What is the Book of Mormon?

 

I just discovered a recently created YouTube channel called “Hello Saints,” by a Christian pastor by the name of Jeff McCullough, whose purpose is to explore the beliefs, teachings, culture and traditions of Latter-day Saints, and engage them in a friendly and respectful dialogue. He doesn’t have too many videos on his channel yet, since he has only just started. I have watched all the videos on his channel so far, and he appears to be sincere in his desire to be impartial and friendly towards the Latter-day Saints. He has one video on his channel titled: “Christian Pastor explores the Mormon Church (Latter Day Saints),” in which he explains his purpose and motives for creating the channel, which can be seen here. So I am going to reciprocate, and reply to one of his videos in the same spirit of friendly dialogue. The video I am going to comment on is one that he has made about the Book of Mormon, and is titled: “What is the Book of Mormon?” (seen above). He says that he hasn’t read the Book of Mormon yet, and in this video he is commenting on a cartoon video about the Book of Mormon published by the Church, explaining the origin and purpose of the Book of Mormon, and its significance for Latter-day Saints. That video can be seen here. He begins his commentary by first playing a short introductory clip from the video, as follows:

“Shortly after his death the Savior appeared to the inhabitants of the ancient Americas as the resurrected Lord, with the body of flesh and bones.”

Then he stops the video, and adds the following comment:

“Okay, let’s stop right there, this is really fascinating. Hello Saints! My name is Jeff. I am a Christian pastor, learning everything I can about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and in this video I am going to be talking about the Book of Mormon. It is the basis of the LDS Church, and the LDS Church’s YouTube channel has put out a video explaining what the Book of Mormon is. So I am going to watch it, I am going to learn, I am going to react, and I am going to give you my perspective, so let’s do it:”

Then he plays the next clip from the video, as follows:

“The Book of Mormon—what is it, and why do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints care so much about it? Mormons, properly referred to as Latter-day Saints, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, read and revere the Bible as all Christians do; but they read and believe in an additional book called the ‘Book of Mormon: another testament of Jesus Christ’. For them, it is not a replacement for the Bible, it is not a substitute, it is a companion. Just as the Bible is scripture, the Book of Mormon is also scripture. Let’s talk a little about what scriptures are, and how they come about. The word ‘scripture’ means sacred or religious writings. Scriptures are written by God’s spokesmen called prophets, his representatives. Although God often teaches and communicates with his children individually, something Latter-day Saints call ‘personal revelation,’ when God interacts with or teaches his children as a people, his prophets record those events and teachings for the benefit of all.”

Then he stops the video, and makes the following comment:

“Okay, so right off the bat here, the description of what the scriptures are, what the Bible is, and how it comes about, is pretty consistent with what is taught in the rest of Christianity—that God gives revelation to specific individuals, and they write it down for the benefit of those who are following God. Let’s keep going:”

Then he continues with the next segment of the video as follows:

“The holy Bible is one example of scripture; it is an account of God’s interactions and teachings with the people in and around the eastern Mediterranean region before, during, and after the ministry of Jesus Christ. It is a collection of writings both spiritual and historical, written by prophets.”

To which he then adds the following comment:

“So one thing that is sticking out to me right here is, the specificity of the timing and the location of when the Bible was written. Whenever I am teaching people how to read the Bible, how to study the Bible; understanding who it is originally written to, when, and why, is really important to understanding what is being said. So pointing out that the Bible was written to a specific people at a specific time is important, and I appreciate that that is being pointed out.”

So far so good! Then he continues by playing the next clip from the Book of Mormon video as follows:

“In the holy Bible, there are miraculous stories of faith, sacrifice, trial and love. You might have heard of Noah and the Ark, or Moses and the children of Israel; and of course, the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These stories and events were written down, collected, and shared from generation to generation. They were eventually compiled into a collection of scripture, a book called the holy Bible, originally written in both Hebrew and Greek. The Bible has since been translated into English, and hundreds of other languages available throughout the world.”

To which he then adds the following comment:

“Okay, so as they wrap up the section on what the Bible is, why it was written, how it was written, how it was translated, I am tracking; I think that this is a pretty good representation of how all of Christianity regards the scriptures, regards the Bible; and why we believe it to be so important to what we believe, and why we believe it.”

Then he continues with the next clip from the video, as follows:

“What about the people that lived beyond the geographical setting of the Bible, outside the Mediterranean area? What kind of interaction did God have with them?”

To this he then adds the following comment:

“That is a really good question. That is a question that I think a lot of people in Christianity, especially in America, wonder about. What about people who weren’t in the proximity of where God was doing his work through the Jewish people in the Old Testament, or the Hebrew people; and what Jesus was doing, and the impact that he was making in and around Israel during his lifetime. What about the people that live in other parts of the world? So this is a really fascinating question that a lot of people wonder about, and this is actually being addressed here, as we explore more about the Book of Mormon.”

Then he plays the next clip, as follows:

“Well in the Bible from the book of John, Jesus revealed to his disciples in Jerusalem, ‘And other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’ Some of these ‘other sheep’ to which Jesus refers, are the inhabitants of the ancient Americas who lived at that time.”

To which he then adds the following comment:

“Okay, so I am going to need to pause right there, because this really is straying from my understanding of that specific passage it was just quoted in John, and is a bit of a stretch to tie to the people in the Americas, let me explain why. In that specific passage in John, Jesus is actually talking to the Jewish people, the people that were of the house of God throughout the entirety of the Old Testament; and what he is explaining is that he didn’t just come for the Jewish people, but he came for anybody who had put their faith in him—so essentially Gentiles, or non-Jews. So this tie to people in America is a bit of a stretch, because from what I understand, the LDS Church teaches that the people in America are actually of Hebrew descent, so I am not sure that this syncs up with how I would handle that passage in John.”

That is when he actually starts critiquing Latter-day Saint beliefs, teachings, and doctrines. He objects to how the video interprets John 10:16, on the grounds that, according to him, it refers to preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, rather than to another branch of the house of Israel on the American continent. The scripture in question is as follows:

John 10:

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The bit that he has overlooked in that verse is that in it Jesus says that his “other sheep” shall hear his voice (in the same way that the Jews were hearing him in Palestine at the time). This does not apply to the Gentiles; because Jesus did not personally minister to the Gentiles, in the same way that he had done among the Jews. The Jews were literally “hearing his voice” (as did also the Book of Mormon people in the Americas, to whom he personally ministered after his resurrection); but not so with the Gentiles. The Gentiles received the gospel message indirectly through the preaching of the Jews. They did not directly “hear his voice,” as the Jews had done. So his interpretation of that scripture (John 10:16) is a bit forced, and does not follow the most logical reading of the text. The inhabitants of America at the time (who were of Hebrew descent) would have had no means of “hearing him” unless he had personally ministered among them. The American continent had not yet been discovered, and the only way that they could have heard the gospel message would have been by his own personal ministry among them. Then he continues with the next clip from the Book of Mormon video as follows:

“The Book of Mormon is a compilation of the sacred writings of many generations of the people that lived there, and received instruction and teachings from God. They had prophets who just like the Bible, recorded spiritual and historical events over thousands of years. The crowning event in the Book of Mormon is the account of Jesus Christ ministering to the ‘other sheep,’ as he said he would. Shortly after his death, the Savior appeared to the inhabitants of the ancient Americas as the resurrected Lord, with the body of flesh and bones, as he did in his earthly ministry in Jerusalem. Jesus taught the inhabitants his gospel, and they recorded it. They handed it down to future generations through prophets, leaders, and other inspired individuals.”

To this he then adds his own commentary as follows:

“Okay, let’s stop right there, this is really fascinating. So on one hand this is an effort to answer the question we were talking about earlier, about the people who lived in the Americas during the time of Jesus; and what this really highlights to me is how firmly the LDS Church adheres to and holds to what we were talking about a second ago, where scriptures are written to a specific people at a specific time. What I am learning here is that the LDS Church holds that really firmly, and believes that the holy Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament, were specifically for the people in the eastern Mediterranean, and in that part in and around Israel; but that the Book of Mormon is specifically for the people in the Americas.”

I pause here to make a slight correction. The Church’s theological position is not that the Bible is “for” the Jews around Palestine, and the Book of Mormon is “for” the inhabitants of the ancient Americas. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are ultimately meant for the whole world. But they were originally addressed to the ancient inhabitants of each of those respective groups. The way he says it doesn’t mean quite the same thing. He then continues his criticism of the Church’s theological position as follows:

“But there is a big question that is looming in my mind, and that is, does the information that is outlined in the Book of Mormon match what is in the Bible? because there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that at any point Jesus was going to sort of reincarnate, or appear to people in other parts of the world. That is not something that is taught about, or foreshadowed, or indicated in the Bible; which makes me pause as to how plausible it is that he would have done it, as it is outlined here in the Book of Mormon.”

The first problem I have with his observations is that Jesus didn’t need to “reincarnate” in order to appear to the Nephite in the Americas. Once Jesus was “incarnated” for the purpose of his mortal ministry, and death and resurrection; he remains “incarnated” for the rest of eternity (see Acts 1:11). Jesus didn’t “disincarnate” after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, that he should need to “reincarnate” again in order to appear to the Nephites. That is the first point. The second point is that, whether the contents of the Book of Mormon matches that of the Bible (doctrinally and theologically) or not, is something that he needs to read the Book of Mormon to find out. He can’t just make wild guesses about it. And the fact that the Book of Mormon may contain information not found in the Bible is to be expected. It wouldn’t make sense if it didn’t. It is a sacred record of God’s dealings with a different group of people on a different continent. At the end of the Gospel of John, it says the following:

John 21:

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The Book of Mormon is a small fraction compared to a complete record of all of God’s dealings with mankind throughout history, if it were the will of the Lord that they should all be revealed—much more of which indeed God has promised to be revealed at some point in the future:

Ether 4:

7 And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.

So it is to be expected that the Book of Mormon will contain sacred material not found in the Bible. The important point is whether the theology remains the same or not. And to find that out, he needs to read the Book of Mormon; he can’t just make guesses about it. He then continues with the next clip from the Book of Mormon video as follows:

“So how did the Book of Mormon get its name? Who is Mormon, and what does he have to do with this book of scripture in the 4th century AD? Again, in the Americas there lived a prophet and historian named Mormon. He was charged by God to abridge all of the scriptural records that had been kept and passed down from past prophets in that part of the world. Mormon engraved the abridgement on gold plates, in a language his people called Reformed Egyptian. As Mormon was the prophet whom God called to compile the centuries of records, the book carries his name, the Book of Mormon. At the end of his life he passed these engraved plates to his son Moroni, also a prophet of God, who was last to add to the book. Before he died Moroni buried the gold plates in a stone box on a hillside, in what is now upstate New York. Fourteen hundred years later in 1823, this same prophet Moroni, now a resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith. He told Joseph about the gold plates, showed him where to find them, and commanded him to translate the record into English, which Joseph did under the power and inspiration of God. And since then the Book of Mormon has been translated into over a hundred languages, and is like the holy Bible also available throughout the world as an additional book of sacred writings written by God’s prophets—scripture.”

And adds his comments on it as follows:

“Okay, so this is a really fascinating piece of information here, this idea that Joseph Smith received the ability to translate the Book of Mormon from gold plates into English under the inspiration or power of God. That is something that is incredibly unique to the Book of Mormon, and I don’t know of any occurrence of that taking place with the writers of the Old Testament or the New Testament. The writers of the Bible received revelation from God, and wrote it in their native language; and then after that, people would translate it into other languages, so that it could be read and understood. But the fact that Joseph Smith was translating these gold plates from Reformed Egyptian, which is a language I am not familiar with, I have never heard of that before; but I am also not a linguist, so I should probably just do some research, and maybe make a video on it. But to take it from Reformed Egyptian to English by the power of God is incredibly unique, and is not at all how the rest of the Bible was written; and I think that is important for me to point out, because up to this point in this video there has been this comparison to how similar the Bible is to the Book of Mormon, with the people that it was written by, and who it was written to, and the reasons that it was written. So this is a pretty big difference that I think is worth pointing out.”

Two points with that one. The first is that “Reformed Egyptian” was not a “language,” it was a kind of “writing script” that acted like some kind of “shorthand” that enabled them to condense a large amount of text in a small space for the purpose of engraving it on metal plates. The language itself that they used was a dialect of Hebrew; but they transcribed it using that script for the purpose of engraving it on metal plates. That is a mistake that the video that he is commenting on makes, so it is not his fault. The second point is that how the Book of Mormon was translated is not an issue, from a doctrinal or theological point of view. What is important from that point of view is what the book contains, not how it was translated. The translation of the Book of Mormon had to be a miraculous process, because young Joseph Smith, who was put in charge of translating it, was not a scholar of ancient languages. I have discussed issues relating to the translation of the Book of Mormon in another post which can be seen here. Then he plays the next clip from the original video as follows:

“So what is in the Book of Mormon? As stated on its introduction page, the Book of Mormon puts forth the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, outlines God’s plan of happiness for his children, and tells them what they must do to gain peace in this life, and obtain salvation and eternal life with God. Nephi, an early prophet found in the Book of Mormon preached, ‘And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.’ In fact the Book of Mormon has over 500 pages containing nearly 3500 references to the Savior Jesus Christ. It testifies of Jesus Christ, it declares the mission of the Savior, it reveals the gospel of Jesus Christ, and clarifies doctrine.”

To this he then adds his own observations as follows:

“Okay, so I am learning that there is a lot of information in the Book of Mormon that really does point to Jesus, to why he came, and what he came to do. I think that leads to a question though, about who Jesus is? Is the Jesus in the Book of Mormon described the same way that he is described in the Bible—not just in like personality and character, but what about his origin, where does Jesus come from? Is that consistent in the Book of Mormon, whenever you read how that is described in the Bible? Is Jesus considered God for example, because the Bible teaches that Jesus is God? If the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach that, or if it teaches any information that is different about Jesus, though the Book of Mormon might use the name Jesus, and point to the mission of Jesus, if it contradicts what the Bible teaches, I think that puts me in a place of wondering we are using the same name, but are we talking about the same Jesus? That is a really important question that I have, as I continue to learn about the content of the Book of Mormon, and the stuff that is taught about Jesus, and his mission for mankind.”

That is a rather disingenuous comment, casting doubt about the true identity of Jesus as taught in the Book of Mormon, without having read the book, and without being able to quote specific instances from it to back up his doubts and misgivings. For an impartial observer wanting to look into, and investigate the claims, origin, history, beliefs, and teachings of Latter-day Saints, reading the Book of Mormon should be the first step, before doing anything else. The fact that he hasn’t done that yet, and is willing to cast doubts and aspersions on the true identity of Jesus as taught in the Book of Mormon without being able to give any quotes or references, makes me a little bit suspicious of the sincerity of his motives. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and continue to explore his comments. He then plays the next segment from the Book of Mormon video as follows:

“As the Bible contains the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Book of Mormon is yet another Testament of Jesus Christ. It is another witness of God’s dealings with his children in a different part of the world. The Bible and the Book of Mormon work together to teach and testify of the Lord Jesus Christ, and God’s dealings with his children.”

To which he then adds his own comment as follows:

“Okay this is fascinating, because I really am seeing an effort to be made to show how similar the Book of Mormon is, in where it comes from, how it came about, and to whom it came about, trying to make a parallel connection to how the Bible came about. But as a pastor, there is a few questions that are looming in my mind. There is a lot of what we can see in the Bible that has extra-biblical evidence around it, as far as cities, and people, and archaeology that sort of corroborates the writing of the scriptures, and to whom it came. For examples you will find excavations of areas where battles took place, and there is evidence of those battles; and there is also evidence of the Bible being passed through generations on manuscripts, and we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which if you don’t know the story about the Dead Sea Scrolls, you need to check it out, because it is pretty magnificent, that there were scrolls that were found in the early to mid 20th century, and there are portions of scriptures going all the way back into the Old Testament, which gives evidence to the writing of the Bible, the preservation of the Bible. My question is, does that same evidence exist regarding the story that surrounds the Book of Mormon, as far as people and places, archaeological finds around cities and battles, because I think that is one thing that I have heard that that evidence doesn’t exist for the Book of Mormon, like it does for the Bible, which is one of the reasons why there is a pause for the rest of Christianity, when it comes to considering the Book of Mormon as an actual sacred text or scripture, when it is lacking extra biblical evidence. let’s keep watching:”

There are two problems with that objection. The first is that while there is some archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Bible, for most of it there isn’t any. There is no evidence for example that the Israelites lived in Egypt for 400 years. There is no evidence for the Exodus, or for the miracles of Moses, or for the Israelites wandering in the Sinai Desert for 40 years, or for the conquest of Canaan etc. There is no evidence for Genesis, the creation story, and beyond. There is no evidence for the stories of the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob etc. Secular scholars often consider these stories to be fables. So from that point of view, the Bible doesn’t fare much better than the Book of Mormon. And there is plenty of evidence for ancient civilizations existing in Central and North America, as described in the Book of Mormon. The second problem with his objection is that no amount of “archaeological evidence” can prove to anyone that the Bible is the word of God, that it is an inspired and sacred text, and that those who wrote it were prophets and inspired men who were in direct communion with God. That is why most secular scholars and historians who specialize in those fields do not necessarily consider the Bible to be a divinely inspired text. Belief in, and conviction of the inspired nature of the Bible can only come by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and the same applies to the Book of Mormon. Belief in the inspired nature of either book can only come by the witness of the Spirit—not by archaeological evidence. I am sure there is good archaeological evidence for the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Rig Veda, the Avesta, Tao Te Chingor, and for the Egyptian Book of the Dead. But that does not make them scripture. Archaeological evidence doesn’t make the Bible scripture; only the witness of the Spirit does; and the same applies to the Book of Mormon. He then plays the next clip from the video as follows:

“Today, millions of Latter-day Saints believe ‘The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ,’ to be scripture. They believe it is the word of God to his children, and stands as a companion to the holy Bible. God loves his children, and wants them to know about him, learn of him and his son Jesus Christ. He has provided holy scripture to show his children the way. Through living the teachings found in the Book of Mormon and the holy Bible, they can find peace in this life, and salvation in the life to come. The Book of Mormon: what it is, where it came from, and what it teaches. Now you know now.”

That brings to an end the Book of Mormon video published by the Church that he has been commenting on, to which he then adds his concluding remarks as follows:

“Now I know. That was really well done. It was very helpful, super informational. To summarize my reaction, I think that there is an agreement on understanding where the origin of the Bible came from, and what it is, and to whom it was written, and why it was written. When it gets into the idea of there being sort of an extra-biblical testament of Jesus, that makes me ask a lot of questions about whether there is archaeological or extra-biblical proofs of what the Book of Mormon claims. Are the teachings in the Book of Mormon consistent with the teachings in the Bible, because where there is a contradiction, that gives me pause to embrace the Book of Mormon. And also, is the Jesus that is talked about through it is the same name, is it the same Jesus that is described in the Bible?”

The archaeological issue has already been discussed. As far as the teachings of the Book of Mormon are concerned, the only way that he can intelligently comment on those is first by reading the book, which for some mysterious reason he seems reluctant to do! He can’t comment on the contents of the book without first reading the book, and being able to quote from it to back up his claims; and the same applies to the “Jesus” mentioned in the Book of Mormon, compared with the “Jesus” mentioned in the Bible. So why he is so slow to read the Book of Mormon to judge it for himself, and be able to compare its teachings with that of the Bible, and quote from it if he finds disagreements, is a little bit puzzling from my perspective. He then continues his commentary as follows:

“Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out a very specific passage in the Bible, that might be one of the biggest reasons why I am slow to embrace the Book of Mormon, and it is a passage found in Galatians. It says, ‘But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel other than the one we preach to you, let them be under God’s curse’ [Galatians 1:8]. What I believe the Bible teaches, and what is taught in the rest of Christianity, is that after the Old and the New testament were revealed, and given to us by God, that there was no more revelation to come; that Jesus is the revelation of God’s character and will in flesh; and that everything that is taught about in the Bible about who he is, why he came, is sufficient for salvation and reconciliation before God. So anything that comes after the Old and the New Testament, and claims to be an additional revelation, even if it is from an angel, and presents a gospel that is unique, and is a bit of a different spin on the gospel that is taught in the New Testament, these are all questions that we ask in the rest of the Christian community, that makes us slow to embrace the Book of Mormon.”

There are several issues with that. Firstly, there is nothing in the Bible that says that there should be no more revelation or scripture given after the Bible. No such thing as the “Bible” even existed during the time period that he is referring to. The New Testament had not yet been compiled, and would not be for many centuries afterwards. The only “Bible” that existed at the time was the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. There is nothing in the Bible that says that there should be no more revelations or scripture after the Bible. And as far as the passage found in Galatians that he is referring to (Galatians 1:8), the answer is that the Book of Mormon does not teach “another gospel”. It teaches the same gospel, but within the framework of a different people and culture, and it also clarifies many doctrinal ambiguities and lack of clarity that exists in the biblical text. He then continues his commentary as follows:

“But at the end of the day, here is the other thing: I haven’t read the Book of Mormon yet, and I am going to, and as I do I will provide my reaction. But I am glad I got this foundational knowledge of what it is, and why the LDS Church embraces it. And it is really helpful for me to understand its importance, as it relates to the LDS Church, and the Mormon people. But what are your thoughts? Leave a comment below. Let’s talk about it, and keep it respectful. Also I would love it if you checked out my Patreon, where you can just support this channel; or you can get a sneak peek behind the scenes, and even interact with me personally, and keep coming back here to watch more videos, because I got more to make, I got more to talk about, I got more to learn about. So until then, I will see you later Saints.”

I am waiting for him to do just that, to read the Book of Mormon, and tell us what he thinks. He is taking a risk though, reading the Book of Mormon, and trying to compare its teachings with that of the Bible. The risk is that as he does, he is likely to gain a witness of its truth!

The Assurance of Salvation—by Faith or Works?

 

I found the above interesting video in which the participants discuss the “assurance of our salvation”—whether it rests in faith or works? It is a short 5 minute video, the transcript of which is as follows:

“GODFREY: It is found in our Christ. Did you want me to expand?

“THOMAS: Yeah, I mean, that is a perfect answer, and it was the answer of the Marrow Men. You know, faith is not faith in faith. It is not faith in me. It is not faith in me. It is not faith in what I feel to be faith. It is not faith in whatever assurance I have. It must always be in Christ. And my assurance isn’t dependent on my works. Unless those works are issuing from my relationship with Jesus, they are not going to help me at all. So, every day in every way we have to run to Jesus and make sure that our relationship with Him is what it should be.

“NICHOLS: I think this is a crucial question because it really does impact Christian life. And so, when we are talking about assurance, we have got 1 John, and John wants us to know that we are a child of God. He doesn’t want us doubting and wondering. How do you make progress if you are just constantly in despair? And so, you know, read 1 John. He wants us to know these things. But the Westminster Confession has an interesting way of dealing with this in talking about assurance in terms of our … we are in Christ and that is the basis of our assurance, but it also speaks of assurance as our sort of existential sense of assurance and uses that expression of assurance, ‘waxes and wanes,’ and it is related then to, you know, our keeping in step with the Holy Spirit, our doing these Christian duties of attending church. And when we are negligent in the mortification of sin, our assurance will wane and rightfully so, and it is sort of a prod then for us to sort of get back in there and then our assurance will wax. So, there is that sense of which our identity is in Christ, our assurance is solid and firm, but our awareness of that and our sensibility of that, and I think the Westminster Divines were very helpful there with that expression. I believe I have that right that it waxes and wanes as we live the Christ.

“GODFREY: If you want to read another John who is helpful, it would be John Calvin.

“NICHOLS: And I thought you were going to say, ‘If you want to read a real confession of faith you can go back to the Three Forms of Unity.’

“GODFREY: No, I would never say anything that rude. But if you want to read a great definition of faith, do read question and answer 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism or question 1 of the catechism. But, you know, I think what Calvin is so sensitive to is that if we start looking at our faith it is so easy to see all the weaknesses in our faith. If we start looking at our works, it is so easy to see all the sins that attach to our works. And so, Calvin says we have to with the question of assurance always first look to the promises of Christ, and then if you really embrace the promises of Christ, if you rejoice in the promises of Christ, then you dare look to see if you have a little faith and have a few good works, because they should be there and should support that assurance, but the primary assurance needs to be in Christ and His promises. And I think that is helpful. But certainly, if you are falling desperately into sin, you are not looking to the promises of Christ and the assurance will wane.

“THOMAS: And this issue, of course, is examined in detail in another John, John Bunyan in Pilgrim’s Progress. And actually, a good many of these questions this morning find answers in John Bunyan’s wonderful allegory, which you need to read to enter the Pearly Gates.

“NICHOLS: Could I ask a question? Could you recommend a good teaching series on Pilgrim’s Progress?

THOMAS: Yes, somebody who is not called ‘John.’

“LARSON: Ligonier has A Guided Tour of Pilgrim’s Progress with Dr. Thomas available for you.”

The biblical answer to that question is neither. The Bible teaches that he that “endures to the end” will be saved:

Matthew 10:

22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 24:

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mark 13:

13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

And to “endure to the end” means to remain true to the gospel to the end of one’s life, in spite of all the temptation or persecution which might allure them away from it. The early Christians for example experienced severe persecution at the hand of the Romans (and no doubt there were some who fell away); but there were also many who remained steadfast, and endured persecution and martyrdom rather than deny their faith. That is what it means to “endure to the end”. Persecution of course is not the only thing that can allure one away from the gospel. Temptation, enticement of riches, love of the world more than love of God etc. are other ways. In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus provides more clarification about what it means to “endure to the end”:

Matthew 13:

1 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

• • •

18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Mark 4:

1 And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.

2 And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.

5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:

6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

• • •

14 The sower soweth the word.

15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;

17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.

18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,

19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

Luke 8:

4 And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:

5 A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.

6 And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.

7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.

8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

These verses provide a perfect explanation of what it means to “endure to the end”. It means to remain true to the faith, true to the gospel, to the end of one’s life, against all the odds, and against all the temptations and persecutions of the devil. So in answer to the initial question, How does one obtain the assurance of salvation? The answer is, Through knowing that one has made a firm commitment, and unalterable decision to remain true to the gospel to the end of one’s life, and not deviate from it—regardless of the consequences, or all the temptations and persecution that the adversary might want to throw at them.

So the final conclusion is that Calvinism is false, and Calvinists haven’t a clue what they are talking about. I have never been able to understand why Calvinists think that John Calvin does a better job of teaching the gospel than the Bible does.

Why Are EU Institutions Attacking Poland?

Interesting take on the European Union’s increasingly authoritarian behavior towards the member states. These guys think that the EU is undermining the sovereignty of the member states, by overriding their laws, constitutions, and national institutions. Poland and Hungary are standing up to them and fighting against it, and they are not liking it one little bit!

“Waiting for God” with RC Sproul!

 

A great inspired advice given by RC Sproul! Can’t argue with that. Just to show that I don’t disagree with everything that he said. He wasn’t wrong about everything. He was only wrong in his Calvinism, and the Calvinistic theology that he espoused. When he was being strictly biblical, detached from the errors of his Calvinism, he was generally right. The above is a great spiritual advice that I would recommend to anyone. Here is the transcript:

“Do you ever find it difficult to wait for God? To live your life on the basis of trusting His promises? This may sound trite to you, but it is all the difference in the world between believing in God, and believing God. True faith, the Christian faith, is not about believing that God exists; but it has to do with believing God; living your life on the basis of trusting in the promises that He has made. Because where the crunch comes in our life is where we seek our own happiness and our own satisfaction right here, right now, in ways that deny our trust in God’s way. Rather than wait for the promise of felicity and joy that He gives to those who trust in Him and who obey Him, we say, ‘I can’t see Him. Where is my God? I will seek my own way for happiness and fulfillment. I want it now. I want it here. I just can’t wait for it.’ But the Word of God says, ‘Though it tarries, wait for it.’ That’s what men and women of faith do.”

You can’t go far wrong by following that advice. RC Sproul was a very able and gifted theologian, and very knowledgeable about many things. It is a pity that he wasted so much of his talent on the heresy of Calvinism. He could have accomplished far more if he hadn’t. I am sure he is now learning to do a lot better!

More Evidence for How Calvinism is Completely Antithetical to Repentance

 

I found the above video by R.C. Sproul, posted by Ligonier, in which he comments on Ezekiel 18:30–32; 33:10–11; in which he twists it around, and gives a completely distorted picture of it. First, let’s examine the scripture passages he is commenting on, and see what they actually do say:

Ezekiel 18:

30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Ezekiel 33:

10 Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

The highlighted bits are self-explanatory. The focus of both passages is repentance. The idea is that God has no pleasure in the death (damnation, condemnation) of the wicked, but prefers that they repent of their sins, be forgiven and saved. That is the underlying message of both passages of scripture—that genuine repentance (turning away from sin, not committing them again) results in complete forgiveness and remission of sins, absolution, and ultimately redemption and salvation. But notice how R.C. Sproul’s commentary distorts the picture completely out of recognition:

“God doesn’t take any pleasure in the death of the wicked. Nevertheless, though He doesn’t enjoy it, as it were, He still decrees it. And that is a point that we must remember—that even in His benevolence, God will never negotiate His righteousness or His own holiness. And He will still punish the wicked despite His being in a disposition of goodwill toward them.”

Utterly false. God doesn’t have a “disposition of goodwill toward them”—only as they choose to repent of their sins—in which case their sins will be forgiven, and will be remembered no more against them. He then continues:

“I like to think of it as a judge, for example, whose son is brought before him who is guilty of grand larceny, and the case is heard in the court. And the judge knows that his son is guilty, and the jury brings in the verdict of guilty. And it is left to the judge to sentence the guilty party because of what the law requires. A just judge in this circumstance would impose a just penalty, even on his own son. Despite his personal concern, despite his personal love for that son, out of his own love for the law and for righteousness and justice, he will sentence his son to prison. He may do it with tears, but nevertheless because of his commitment to righteousness and to justice, the judge will do the right thing.”

No mention of forgiveness of sins through repentance—which is the central message of both sets of scripture. The reason for that of course is that if Ezekiel is true, it cancels out Calvinism 100%. It destroys the whole of the “five points” of Calvinism (TULIP) on a grand scale. It destroys (1) Total Depravity (everybody can repent and be saved, and therefore no “prior regeneration” is required). It destroys (2) Unconditional Election (everyone has the choice and ability to repent and be saved, and nobody is “predestined”). It destroys (3) Limited Atonement (if everyone has the choice and ability to repent, be forgiven and saved, then Atonement cannot be “limited”). It destroys (4) Irresistible Grace (if the choice is theirs whether to repent and be saved or not, then “grace” cannot be “irresistible”). And it destroys (5) Perseverance of the Saints (at least, the Calvinistic version of it. Ezekiel 18:24 makes it clear that not only sinners have the libertarian freewill to repent and be saved; the “saints” likewise have the libertarian freewill to revert back to sin and be damned; and nobody is “predestined”). Calvinism is the biggest corruption, perversion, and distortion of the gospel that has ever been invented since Christianity came into existence.

Tulsi Gabbard—My Favourite US Politician!

 

She is smart, she knows what she is talking about, and she is right. She deserves to become US President someday. After Russia invaded Ukraine, she Tweeted the following:

“This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border.”

Which is entirely correct. Here are some additional video clips expressing her views: