Letter 13 — The Atonement of the Lord Jesus
Letters To A Mormon Elder
by James R. White
Wednesday, July 25
Dear Steve,
My what a busy week! Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you sooner. Let me dive right into your questions, answer them, and move into the subject of the atonement of Jesus Christ and His priesthood. First, you asked about two references, Jeremiah 1:4-5 and Job 38:7. The first reads,
Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly l knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb l sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
And the second passage needs a little context, so I will cite Job 38:1-7:
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures of it, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Both passages are commonly cited by LDS people in defense of their doctrine of pre-existence. Yet, an examination of the texts demonstrates that they are ill-fit for such a use. First, the passage in Jeremiah simply says that God had chosen Jeremiah as a prophet before his birth. The term translated to know (as in “I knew you”) in the Hebrew is often used in the sense of to choose, not simply to know in a sense of familiarity with. For example, when God speaks of Israel in Amos 3:2, He says, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth.” Did God only know about Israel — did He not also know about Egypt, or Assyria, or Babylon? Of course, but only Israel was chosen to be His people. The same is true here in Jeremiah 1:5 the term knew is paralleled with two other terms God sanctified him and ordained him. All speak of God’s sovereign predestination of Jeremiah to the office of a prophet. Nothing here suggests that Jeremiah had a pre-existence in which he was familiar with Jehovah.
The second passage is even more clearly unsuitable for a defense of pre-existence. If you would take the time to read the entire chapter, you would find that it is one long unanswerable question — one huge rhetorical demonstration of the foolishness of a man who would question God and His workings in the world. Job can’t answer any of these questions that he is asked, and in fact, having been utterly crushed under the weight of this awesome revelation of God that extends through the next chapter, he finally is forced to say,
Behold, I am vile; what shall l answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. Once have l spoken; but I will not answer; yea, twice; but l will proceed no further. (Job 40:4-5)
It doesn’t seem God felt that was enough, because He continues on with His questioning in Job 40:6-41:34, and Job answered saying,
I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withheld from thee. Who is he who hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. (Job 42:2-3)
So when God asked Job where he was when “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” Job had no answer because he wasn’t there! To use this to say that Job was one of the “sons of God” mentioned in the passage is to miss the obvious. “Sons of God” in the Old Testament refers to the angels of God, His creations, not to some group of pre-existent spirit children. So, as you can see, Steve, these two passages, so often quoted by LDS people, do not in any way teach the concept of pre-existence.
You also asked about the relationship of the Father and the Son in reference to Jesus being the Creator, yet the Father also being the Creator. Remember what I had mentioned before concerning the doctrine of the Trinity it is based upon three biblical teachings: (1) There is only one God, (2) there are three Persons described as God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and (3) all three Persons share fully and completely that being that is God. The final point would primarily be concerned with the deity of Christ and the Spirit since few people deny the deity of the Father! Also, remember the very important distinction I brought out between the terms being and person. Rocks have being, but they are not personal. There is one being of God, eternal and infinite, yet there are three Persons who share that one being. And, I’ve already warned you about “importing” human concepts into your understanding of God, such as understanding “person” in human terms.
Now, in reference to your question, since Creation is the work of God generally, it is not surprising to see the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all described as having a part in that work. Since the name “Jehovah” is used of all three divine Persons, and Jehovah created all things, then all three Persons were in some way involved in the creative act. Only the Mormon insistence on forgetting the absolute unity of the being of God results in your misunderstanding. A person informed only by the Bible and not by Joseph Smith would not have a difficulty seeing the unity of the work of God.
I hope that is satisfactory with reference to your questions. I will now move on to the subject of the atonement of Christ. Bruce R. McConkie said of the atonement:
To atone is to ransom, reconcile, expiate, redeem, reclaim, absolve, propitiate, make amends, pay the penalty. Thus the atonement of Christ is designed to ransom men from the effects of the fall of Adam in that both spiritual and temporal death are conquered; their lasting effect is nullified. . . . Immortality comes as a free gift, by the grace of God alone, without works of righteousness. Eternal life is the reward for “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
Because of the atonement and by obedience to gospel law men have power to become the sons of God in that they are spiritually begotten of God and adopted as members of his family. (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 62,65)
According to this and other statements by Mormon leaders, the work of Christ “saves everyone” in the sense that all men will be resurrected because of the atonement, no matter what their personal lives were like or if they had repented of their sins or not. This is “universal salvation” and is given simply on the basis of God’s grace (I hope to discuss this with you more fully at a later time under the broad topic of the Gospel of grace). But I hope you realize that most Christians would not use the term salvation simply with reference to physical resurrection. We do not believe that the resurrection of the unjust for their judgment is part of “salvation,” nor that the atonement of Christ was necessary for them to be resurrected at all. But aside from that difference, McConkie also states that the atonement seems to make possible the gaining of eternal life, which is defined as the “reward for ‘obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.’ “ Without getting deeply into the topic of salvation and the gospel, gaining eternal life in Mormon thought is the same as gaining “exaltation,” and this is not by grace alone but grace coupled with obedience to laws and ordinances that are supposedly a part of the Gospel plan (see Mormon Doctrine, page 671). So the atonement does not, in and of itself, accomplish this “higher” salvation, this personal exaltation, but it simply makes it a possibility.
Much could be said about the LDS doctrine of the atonement. One unique concept has to do with the idea that the atonement began in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Christ’s sweat was, “as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). D & C 19:18 takes this to mean that Christ did indeed “bleed from every pore” and hence the idea that the atonement began at this point. However, I would just note in passing that we read in the Bible that we are saved and redeemed not by the blood of the garden but by the blood shed on the cross (Colossians 1:20), and that it is without the shedding (not sweating) of blood that there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
I am also reminded of a talk given by Elder Boyd K. Packer at the General Conference in April of 1977 entitled “The Mediator.” In his talk, Elder Packer told a parable of a person who was in debt and could not pay his bill. A mediator appears and offers to pay the debt. I pick up at this point:
The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”
“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.
“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”
Later Packer identifies the mediator as Christ, and we as the debtors. He says,
The extension of mercy will not be automatic. It will be through covenant with Him. It will be on His terms, His generous terms, which include, as an absolute essential, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.
And later he added these words,
He also makes possible redemption from the second death, which is the spiritual death, which is separation from the presence of our Heavenly Father. This redemption can come only to those who are clean, for no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. (Ensign, May 1977, pp. 55-56)
The concept that we somehow continue to owe the debt of sin even after our “salvation” is one that we will discuss later. Till then, I note especially that the atonement of the Lord Jesus, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, does not bring about full and complete salvation outside of the works of man. Such things as baptism and “continued obedience to gospel ordinances and principles” are required for the atonement to be effective.
But what is for me the most striking, and indeed the most disturbing aspect of LDS teaching about the atonement of Christ is that of the doctrine of “blood atonement.” I have broached this topic with many LDS and have received a wide variety of explanations about this belief, even to the point of denial that it is taught by Mormonism. Since there are some LDS who don’t seem to be aware of this teaching, I will again make sure that my “ducks are in a row” and provide you with a number of citations that demonstrate this teaching. I will proceed chronologically, going back to the man who spoke the most about this doctrine, Brigham Young, the second president of the LDS Church.
On March l6, 1856, Brigham Young preached a sermon in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City. Here is an excerpt from that sermon. will let it speak for itself:
You say, “That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God.” Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, l have no wife whom I love so well that l would not put a javelin through her heart, and l would do it with clean hands. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged. (Journal of Discourses, 3:247, emphasis mine)
A scant six months later he preached yet another sermon and said,
I say, that there are men and women that l would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood.
We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye.
You may think that I am not teaching you Bible doctrine, but what says the apostle Paul? l would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. l believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood.
We have been trying long enough with this people, and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word, but in deed.
Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid. (Journal of Discourses, 4.49-5 l, emphasis mine)
Young was even more explicit later that day:
There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.
I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.
I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further: I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.
It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. . . . There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. (Journal of Discourses, 4:53-54, emphasis mine)
Five months later Brigham Young returned to his topic once again:
When will we love our neighbor as ourselves? . . . Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life . . . and suppose he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods”?
Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. . .
I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil. . . . I have known a great many men who have left the Church for whom there is no chance whatsoever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them.
This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. . . . That is the way to love mankind. (Journal of Discourses, 4:219-20, emphasis mine)
I must admit to being sickened simply by typing these quotations, Steve. No Christian heart can possibly hear this kind of incredibly false teaching without cringing in horror. But allow me to “head you off at the pass,” so to speak. I know that all of those references are well over a hundred years old. But does the modern LDS Church still believe in this kind of “doctrine?” It most certainly does! Read the words of Joseph Fielding Smith, Prophet of the LDS Church from 1970-1972 just as they appear in his book Doctrines of Salvation, Volume l, pages 134 and 135:
But man may commit certain grievous sins — according to his light and knowledge that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone so far as in his power lies — for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.
Atonement and sins unto death. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church.
Bruce R. McConkie, in Mormon Doctrine, also stated that the “true doctrine of blood atonement is simply this”:
1. Jesus Christ worked out the infinite and eternal atonement by the shedding of his own blood. He came into the world for the purpose of dying on the cross for the sins of the world. By virtue of that atoning sacrifice immortality came as a free gift to all men, and all who would believe and obey his laws would in addition be cleansed from sin through his blood. . .
2. But under certain circumstances, there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment. Thus, also, if a person has so progressed in righteousness that his calling and election has been made sure, if he has come to that position where he knows “by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood” that he is sealed up unto eternal life (D&C 131:5), then if he gains forgiveness for certain grievous sins, he must “be destroyed in the flesh,” and ‘‘delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.” (pp. 92— 93)
It seems that modern LDS leaders like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie agree with Brigham Young on the doctrine of blood atonement! This concept seems alive and well in the modern LDS Church. Of course, the practice of blood atonement cannot be carried out by the Mormon Church today, though there certainly is evidence that it was practiced during the days of Brigham Young. With reference to this McConkie wrote these rather chilling words:
This doctrine can only be practiced in its fullness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 93)
Since many Mormons believe that in the end times, the civil and ecclesiastical laws will be administered by the same hands, such a concept is certainly frightening in its ramifications.
I shall hold my rebuttal of this doctrine until I have had an opportunity of presenting what the Bible teaches about the atoning work of Jesus Christ. For now, it will be sufficient for me to state that anyone who could believe or teach such a concept knows little or nothing about the work of Christ on the cross. Indeed, I will close my presentation of the LDS concept of the atonement by noting the words of Joseph Smith with regard to his teaching that animal sacrifices would be reinstituted in the future:
It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice lie., the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus] was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges, and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets.
These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. (Documentary History of the Church: 211)
Amazingly, this section is quoted with approval by McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, p. 666. The concept that there could possibly be any more sacrifices by the “priesthood” is so far removed from biblical teaching (note the entire argument of the book of Hebrews), and so foreign to the Christian mind, that it is difficult to fully grasp what I have just presented above. Allow me to move on quickly to biblical truth about the work of Jesus Christ.
The Finished Work of Christ on Calvary
Entire books have been written on this subject, and I have no intention of adding yet another in this letter. I will limit my discussion of the atonement to those points where we differ greatly in our understanding.
The death of Jesus Christ on the cross accomplished atonement. We agree on that. But what does atonement mean? How are we to understand this? Briefly, the Bible uses a number of terms to describe the effect of the death of Christ. Some of these terms include forgiveness, righteousness (or justification), redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation. It teaches that these things flow necessarily and surely from the work of Christ. What do I mean by this? I mean that the death of Christ actually accomplishes the forgiveness, justification, redemption, and reconciliation of those for whom it is made, without any outside considerations. The death of Christ is not “incomplete” without the addition of “other works” such as your own acts of obedience. The sacrifice of Christ is not dependent upon Steve Hahn or James White for its effectiveness.
One of the major differences between us is that you seem to believe that the death of Jesus Christ simply makes complete salvation a possibility rather than a reality. In other words, you believe that the death of Christ “opens the way” of salvation, but it does not in and of itself accomplish salvation. It removes barriers (sin) but does not actually save anyone in the fullest sense, for outside of your acts of obedience, such as baptism, and continued obedience to gospel rules and principles, it is helpless to save you fully. Not only this, but it seems that if you follow the counsel of Brigham Young or Bruce R. McConkie, you further believe that there are certain sins that the blood of Christ is unable to remit that your own blood, however, is able to bring forgiveness of this sin.
Steve, let’s look first at the fact that there is no sin that is beyond the atoning blood of Christ, no sin so heinous, so evil, that the blood of Christ is insufficient to bring about forgiveness. Let’s look at what the Bible says:
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colossians 1:19-20)
Did Christ just make peace possible or did He actually make peace by the blood of His cross?
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)
Was it some of our trespasses that were nailed to the cross? Was it only those trespasses that were not grievous enough to require the blood of the sinful man to be shed that were nailed to the cross? Or was it all our trespasses, all our sins?
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (l John 1:7)
Does John teach that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from some sin, or all sin? And how are we redeemed, forgiven? Peter answers that question:
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. (l Peter 1:17-l8)
The shed blood of Christ is the basis upon which God justifies or makes righteous those who believe in Christ, as Paul wrote,
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:24-26)
I will deal with this more later, but the two terms justification and to make righteous mean the same thing in the New Testament. They translate the same Greek word. So, if one wishes to be made righteous, to be justified in God’s sight, the only way in which this can happen is through the death of Jesus Christ. Why is this? Because Christ took our place. He was our perfect Substitute. He took our sins upon himself all of them! In doing so, He provided for us full and complete salvation. Paul wrote:
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
The sinless Lamb of God “was made to be sin for us,” and what was the result of this? We are made the righteousness of God in Him, that is, in Christ and in Him alone. That is where one finds righteousness and nowhere else in Christ Jesus. He took my place so that His death results in the forgiveness of my sins. Elsewhere Paul wrote,
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:8-10)
The Bible says that Christ died for us. The preposition in the Greek language can be properly translated “in behalf of” as well as “for.” Christ died in behalf of me, in my place, even while I was yet a sinner. So, I have been justified, made righteous, by His blood. I am righteous before God, Steve, not because of anything that I have done, but because of what Christ did! I have been reconciled to God, not by my actions, not by my works of righteousness, but by “the death of His Son.” Jesus Christ’s death is what makes me righteous and reconciles me to the Father.
As I’ve been just briefly looking at some of these passages of Scripture, you’ve probably noticed a consistent theme in them all — that is that salvation is totally and completely of God. God is the one who saves, the one who brings men to himself. Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. And with reference to the atonement, I am clearly and openly asserting that the death of Christ alone is sufficient to bring about full salvation for those who believe in Him. The passages above make that clear, yet in your pamphlet What the Mormons Think About Christ on pages 19-20 we read,
Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much that is believed and taught on this subject, however, is such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one’s salvation. For instance, many believe or pretend to believe that if we confess Christ with our lips and avow that we accept him as our personal Savior, we are thereby saved. They say that his blood, without any other act than mere belief, makes us clean.
Possibly, when this writer referred to the “many” who believe this, he was referring to the Apostle Paul who wrote Romans 3:24-26 and 5:8-10 above? I would rather believe what Paul said than what this pamphlet says. Of course, I will later deal with the nature of true saving faith (it is the gift of God) and much more on salvation — but right now I want to turn from the clear biblical teaching that Christ’s death actually and really brings about forgiveness and reconciliation to the LDS concept that the blood of Christ cannot atone for all sins.
Joseph Fielding Smith said in the citation above from his book Doctrines of Salvation that there are certain sins that place the person “beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ.” In this situation, “the blood of Christ alone….will not avail.” And he went on to say that these sins place the transgressor “beyond the power of the atonement of Christ.” Steve, what is beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ? For what sin will the blood of Christ not avail? What could possibly place one “beyond the power of the atonement of Christ”? Is the atonement provided by the shed blood of the sinless Lamb of God limited? Certainly not, yet the Mormon doctrine of blood atonement teaches just that! It would be one thing to say that there are certain sins that are simply too great to be forgiven (even though this in and of itself would be incorrect as well), but to say that there are certain sins that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to forgive that your own sinful blood can atone for is something else completely!
And right here is one of the most dangerous errors of Mormon theology. The death of Jesus Christ atones for sin because He, as the sinless substitute, was not under the penalty of sin; therefore, He could take the place of those who were powerless to save themselves. Since He was an infinite Person, Jehovah God in the flesh, His death was infinite in its value. But Mormon leaders teach that the blood of a sinful, condemned man has power to atone for his own sins. How can this be? If my blood can atone for anything at all, why then did Christ have to die? If my death can bring forgiveness of sins, then why send Christ to be my substitute? The shedding of my blood, Steve, could not atone for spitting on the sidewalk, let alone for some great and grievous sin that is so horrid it is beyond the power of the atonement of Christ! Can you see how this doctrine makes the blood of a sinful, vile person like me more powerful than the blood of the Lamb of God? Such a teaching shows how deeply the atonement of Christ is misunderstood in Mormonism. Only the death of Christ has the ability to bring forgiveness of sins. Only the death of Christ can bring full and complete salvation. It is the death and resurrection of Christ alone that saves any and all actions of man, whether they be through religious ceremonies and works, or even the shedding of one’s own blood, cannot in any way add to the finished and completed work of Jesus Christ. That is why Joseph Smith’s teaching about the reinstitution of animal sacrifices under the auspices of the priesthood in the millennium is so false animal sacrifices were but a picture of the final work of Christ. Why go back to the old shadows, the symbols, when the reality has come? Such is in fact a denial of the finished work of Christ on Calvary.
Yes, I admit it — you can tell I am just a little emotional about this issue. I’m probably not writing in quite my normal way. I try to remain “scholarly,” but when it comes to the death of my Lord, and the all sufficiency of His work, I do allow my emotions to at least influence my use of italics and exclamation points! And when doctrines like the LDS teaching of blood atonement, and its clear denial of the power of the blood of Christ, are in view, well, there are some things that are important enough to cause a little escalation in the voice and the blood pressure.
Now you may stop me here and ask about Matthew 12:31-32. It reads:
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
This is surely the most popular section used in “defense” of blood atonement, though, upon even a cursory examination, we see that it is hardly suited for such a task. First, the passage says that this “unpardonable sin” is just that — unpardonable. There is no forgiveness for it — none. Shedding the blood of a person who has committed the unpardonable sin will not change that situation — they will not be forgiven. So it is clear to see that Jesus was not teaching the Mormon doctrine of blood atonement here.
So what then was He teaching, you ask? Does He not here contradict what l John 1:7 said, that His blood cleanses us from all sin? No, He doesn’t. Let’s look at the passage to see how this is so.
Just before these words of Jesus, He had cast out a demon. The Pharisees had come to Him and accused Him of casting out demons by the power of the prince of demons, Beelzebul, or Satan. This charge provides the background for understanding verses 31 and 32. The Pharisees had identified the working of the Holy Spirit of God with the power of Satan — they called God the devil.
Jesus identifies this act, that of calling that which is good, evil, the unpardonable sin. Why is it unpardonable? Is it unpardonable because it is so serious that even the sacrifice of Christ cannot atone for it? No, that is not the case.
When one blasphemes the Holy Spirit, he (or she) is cutting himself off from the presence and work of the Spirit. When one rejects the work of the Holy Spirit (by attributing it to evil, as the Pharisees had done), one is cut off from His convicting power. Remember that the Bible teaches us in John 16:8 that one of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to bring conviction of sin to the heart of man — not only conviction that results in regeneration (being born again), but even conviction to those who will never turn to God. The Spirit is actively involved in convicting the world of its sin, and, I would add, God by His Spirit is actively involved in curbing the existence of evil and suppressing the natural tendency of man toward evil. Be that as it may, the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts man of his sin. When one blasphemes the Spirit, one is showing that one is no longer being convicted by the Spirit — such a person has become so twisted, so perverse, as to be able to identify the work of the Spirit as the work of Satan (or vice versa). Such a person is cut off from the convicting influences of the Spirit of God. This is what makes the unpardonable sin unpardonable — it is not the seriousness of the sin itself, but the effect that it has. One cannot ask forgiveness of sin unless one is convicted by the Holy Spirit. When one is cut off from His convicting power, one can no longer even ask for pardon, hence the unpardonableness of the sin.
Now you may ask who would commit this kind of sin. First, we can see that the person would have to be terribly twisted, calling what is obviously good, evil, and what is obviously evil, good. Isaiah put it this way:
Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)
The most likely candidates for this in my opinion, Steve, ironically, are religious people — the very ones who have the most “light” in which to walk are the ones who can become so twisted as to commit this sin. I have seen, sadly, such people involved both in cults and more often, atheism. I have debated atheists who once were professing Christians, and such people, by their own statements, are likely candidates for the unpardonable sin, and most definitely fall in the category of the ones spoken of in Hebrews 6:4-6.
The point of all of this is to say that the unpardonable sin is not one that by its gross severity is beyond the reach of the atonement of Christ — it is unforgivable because of the position it places the sinner in, one from which he cannot, and will not, ever cry for forgiveness.
Originally I pointed out that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes that which it was intended to accomplish without the additional works of man. Now aside from the whole works/faith issue, you may well be saying, “Now wait a minute — don’t Christians believe that Christ died for everyone, and therefore if the death of Christ accomplishes the redemption of all for whom it was made, then are not all saved, even in your sense of the term?” I hope you don’t mind this, but a few months ago I put together a little article entitled “Was Anyone Saved at the Cross?“ As it answers that question directly, I will provide its text for your consideration. It will also help you to understand more about my doctrine of salvation as well.
“Was anyone saved at the cross? Did the death of Jesus Christ actually and really save anyone at all?” Various answers have been given to this question down through the ages. The answers fall into three categories:
l. A “universalistic” perspective: From this perspective, Christ died on behalf of every single man, and His death, aside from every single other consideration, brings about eternal salvation. If Christ has taken one’s sins, then there no longer remains any grounds for God’s judgment or wrath, hence all for whom Christ died will be saved. Since no works of man are needed or required, all men will be saved.
2. The view of many different groups: The second group gathers together many, many different beliefs which agree on this one item: Christ’s death was for all men, yet, His death alone does not actually save anyone, and is not complete in and of itself. Rather, Christ’s death makes salvation possible for anyone who will do certain things — some saying that people must only believe to make the atonement “effective,” others arguing for baptism, laying on of hands, sacraments, penances, ceremonies, all sorts of “good works,” and almost every possible combination of the above. What unites this group is the concept that the death of Christ, being universal in scope (that is, Christ died for all men) is incapable of saving anyone outside of man’s actions.
3. The “Reformed” view: The third group is similar to the first, in that they assert that the death of Christ, outside of any human actions, saves those for whom it is made. Christ’s death as the perfect Substitute means that all those for whom He died are thereby forgiven, and redeemed, and, since their sins are taken away on the cross, they cannot possibly be punished for them. All those for whom Christ died are by that action saved, and cannot possibly fail to receive eternal life. The difference, however, lies in the fact that the Reformed view says that Christ died substitutionarily on behalf of God’s people, God’s elect, and not for every single human being. The Reformed view presents a definite, specific, or limited view of the extent of Christ’s work.
Examination of These Views
All Christians who look to the Bible as the Word of God can dismiss the first position immediately, for the Bible is very clear in proclaiming the fact that not all men will be saved, not all will be brought into a proper relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Rather, there will be those who suffer eternal punishment, separated from God (Matthew 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, etc.). But what of the remaining views? The two positions are seen to differ on some very fundamental questions: For whom did Christ die? What is the result of His death? What was His intention in going to the cross? The only way to resolve these questions is to go to God’s Holy Word, the Bible.
The Reason Christ Came
Why did Christ go to Calvary? What was His reason for coming to earth at all? Jesus answered this plainly in Luke 19:10 when He said, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” His was a mission of seeking, and saving, the lost. Note that He does not say that He came “to make a way possible” but to actually save sinners. The same is taught by the Apostle Paul in I Timothy 1:15: “It is a faithful saying: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” So it is plain to see that Christ came to save sinners, and He did this by His sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary. Yet, we must ask, did He accomplish the purpose for which He came? The Reformed position says that He did. The other perspective suspends judgment, asserting that Christ’s death was not intended, in and of itself, to save sinners, but to only make a way of salvation possible. Where does the Bible teach this? And upon what basis can one say that the death of Christ is in need of “further actions” on the part of men in order for it to become effective?
The Result of Christ’s Work at Calvary
The Bible tells us that the death of Christ accomplished certain things. His death brings about forgiveness of sins (not just the possibility of forgiveness) and makes a person righteous (justified) in God’s sight (Romans 3:24-25). By the death of Christ men are reconciled to God (Romans 5:8-11, Colossians 1:21-22), and are redeemed (Ephesians 1:7). All other blessings of salvation are dependent upon, and flow from, the atoning work of Christ. When Christ dies for someone as their substitute, they are by that action redeemed, forgiven, reconciled, justified, and sanctified. Their salvation is made complete, as the writer of Hebrews said, “But he, on the other hand, because he abides forever, holds his priesthood unchangeably, hence, he is able to save completely those who come unto God by him, as he lives forever to make intercession on their behalf” (Hebrews 7:24-25) and later, “But when Christ appeared as high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not of this creation, neither did he enter the holy place once for all through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:11-12).
Did Christ truly obtain eternal redemption or did He only make it a theoretical possibility? Was the death of Christ a real atonement, complete and finished, or was it simply the first step, incomplete, resulting not in a finished salvation but a possible redemption? The biblical answer seems clear. What happens to a person for whom Christ dies? The writer of Hebrews again teaches, “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all … For by one offering, He has perfected forever those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:10, 14). Note that the believer has been sanctified, and how? Through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And what does verse 14 assert? By that one offering Christ has perfected forever those who are sanctified. Indeed, if Christ’s death accomplishes what the Bible here teaches, and one does not believe that all shall be saved, then one must believe that Christ’s atonement was specifically for a certain people — God’s people.
For Whom Did Christ Die?
“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28*). Christ came to save sinners, and He did this by giving His life as a “ransom for many.” (*verses in this section are quoted from NASB.)
Who are these “many”? This would be the same group spoken of by Isaiah the prophet in Isaiah 53:11, “By His knowledge the Righteous One, my Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.” They are Christ’s sheep, as He said, “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep. . . even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 15). (Not all are Christ’s sheep — John 10:26.) Together they are the Church, the body of Christ: “. . . just as Christ loved you, and gave Himself up for us . . . husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” (Ephesians 5:2, 25). They are called Christ’s “friends” in John 15:13, and “His people” in Matthew 1:21 — “And she will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins.”
They are believers who look forward to Christ’s coming, as Paul wrote to Titus, “[We are] looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed, and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:13-14). Finally, the Bible clearly identifies this people for whom Christ died, and who are, by His death, sanctified, as “the elect of God.” Paul wrote, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect?” (Romans 8:31-33).
All these passages teach us that Christ’s death had a specific purpose, a particular goal, and that was the salvation of God’s elect, God’s people. As we have seen, Christ’s death accomplishes that which God intended.
Is It Important?
Surely the atonement of Jesus Christ is central to Christian belief. The truth about what Christ did on the cross, and why He did it, should be important to those who name the name of Christ. The definite, specific atonement of Jesus Christ is consistent with the Bible’s teaching of the absolute sovereignty of God in the matter of salvation: God elects, and chooses to save, not on the basis of what any man does or will do, but purely on the basis of His own mercy and will (Romans 9:16-18). Since this is so, Christ’s death would logically only be for those to whom God has chosen to be merciful. The result of this is the wonderful truth that all the honor and glory for salvation goes to God and to God alone. He is seen to be powerful to save, for the death of Christ accomplishes that which He intends.
On the other hand, if we deny this truth, we are left presenting the death of Christ as something incomplete and ineffective, lacking the power to bring about salvation outside of man’s response, man’s actions. Rather than a sovereign God who calls men to himself, we present a God who would really like to save men but is constantly frustrated by their actions, and their will. Is this the God of the Bible? (Psalm 115:3, 135:6)
I hope you will think about these things, Steve. I know that the position taken here is not the most common one you might encounter going door to door. However, I think you will see that the position I take is consistent with the doctrine of God that I have presented previously. I look forward to a time when we can sit down and talk about these subjects. But now, let me move directly into the subject of the priesthood.
The Priesthood Issue
As you know, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the only true church on earth today. Part of this claim is to be seen in the vital LDS doctrine that they, and they alone, hold the true priesthood authority. Supposedly the Aaronic priesthood was conferred on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on May 15, 1829, and then, sometime in June of the same year, Peter, James, and John supposedly appeared and conferred the Melchizedek priesthood upon them. We have seen already, of course, that Joseph did not claim to hold the priesthood until after the founding of the Church in 1830, and that he was more than willing to “edit” previously written revelations to “insert” the concept of the priesthood so that it appeared to have been a part of his original teachings (i .e., Section 27 of the D & C being a prime example). I believe that this is a major issue that anyone who would defend the LDS concept of “priesthood authority” cannot ignore.
When Christians attempt to confront the teachings of the LDS Church, the frequent response of the Mormons is, “What is your authority?” Mormons truly believe that they have a special authority from God as presented by the priesthood. But, the question I must ask is this — does the Bible support these ideas? Does the Bible present a special priesthood authority as the Mormon Church claims? Let’s examine this idea from the perspective of Holy Scripture.
The Aaronic Priesthood
The presentation of the Aaronic priesthood as found in the Bible demonstrates clearly that Aaronic priests were ordained to that position in quite a different way than LDS men are today. If you will take the time to read through Exodus chapter 29 and Leviticus chapter 8, you will discover a very different rite of ordination presented there. I have asked Mormon elders who claimed to have been ordained in the exact same way as all Aaronic priests were ordained in the past if they went through a seven-day period of consecration, and had blood placed upon their right ear, their right thumb, and their right big toe (Leviticus 8:23). Most thought that ordination to the priesthood involved little more than a ceremony of laying hands upon their heads — something that is actually missing from the true ordination of Aaronic priests in the Bible. Not only this, but the duties of the Aaronic priests were also inconsistent with those of the priests of Mormonism (see Leviticus chapters 4 through 10). What is even more important for our purposes is the fact that the requirements for the biblical Aaronic priests are very different from those of Mormon teaching. The priesthood of Aaron is reserved solely and eternally for the descendants of Aaron. Where does the Bible teach this? One of the most obvious places is in Numbers, chapter 16.
Numbers 16 tells the story of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Korah was a Levite but was not of the family of Aaron. They rebelled against Moses, claiming that “all the congregation is holy” and that Moses and Aaron had taken “too much” upon themselves (16:3). They desired to “come near” unto God, which was the sole function of the priesthood with Aaron as the High Priest. You can read the story for yourself, but in short, God caused the ground to open up and swallow Korah and those who followed him. Upon the event of their destruction, we read,
To be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the Lord; that he be not as Korah, and as his company: as the Lord said to him by the hand of Moses. (Numbers 16:40)
And later we can listen as God speaks to Aaron and says,
Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest’s office for every thing of the altar, and within the veil; and ye shall serve: I have given your priest’s office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. (Numbers 18:7)
Obviously, one who was not of the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron could not hold the priesthood authority. You, Steve, are not even Jewish, let alone of the tribe of Levi or the family of Aaron. How then can you claim to hold the Aaronic priesthood?
I know — when we look at LDS practice we find that in the individual’s “Patriarchal blessing,” he is told to what tribe he belongs. Normally, the tribe is that of Ephraim or Manassah — personally, in all the times I have asked concerning this issue, I have never encountered any Mormon who claimed to be of the tribe of Levi, let alone the family of Aaron. Clearly, then, you must not be claiming to hold the same priesthood as spoken of in the Bible, as very few of the members of the LDS Church are Jewish in lineage! The most telling objection to be raised to the entire idea of a modern, functioning Aaronic priesthood is the simple teaching of the New Testament that in the one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ the entire sacrificial system, along with its priesthood duties, was fulfilled and completed. To go back to the old system is to undo the work of Jesus at Calvary! For example — the veil of the Temple in Jerusalem was torn in two from top to bottom when Christ died (Matthew 27:51). This veil had stood for the separating wall between God and man that was bridged but once a year by the one high priest (yes, one high priest, not many as the LDS Church has. Jesus Christ is our only high priest, and anyone claiming to be a “high priest” is usurping His position, Hebrews 7:26-28) when he offered the sacrifice of atonement for the people (Leviticus 16, Hebrews 9:7). Christ, however, offered the final sacrifice and in doing so opened the way permanently for all who would come to God by Him. Christ did not do away with the priesthood; rather He fulfilled it. Its purpose was done, finished, completed. Hebrews 7:12 says that there has been a “change” in the Aaronic priesthood. The Greek term indicates that the Aaronic priesthood has been completed. As Dr. A. T. Robertson, one of the greatest Greek scholars America has ever produced, said in reference to this verse,
God’s choice of another kind of priesthood for His Son, left the Levitical line off to one side, forever discontinued, passed by “the order of Aaron.” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol .5′ p. 383)
Since this is so, anyone today who wishes to revive the old ways of the Aaronic priesthood woefully misunderstands the work of Christ on the cross (Hebrews 9:10-28). Sadly, as we saw above, this is exactly the situation with the leaders of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith in particular.
In passing, I might mention to you, Steve, that should you think that John 15:16 (“Ye have not chosen me, but [have chosen you, and ordained you…) refers to the ordination of the apostles and the granting to them of some special authority, I would like to point out that the word translated ordained in 15:16 is simply a synonym for chosen that is translated in modern versions as appointed. It has no reference whatsoever to the idea of a special religious ordination of priests.
The Melchizedek Priesthood
Much more important than the Aaronic priesthood in Mormon thought is the “Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God” or the “Melchizedek Priesthood.” This priesthood, comprehends the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood, and is the grand head, and holds the highest authority which pertains to the priesthood . . . and is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation and every important matter is revealed from heaven. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 476)
Obviously, this supposed authority is very important to the LDS Church. But again, does the Bible support such a teaching?
Let’s first examine the qualifications of the “Melchizedek” priest as given in the Bible. Hebrews 7:3 tells us that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” Only Melchizedek and Christ meet those qualifications, for this priesthood is unique — no one but Melchizedek and Christ has ever held it. Indeed, Hebrews 7:3 also makes clear that Melchizedek is only like the Son of God — he was not the pattern that Jesus followed by, rather he was a type — the mere reflection of the full expression of the Son of God. This priesthood is also seen, on the basis of this passage, to be one that is not passed on from one to another — there were no “Melchizedek” priests between Genesis 14 and the coming of the Lord Jesus. Melchizedek did not “give” the priesthood to Jesus (or anyone else for that matter); it was Jesus’ by right.
The work of the Melchizedek priest is seen in Hebrews 7:24-25, where the Bible says,
But this man (Jesus), because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
The priesthood Jesus holds is His — unchangeably or permanently. Some translate it by the word intransmissable, indicating that no one else can hold this priesthood. Though some would argue with the translation of the word, the fact is clear that the person holding this priesthood by right of eternal life is able to save completely those who come unto God by him — a claim that few Mormons would knowingly make. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t had a few stand before me and say, “Well, if that is what the Melchizedek priest can do, then I can do it.” What about you, Steve? Do you claim to be able to “save to the uttermost” those who come unto God by you? I certainly hope not, for you know that you cannot. However, if the LDS Church is going to declare that it has this priesthood, it must face the fact that it is professing to have that which, according to the Bible, is the property of Jesus Christ alone.
A passage that is frequently cited in this discussion is Hebrews 5:6 which mentions the order of Melchizedek. The LDS Church teaches that this indicates that there was an order of priests after Melchizedek — that this is a priesthood that is passed on much like the Aaronic. The whole point of the discourse, however, is just the opposite — the priesthood of Jesus is superior to that of Aaron and one of the reasons is that it is not passed from one to another. It is not invested in men who will die, but is given only to the One who has died and lives forever, the Lord Jesus Christ! To miss the point is to misunderstand the entire argument of Hebrews! It must also be pointed out that the word translated “order” means “of the same kind” or “nature, quality, manner, condition, appearance.” It does not refer to a lineage of priests, but rather to the kind of priest. It must again be stressed that Jesus’ priesthood is His uniquely and that no one can claim to hold what is His by right as the one great High Priest, the one Mediator between God and man (I Timothy 2:5). Therefore, the LDS Church’s claim to hold this priesthood is without biblical basis or historical basis, and far more importantly, it strikes at the very core of the work and office of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Well, Steve, I think it is about time we got to the final and important issue — the gospel of Jesus Christ. What has come up to this point is very important — vital even to a proper understanding of the gospel. I’d like you to do me a favor — when you write back, define for me just what the gospel is, and what it involves. Then we can discuss the Bible’s presentation of this all-important matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
In Christian concern,
James White
Return to Table of Contents –––> Next Chapter
Letters To A Mormon Elder is available on Amazon.