattern of omitting nouns in expressions involving numbers include “by the words of three, God hath said, I will establish my word” (2 Nephi 11:3), “my little band of two thousand and sixty fought most desperately” (Alma 57:19); and “it came to pass that there were two hundred, out of my two thousand and sixty” (Alma 57:25). (Donald W. Parry, Preserved in Translation: Hebrew and Other Ancient Literature Forms in the Book of Mormon [Provo/Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University/Deseret Book, 2020], 36)

 

 

Anatomy of a Deathscort (and any other Abortion Activist and Supporter)

Andrea L. Robinson on the New Name in Revelation

 

It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city that day shall be, The Lord is there. (Ezek 48:35)

 

And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. (Rev 22:4)

 

Commenting on the “new name” and its Old Testament background, Andrea L. Robinson wrote:

 

The New Name (Rev 22:4; Ezek 48:35)

 

In Revelation 2:17, John specified that the saints will receive a new name, and in Revelation 22:4, the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem receive God’s name upon their foreheads. The mark of God functions as the inverse of the beat’s mark, indicating that those who bear God’s name profess allegiance to him (Mark of God: Rev 3:12; 7:1-5; 9:4; 14:1; mark of the beat: Rev 13:17; 14:11; 16:2; 19:20). Being marked with God’s name also recalls Ezekiel 9:4, in which those who mourn over the idolatry in Jerusalem receive a mark on the forehead and are spared the outpouring of God’s wrath. Similarly, in Revelation, individuals who are marked by the Lord receive his protection (Rev 7:1-3). The naming thus represents the security of the saints and “the idea of the eternal residence of God with his people” Cooper, Ezekiel, 425). Such is the case in Revelation 22:4, and also Ezekiel 48:35, wherein Ezekiel’s city receives the name יְהוָה שָׁמָּה, or “the Lord is there.”

 

Biblically, a new name encapsulates the essence of a person. To know someone’s name is to discern his or her character. “When God chooses to reveal himself he does so by revealing his name (cf. Gen 17,1; Exod 3,14; 6,2). In so doing, he reveals more than simply that by which he is called. He discloses a part of himself, of who he is” (Spatafora, From the “Temple of God," 137-38) For saints to bear God’s name indicates that they understand something of his nature and correspondingly reflect his character.

 

In the OT cultic system, the name of God was written on the foreheads of priests (Exod 28:36-38). The significance of the inscription was that those who bore the mark served as representative of the Lord. The inscription of God’s name in Revelation 22:4 thus reinforces the priestly character of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem. Bauckham succinctly explained, “They are priests who worship him and kings who reign with him” (Bauckham, Theology of the Book, 142).

 

As in Ezekiel and Revelation, several passages in Isaiah indicate that the people of God will receive a new name (Isa 56:5; 62:2; 65:15). These verses may be in the background of Revelation 22:4. However, the inscription of the name on the forehead, as well as the overarching literary prototyping of Revelation 21:1—22:5 on Ezekiel 40-48, indicates that the Ezekielian referents are primary. Further, the author of the Isaian passages did not indicate that the new name was the name of God, as did John and Ezekiel.

 

Strong conceptual affinities exist between Revelation 22:4 and Ezekiel 48:35. In both passages, those who are marked with God’s name (1) reflect God’s character, (2) receives God’s protection, and (3) enjoy God’s presence. Lexical affinities, however, are vague. Although both Revelation 22:4 and Ezekiel 48:35 utilize ονομα, or “name,” the term is too common to imply dependence. The literary contexts of Ezekiel 48:35 and Revelation22:4 likewise do not align. In Ezekiel 48, the prophet dealt with land allotments, while in Revelation 22:1-5, John described the renewed heaven and earth. In Ezekiel, the name applies to the city, and in Revelation the name applies to the people. Yet in Revelation, the people are the city, so the parallel remains conceptually similar.

