Discovering the Truth About the Church!

 

I came across the above video in which Angela Erickson interviews Jeremy Christiansen about his story of conversion from Mormonism to Catholicism, and a book that he has written on the subject. I had previously discussed Jeremy Christiansen’s story in earlier blog posts, and my aim here is not to get into any further discussion about that. But Angela Erickson comes across to me as a reasonable kind of person, and my advice to her is that if she really wants to learn the truth about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, her best bet is not to talk to Jeremy Christiansen. That would be like trying to find out the truth about Catholicism by talking to Martin Luther! My advice to her would be to read the Book of Mormon for herself, impartially and prayerfully, with an open mind, and a sincere desire to know of its truth. The Book of Mormon is a book of ancient scripture like the Bible; and contains a promise within it, that those who study it in faith, with a sincere desire to know of its truth, and ask God in faith, the truth of it will be revealed to them by the power of the Holy Ghost. Here is the quote:

Moroni 10:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

And the testimony of the Holy Ghost is not the same as “feelings”. Jeremy Christiansen likes to dismiss that as “feelings”. Well it is not. The Bible teaches that the Holy Ghost reveals truth:

John 14:

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 John 2:

20 But ye have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

• • •

27 But the anointing [Holy Ghost] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

That is what the Bible teaches. That is how St. Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God:

Matthew 16:

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven [i.e. by the Holy Ghost].

Peter knew something. He wasn’t just grassing, or having a nice “feeling” about it. That is how the testimony of the Holy Ghost works. If Jeremy Christiansen doesn’t believe that, why is that our problem? That is his problem, not ours. By the testimony of the Holy Ghost one can know that the Book of Mormon is true, and is the word of God; not just have nice “feelings” about it. My advice to Angela Erickson is to read the Book of Mormon for herself, impartially and prayerfully, and with an open mind, and an honest desire to know of its truth; and the promise of the Lord is that the truth of it will be made known to her by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things. That is what the Bible teaches (John 16:13).

Voddie Baucham on the Sovereignty of God!

 

I found the above sermon by Voddie Baucham preached at the G3 Ministries National Conference held in November 2023. The general theme of the conference apparently is the “sovereignty of God;” and his particular speaking assignment is to talk about the “sovereignty of God and the sanctity of marriage”—which is a strange kind of assignment, because those are two separate subjects, and it is difficult to talk about both in the same context—which explains why he is having a hard time combining them together; or preaching about both at the same time. He solves the problem by trying to portray the current “sexual revolution,” and the attempt at dismantling the traditional Christian sexual and moral ethics, and the sanctity of marriage etc., as a “war against the sovereignty of God”. After the initial introductory remarks, at 1:03 minutes into the video he begins his sermon as follows:

“Well, couple of things: my assignment today is to address ‘the sovereignty of God, and the sanctity of marriage’ … If I had to title this message, it would be not ‘the sovereignty of God, and the sanctity of marriage;’ but ‘the sexual revolution as a war against the sovereignty of God;’ … and particularly, ‘a war against the sovereignty of God and the sanctity of marriage’. And what I want to do is, I want to look at a couple of passages of scripture. I want us to start in Genesis, and then we are going to go to Romans 1; and we are going to look at Romans 1 in light of what God has done, what the sovereign God of the universe has done in creation, as it relates to man and woman, and marriage and family.”

Then skipping down to 24:28 minutes into the video, he develops his theological perspective as follows:

“The sexual revolution as a war against the sovereignty of God begins with a war against God as creator; because if God is creator, then God is sovereign; if God is creator, he has the right to rule his creation. So if you are going to go to war against something that God has made, God has designed, and God has given; the first thing that you have to do is, you have to somehow negate God’s right to rule, in whatever sphere it is that you are trying to rebel; and that is where we begin—not with disagreements about whether or not the text truly says what we think that the text says. We may start off with that, but at the end of the day where we are going is—there is no God—not just, ‘God has not said;’ but, ‘There is no God to even say.’”

The problem with that theological analysis of the subject is that it does not square with his own Calvinistic understanding of the “sovereignty” of God; because according to his theology, “sovereignty” means that God has meticulously predestined and predetermined everything that comes to pass—including all the thoughts, desires, motivations, intentions, aspirations, and actions of man (good or bad). So if there is a “war” currently going on against the “sanctity of marriage,” or against the “marriage and the family” etc.; it is because God has predestined, predetermined, decreed, and foreordained it to happen—according to his own Calvinistic and Reformed theological thinking. God is directly responsible for it happening. So it looks like in reality, he is the one who is “fighting against the sovereignty of God;” because he is going against that which God has decreed, predestined, predetermined, foreordained, and caused to happen! He is warring against “something that God has made, God has designed, and God has given,” to borrow his own phraseology! LOL! Calvinism is the biggest theological joke on the planet. Do these guys really not see how ridiculously absurd, meaningless, and nonsensical their own theological position is; or are they deliberately trying to hide it?

Pastor Jeff on LDS Baptism

 

Pastor Jeff has been rather quiet lately, on his YouTube channel about LDS. He has just put out a new video, however, discussing the LDS doctrine of baptism, which he begins with the follows question, from a Church member presumably:

“@StevesterAmos: Curious to know your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 15:29, where the practice of baptism for the dead is mentioned, and the LDS look to as the basis for it?”

That is not an accurate expression of the LDS theological position on that subject, however. The LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead is not derived from 1 Corinthians 15:29; it is derived primarily from modern revelation (Doctrine and Covenants sections 124, 127, 128, 138). 1 Cor. 15:29 simply adds biblical confirmation to the LDS doctrine; but it is not the main source of the doctrine. Then he continues as follows (emphasis added):

“Hello Saints, my name is Jeff, I am a pastor in Utah, exploring everything I can about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I think it is time for us to revisit again the topic of baptism. And there is a couple reasons why I think it is a good idea. First of all, I just went through the temple down in St. George, Utah. It is only my second time going through a temple; and naturally as I am being taken through the temple, and the tour guide is explaining the baptismal font, and the various ordinances, baptism is just on my mind, I am just seeing how critically important it is, and how central it is to a lot of Latter-day Saint belief; and secondly, the topic of baptism is one of the most common topics that people will ask me about. So what I am going to try to do in this video is respond to a lot of the comments I get in the YouTube comment section; and hopefully that can clarify where the Latter-day Saint view is similar, but also different from a more common Protestant Evangelical view; so let’s dive in.

“Now the backdrop of this first question is the various times that I have communicated, that the common Protestant Evangelical belief is that baptism is a command, but it doesn’t save us; in other words, just because someone isn’t baptized, doesn’t mean that they are going to miss out on heaven, or that they are going to go to hell; which is probably why @pushaving is saying, ‘It is interesting to hear you speak of baptism as optional. I think that Jesus was pretty clear that everyone (non-children) needed to be baptized, when in Matthew 28 he commanded his disciples to: ‘19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am With you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.’ Now one thing I want to clarify right off the bat is, just because we don’t believe baptism saves us, doesn’t mean that Protestant Evangelicals look at baptism as optional. It is clearly a command. Jesus commands that we should be baptized, and that we should baptize others, as he is referencing here in Matthew 28, during the Great Commission. So how can we say that baptism doesn’t save us but it is still a command?”

I see some inconsistencies there. Firstly, nobody claims that “baptism saves us”. We are saved by God when we do what he says—which is not the same thing. Secondly, he acknowledges that baptism is a command; but then he goes on to say that it is not required for salvation, which doesn’t make sense. If baptism is a command, as he admits, what happens if somebody disobeys that “command”? Nothing? What is the point of God giving us a “command,” if it makes no difference whether we obey or disobey that “command”? The Bible says that we are saved by God when we do what he says:

Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

And baptism is one of things that God has said; it is one of those commands. There can only be one conclusion: There can be no salvation without submitting to baptism. Now that is not the same as saying that “baptism saves us”. It is God that saves us when we do what he says—which is not the same thing. He is trying to dodge the issue by calling it “baptism saves,” which is not what is claimed. He repeats that obfuscation in the rest of the video, therefore there is no need to add more. And the words of Jesus carry more weight than the words of Paul. When Jesus says something that is unambiguous and clear, we take it as it is, we don’t modify it by an ambiguous statement of Paul. When Jesus says that no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless they do God’s will, or do what he says, we take that as it is, we don’t modify it with something else.