 

A structural parallel can be identified as well. The naming of the saints is found at the end of the visions in both Revelation 21:1-22:5 and Ezekiel 40-48. Bearing in mind John’s tendency to conflate and condense, he may have combined the new name of Ezekiel 48:35 with the mark of God in Ezekiel 9:4 as he iterated the name of the city-saints in Revelation 22:4. In sum, the parallel will be regarded as probable due to the presence of strong structural and conceptual affinities. The function of the intertext is most likely thematic. (Andrea L. Robinson, Temple of Presence: The Christological Fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48 in Revelation 21:1-22:5 [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2019], 177-78)

 

Andrea L. Robinson on the Old Testament Background of Revelation 21:14

 

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Rev 21:14)

 

I discuss Rev 21:14 in my book After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (2018), pp. 214-17. In her book, based on her PhD thesis, Andrea Robinson offered the following comments about the Old Testament background to this verse:

 

Foundation Stones (Rev 21:14; Ezek 40:30-34)

 

As in Ezekiel, the gates in Revelation bear the names of the tribes of Israel. However, John adds his own innovation in that the foundations of the walls bear the names of the twelve apostles (Rev 21:14). John’s addition of the apostles’ names is conspicuous. “Here, an element is added in a passage which otherwise is radically simplified and abridged” (Vogelgesang, “Interpretation of Ezekiel,” 90).

 

Yet the names on the foundation stones do not represent a different purpose than names on the gates in Ezekiel 38:30-34, but rather the consummation of Ezekiel’s hope. “Israel’s divine purpose from the beginning was fulfilled. For John, Jerusalem is one way to tell the two-stage story of the people of God, from nation to incarnation. The movement from historical Jerusalem to eternal Jerusalem is the story of the twelve tribes, Messiah, and the twelve apostles” (Stevens, Revelation, 535).

 

Nonetheless, Ezekiel made no mention of foundation stones. As noted above, Isaiah 54:11 is the most likely precursor for John’s foundation stones. In Revelation 21:14, the stones are identified with the apostles, much like the author of the Isaiah Pesher identified the stones of Isaiah 54:11 with the founding members of the sectarian community (4QpIsa I, 5-6). Thus, both Revelation 21:14 and the Isaiah Pesher reflect a similar understanding of Isaiah 54. “Furthermore, both texts associate the city gates of Isa. 54.12 with the gates belonging to the twelve tribes from Ezek 48.30-35” (Mathewson, New Heaven, 145).

 

John seemed to be working within a circle of tradition that utilized building imagery to describe a community of people. He combined passages such as Ezekiel 40-48, which has no precious building materials, with other OT prophecies such as Isaiah 54:11-12 to describe the glory of the future Jerusalem. “Indeed, John’s city is a temple-city, and the redeemed eschatological community is the spiritual temple in which God and the Lamb dwell and are worshipped. Thus, when viewed through the prism of building imagery, the costly ingredients of the city may represent the eternal glory, purity, and durability of the perfected community” (Fekkes, “Bride has Prepared Herself,” 286). Additionally, the significance of the twofold twelve is that John, rather than privileging one people group over another, unites peoples and makes the blessings promised to Israel available to all the saints (Beale, Book of Revelation, 1090).

 

In sum, the imagery of foundation stones clearly alludes to Isaiah 54:11. Yet, John almost certainly drew upon the gates of Ezekiel as well. He utilized imagery from both passages “to redefine the people of Israel as those faithful to God and the Lamb” (Palmer, “Imagining Space in Revelation,” 43).

 

Thus, the allusion to Ezekiel 48:30-35 can be classified as possible, based on similar concepts. Greater certainty is not possible due to the absence of parallel lexemes. The contextual function is literary prototype, due to the continued references to architectural elements found in Ezekiel. (Andrea L. Robinson, Temple of Presence: The Christological Fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48 in Revelation 21:1-22:5 [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2019], 147-49)

 

 

Travis Anderson on God the Father Never Having Sinned and Never Having Been a Salvific Saviour Figure

Fellow Latter-day Saint apologist Travis Anderson shared the following on my facebook wall and which I am quoting with his permission, wherein he shows that, in LDS theology and Scripture, God the Father never sinned nor was he a Saviour like Jesus was:

I do grow weary of "Mormons" agreeing with Aaron's "God never sinned" schtick. Our theology teaches no such thing.

Believing God was other than a "man" in the sense Jesus was a "man" runs contrary to both the Biblical texts and modern revelation.

The King Follett sermon makes clear, as does the Johannine text, the Father was what Jesus was, not like us. (See John 14:7, 9, 15:8).

The idea the Father was "fallible" or lacked His eternally possessed Omniscience is absurd.

"O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it." (2 Nephi 9:20)

This is not to suggest predetermined results or predestination. The fact remains we possess agency, however, the Father knows us so perfectly and our lives are so known to Him, he can perfectly anticipate our behavior and tailor our challenges accordingly.

He wouldn't have been a "savior". He would simply have been a deity that entered into a mortal body, laid down that body in death, and raised with a glorified body.

We know Jesus' Atonement was infinite, so the Father was not a savior.

Joseph Smith made it clear Jesus was the only Atonement offered and an infinite sacrifice. The emulation of Jesus was limited to laying down their mortal and rising in immortality.

Suffering for sins was Jesus' mission alone.

In his book, "The Infinite Atonement" by Tad Callister lays out an incredibly complex Theological argument insupport of the universal and complete nature of Jesus' Atonement.

Regardless, by way of simplicity, the following dispells the problem some proposed.

For example, some claim, "Mostly for the fact that other people on other worlds will be expected to believe in an event that never even happened there."

I am expected to believe in an event that allegedly occurred 2000 years ago.

Does the Savior’s Atonement extend beyond this world? Elder McConkie taught: “Our Lord’s jurisdiction and power extend far beyond the limits of this one small earth on which we dwell. He is, under the Father, the Creator of worlds without number. (Moses 1:33.) And through the power of his atonement the inhabitants of these worlds, the revelation says, ‘are begotten sons and daughters unto God’ (D&C 76:24), which means that the atonement of Christ, being literally and truly infinite, applies to an infinite number of earths.”

“The Savior is a multi-planet redeemer. This seems consistent with the fact he is also a multi-planet creator, as taught through Moses, “Worlds without number have I created; . . . and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten” (Moses 1:33). Paul taught the same: “God . . . hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . . by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:1–2; emphasis added).”

The Savior “made the worlds,” a fair interpretation of Doctrine and Covenants 76:42—“that through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him” (emphasis added)—would suggest that the Savior saved all people from all worlds “made by him.” The next verse seems to further substantiate this point: “Who [the Savior] glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands” (D&C 76:43). Elder Russell M. Nelson confirmed these thoughts, “The mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him."

Some contend this would make some exercise an unreasonable degreeof faith, "To me such a thing would make for them to have to exercise a great deal more faith than we are even required here."

Not if, like the Nephites, he visited them as part of His "other sheep". Why would we believe otherwise?

They specifically state 1. Jesus is the creator of many worlds. 2. The Savior of the inhabitants of those worlds and 3. Will visit those "sheep".

Some infer the following, "Because the text says that our Father and God lived on an Earth the same as Jesus Christ did. And since Christ has a Father at the time he lived here, it stands to reason that the Father had a Father as well."

You are welcome to make that leap in Logic, however, the sermon makes it quite clear The Father is a senior deity in the counsel and doesn't reach this conclusion specifically.

Is, "There is an eternal pattern", as some claim?

Possibly, but it would necessarily require the deities to be God prior to their mortal experience, as was Jesus' example.

They also cite, "And Christ said he never did anything that he had not seen his Father do."

There were limits to this language, specifically the Atonement. Joseph Smith limits this to the sojourn in mortality as do the specific verses cited, Jesus' mortal perfection, dying and raising again. Inference the Father also performed an Atonement would conflict with clear passages naming Jesus as the Atoning One.

It isn't an assumption. It's a well established principle Jesus' Atonement is Infinite and Eternal. That He is the creator of "Worlds without end" and the Savior of the inhabitants, who are thereafter begotten sons and daughters unto the One God.

Do both the Son and the Father have physical bodies?"

Of course. See D&C 130:22. So logically speaking, how does a physical being who must occupy a finite amount of space, physically manifest himself unto an infinite amount of people on an infinite amount of worlds? That's a great question. The first presupposition relied upon is "logically speaking", implying it must be conceivable to the constraints of the mortal mind. Additionally, God is Infinite and Eternal, is there not sufficient time to appear to them?

Luke 24 states Jesus is able, with his flesh and bone tabernacle, to appear and reappear. Even in an enclosed room without using the door.

Also, that these worlds are identified as "without number" God also declares, "all things are present with me, for I know them all" as well, "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten". He further declared, "The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words." (Moses 1:6, 33, 37, 38)

 

It's an absurd argument. If Jesus was sinless, and did nothing except what the Father would do, then the Father's sojourn into a mortality would have resulted in his living a sinless life, laying down a mortal body in death, and by the power of his own Godhood, raising with an immortal body of spirit, flesh and bone.

Why therefore, would he need a savior?

Because the Father's experience was not an Atonement, freeing His children from Spiritual death, his resurrection would not have freed man from Physical death.

This is a very logically cohesive and foundational doctrine. Not sure why so many "Mormons" fall for Aaron's irate nonsense that "God never sinned."

 

Aaron is often relying on the Doctrinal ignorance of those he interviews. He never presents King Follett in an accurate and complete context and draws conclusions our theology can't support.

For example, that God was not God at some point in the past. The reality as we see in the Hebrew texts and such texts as Ether, specifically Ch 3., is God's have their Godhood bestowed before they become mortals. With that said, to infer that the Father would have been unlike Jesus is absurd.

When Joseph Smith in King Follett declares, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."

But he doesn't say the Father was like us in the same way, he states, "He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

The Father "dwelt on earth the same as Jesus Christ Himself did".

This sermon is a funeral sermon and is speaking specifically of death and resurrection. It states that even God died and was resurrected. It ends the comparison there.

Elsewhere, on the issue of there being an infinite regress of Gods with each being a Saviour figure, Travis wrote:

[The] regression of Gods idea is flawed for a number of reasons, among them being it is rejected by most scripture. (God was always God, including Jesus)

However, were a person to make such an argument, the idea a "First Born" is foreordained to be a "savior" would require a more detailed examination of our doctrine.

For example, the "Savior" character would need to fit the same revealed pattern as Jesus. First, as an "intelligence", he would have been preeminent in obedience and intelligence. Abraham states:

"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones". The author continues, "there stood one among them that was like unto God". This not only refutes the idea "God Sinned", but also supports that the "First Born" was selected to fill that role by exercising their agency and being thereby selected.

Then, as Elder Christofferson taught in April 2015:

"Prophets have revealed that we first existed as intelligences and that we were given form, or spirit bodies, by God, thus becoming His spirit children—sons and daughters of heavenly parents."

So, the idea individual agency would be subordinated to a calling for one selected as a "Savior" is to put a cart before the horse. As with Jesus, a savior role would be filled by an intelligence who was "like unto God" and thereafter born as a Spirit to Heavenly Parents. Considering he was "like unto God" then, he would so remain.

Jesus, thereafter continued his obedience. McConkie taught, as applied to mortals:

"... if we chart a course leading to eternal life; if we begin the processes of spiritual rebirth, and are going in the right direction; if we chart a course of sanctifying our souls, and degree by degree are going in that direction; and if we chart a course of becoming perfect, and, step by step and phase by phase, are perfecting our souls by overcoming the world, then it is absolutely guaranteed--there is no question whatever about it--we shall gain eternal life."

If that can be so of imperfect and rebellious man, how much more so for an Intelligence who was "like unto God" who's training consisted in the premortal realms of forming worlds, thereafter providing them law, and ultimately sacrificing for them?

Aarons, "its coincidental" the first born is a Savior is another example of his ignorance and lack of familiarity with LDS text and theology.

Hanna Seariac and Aaron Shafovaloff Discuss Latter-day Saint and Reformed Theologies

Recently, my friend Hanna Seariac and Aaron Shafovaloff had two interactions with one another, touching upon many areas of Latter-day Saint vs. Reformed theologies (cf. An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology):

Dialog with Mormon Theology Nerd

Mormon Theology Explicated with Hanna Seariac

There are many things one can note from their discussion, but I will limit myself to two:

Firstly, Aaron gives, as many Protestants are wont to do, an ontological answer to an epistemological question, that is, how he knows the Bible to be true and the books contained thereof are part of the canon. Of course, Aaron believes in the (ironically, anti-biblical) doctrine of Sola Scriptura. For more, see Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Secondly, Aaron desperately dodges how Calvinism makes God the author of sin. On this, see Aaron Shafovaloff and how Calvinism Makes God the Author of Sin and God Never Sinned? According to Calvinism, He Sins/Lies All the time In the Act of Justification!

God Never Sinned? According to Calvinism, He Sins/Lies All the time In the Act of Justification!

For those Protestants who often claim Mormonism (for shock value) teaches (or at least, allows for the belief that) God the Father sinned when he experienced mortality, I want to ask you the following:

 

Imagine if I had a gold-plated coin, and I knew, 100% for sure, that the coin was not pure gold. Now, if I were to legally declare that this coin was pure gold, you would agree that such is a lie, and lying is a sin? If in doubt, see, among other texts, Prov 6:16-19; Rev 21:8.

 

Now, in your theology, God, whose knowledge is infallible, legally declares someone who is intrinsically evil “righteous” in the same manner—they are merely clothed with an alien righteousness. Such is a blasphemous legal fiction that makes God a liar, declaring people to be “just” when, in reality, they are not just.

Before you try to squirm out of it by arguing "but it is not a fiction! a real imputation takes place," please consider the following:

Under a section entitled "The Charge of 'Legal Fiction,'" Robert Sungenis wrote that:

During the Reformation, the Catholic Church charged that the Protestant conception of justification was a "legal fiction." The Church maintained that if justification is only a legal category into which God places a man without being truly just in his own person, then the justification is not real. A "declared" justification (which is another term for a forensic justification) without a just object in view is merely a legal label, hence a "legal fiction." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing inc., 2009], 349)

The footnote for this (pp.349-50, n. 434) also adds further insight into this rather blasphemous tenet of Reformed soteriology:

R. C. Sproul misses the point when he says: “The forensic declaration of justification is not a legal fiction. It is real and authentic because the imputation upon which it is based is no fiction. It is a real imputation of real righteousness of a real Christ” (Justification by Faith Alone, op. cit., p. 39). Geisler and MacKenzie attempt the same argument with a little more subtlety: “Our status is not merely legal (as in forensic justification) but also ontological (real) for we become the actual children of God at the initial moment of salvation… ([Evangelicals and Catholics: Agreements and Differences]., f. 67, p. 239). Catholic theologians have no contention with Protestants if they desire to think of their imputation as “real.” The Counter-Reformation charge of “legal fiction” referred rather to the forensic justification’s theory that the individual was still said to be unjust, though justified. This infringed on the integrity of God, who was put in the position of calling something just that was not really just. Analogously, a gold-plated coin is real but that does not mean that the metal underneath is real gold. Thus, for someone to call the coin a genuine gold coin would be a lie. George Eldon Ladd refutes the charge by saying that the justification is relational as opposed to ethical. He writes: “The forensic righteousness of justification is a real righteousness, because a man’s relationship to God is just as real as his subjective ethical condition. A man’s relationship to God is no fiction” (Ladd, [A Theology of the New Testament] ., pp. 439-30). Though Catholic theology would not deny that there is a definitive relational change between God and man in justification, limiting the exchange to relationship is neither biblical noir logical. It would be analogous to a bachelor who marries claiming only that his marital status (i.e., his relationship with the woman) has changed but who ignores the fact that he desired to marry her because he loved and admired her for who she was as a person (i.e., her ethical and other virtuous qualities). The formal moment of marriage is analogous to baptism, which defines the relational change. However, just as a man marries only because he loves his fiancé for who she is before the wedding ceremony, so God seeks and begins an ethical change in the individual prior to his baptism. That prebaptismal ethical change, initiated by the grace of God , is called “repentance” (cf. Mt 3:6-8; 4:17; Mk 1:5; 6:12; Lk 3:3-8; 5:32; 24:47; Ac 2:38; 3:19; 10:1-4; 17:30; 20:21; 22:16; 26:20; 2Pt 3:9). From another vantage point, Douglas Jones attempts to escape the charge of legal fiction by first asserting that “…God justifies those who have the real, ontological property of corporate righteousness. No legal fiction. No imperfect individual righteousness.” Although corporate righteousness is certainly part of the righteousness God gives to the Church at large, yet God still requires the individual to have and obtain his personal righteousness from the corporate entity. This is precisely why Catholicism insists that individuals obtain justification and infused righteousness from the graces given to the Church, e.g., sacraments, communion of saints, etc. Justification is both corporate and individual and it is therefore erroneous to elevate the former at the expense of the latter. Jones also claims that Catholicism by not attributing man’s guilt of sin to Christ engages in a “legal atrocity” which, he claims, makes God a slayer of the innocent, i.e., Christ (“Non Est” in Credenda Agenda, vol. 8. No. 3, p. 23, emphasis added). First, Catholicism does not speak of the death of Christ in “legal” terms. It is a personal decision by a loving Son to obey his Father in order to provide grace to mankind. Second, Jones ignores the appeasement motif throughout Scripture, wherein Christ offers himself in death to appease God’s personal anger against sin. God is not “slaying the innocent,” rather, it is Christ who voluntarily offers himself up to the Father as an act of love for mankind. There is quite a difference between shedding the innocent blood of a involuntary victim (e.g., Dt 19:10; 1Sm 19:5; Ps 106:38) and offering oneself up voluntarily in love for others (Jn 10:18; Hb 7:27; Ph 2:6-8).

The theology espoused by our Reformed opponents is one that makes God a liar, declaring something to be “righteous” when in reality they are not. This is a violation of the integrity of God’s character, something summarised by the Apostle Paul in Tit 1:2 thusly:

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.

Reformed theology preaches a false God; a false Christ, and a false salvation. It is my prayer that advocates of such a theology will reconsider their faith before it is too late.

For more against the Reformed doctrine of imputation, see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness