Incongruent Discussion About LDS Beliefs!

 

I found the above short clip in which Jacob Hansen (LDS) and Trent Horn (Catholic) are having a friendly conversation about LDS beliefs; and I found that I had as much problems with what Jacob Hansen was saying, as I had with what Trent Horn was saying. Jacob begins the conversation with the following statement:

“It comes down to, there is that question of, are Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints, Christians, right? Now a lot of Latter-day Saints get very annoyed by that question, because of course, we are Christians! But I always say, You got to ask them what they mean by that? Because if by a Christian you mean, you are defining a Christian as a person who believes and holds to the doctrine of the Trinity—like, if that is a requisite characteristic of a Christian—well then, we are not!”

There are lots of issues with that statement. Firstly, when non-LDS folks (Evangelicals mainly) accuse LDS of not being “Christians,” their main focus is not the Trinity. They object to the whole concept of the Restoration of the gospel in the last days—including having additional scripture like the Book of Mormon, or modern day prophets and Apostles. They consider the canon of scripture closed, and the offices of prophets and Apostles ceased. They say all of that came to an end in the first century, and there will be no more prophets, Apostles, or additional scripture given. That is their main objection. Secondly, Latter-day Saints certainly believe in the Trinity. The Trinity refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—which is what Latter-day Saints believe in. Our first article of faith says, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”. That is the Trinity. We baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost—which is the Trinity. LDS modern scripture make references to the Trinity:

2 Nephi 31:

21 … and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mormon 7:

7 … to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, ….

Testimony of the Witnesses:

… And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

That is the Trinity. How you theologically define that Trinity is a separate issue from the Trinity itself. Latter-day Saints believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—which is the Trinity. Over the centuries, Christians have formulated several different theological definitions, descriptions, or explanations of that Trinity, which is a separate issue from the Trinity itself. The Bible declares, assumes, and requires belief in the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But nowhere in the Bible does it attempt to theologically define that Trinity. That is something that Christians have attempted to do for themselves. In the above video, both Jacob Hansen as well as Trent Horn repeatedly confuse those two concepts, and fail to distinguish between them. You can’t have a serious discussion on the subject of Trinity without differentiating between those two concepts—the Trinity itself; and the theological exposition of it as expressed by Christians in later Christian history. Disagreeing with that theological exposition is not the same as rejecting the Trinity. To that then Trent Horn gives the following reply:

“But you know what is funny here, Jacob, is that I have noticed this reveals a problem with many Protestant views of authority; because there are many Protestants who will, you know, say, Mormons aren’t Christians—and I would say that LDS theology is not Christian—my authority for that is what Christ Church [Catholic] teaches; and that it is taught what is required for someone to be a Christian, according to Catholic theology, is a valid baptism—a valid Trinitarian baptism; that the Trinity is necessary to be a Christian, going back to the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds.”

There are several issues with that statement. Firstly, Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity, as explained above. Secondly, LDS very much believe in the need for proper priesthood authority to baptize (and administer other sacraments); and that they are in fact the only ones who do have that authority; and nobody else does, including Catholics. By that definition, Latter-day Saints are the only true Christians, and nobody else is, including Catholics. Thirdly, LDS baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Trent then continues:

“But if you are a Protestant, and you believe in sola scriptura—the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith—then you have a bit of a problem, because I could ask a Protestant, Where does the Bible say you must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian? Because many Protestants … because here is the thing, Protestants will say, Well yes, the Bible teaches the Trinity, you don’t need Tradition to know that. I say okay, I agree with you that it teaches that; but just saying the Bible teaches X, it doesn’t follow that X is necessary to be a Christian; because many Protestants will say, The Bible teaches Calvinism; but they are not going to say, you must be a Calvinist to be a Christian; or the Bible teaches is cessationism—that is, spiritual gifts ended in the first century—which you don’t have to believe that to be a Christian; or the Bible teaches all sorts of things; they would agree with that; but not that you need to be a Christian. So then the problem becomes, well, where does the Bible say what you need to believe to be a Christian? And I have covered this in several episodes of my channel. I think that that is a gigantic flaw in sola scriptura as an authority, as a structure for Protestantism; because the Bible is supposed to be our only and rule of faith; and yet the Bible doesn’t teach us probably one of the most important truths we could know: What must I believe to be a Christian—like do I have to believe in the Trinity or not, or can I believe in Jesus, and I trust in Jesus for my salvation, and I believe the blood of Jesus takes away my sins, and I have faith in him for my salvation; but have a Jehovah’s Witness Christology, or a Mormon Christology. They really I think put themselves in a bind here, that they really wish they could have the ecumenical councils, and that strict teaching; but they don’t want the authority behind them.”

The Bible doesn’t specifically define what it means, or what is required to be a Christian. The closest thing that the Bible comes to defining a Christian is that it means being a “disciple” [follower] of Jesus Christ (Acts 11:26). And in Acts 8:35-37; 16:27-33, the only criteria that is given as a qualification for baptism is belief in Jesus Christ. Those who want to identify themselves as “Christians” have to define for themselves what it means to be a Christian. They can’t call themselves “Christians” if they don’t have a definition of what that means; or how to define or identify a “Christian”. The problem there is that Christianity is not a unified, monolithic group. There are many different factions with disagreements. But if they want to call themselves “Christian,” they must have some kind of definition by which to identify that category. They can’t call themselves “Christians” without having some idea of, and being able to define what that means. Jacob then concludes:

“Yes and I agree 100%. That is I think is one of the many reasons that I have such a deep respect for the Catholic faith. I think that you guys have a lot more going for you because of that. Now what is funny though is that for a Latter-day Saint like me, the whole paradigm gets thrown out the window in a certain way, because belief isn’t really the thing that we care about as the dividing line; …”

I have to disagree with that. LDS theology and doctrine is very much “belief” oriented. The Articles of Faith (which is part of the canonized scriptures of the Church) outlines the core essential doctrinal “beliefs” of Latter-day Saints. If you have difficulty accepting any of those “beliefs,” you cannot rightly identify yourself as a Latter-day Saint. He continues:

“… because for a lot of—especially for Evangelical Christians—the idea is, do you accept Jesus? If you do, you are saved. Okay, right, … so then it becomes, well, but what does it mean to accept Jesus? Well you have to accept, as they say, the “right” Jesus. I am like, okay, I get that, I get that they are saying that. Here is the thing though, is that okay, then what you are saying essentially is that proper theological understanding is what constitutes your ability to be saved, right? And Latter-day Saints reject the—like we have a very wide sort of um leeway when it comes to belief.”

Not according to my understanding of LDS theology and doctrine. “Belief” is very much an essential part or ingredient of it. He continues:

“Our thing is about, are you making and keeping covenants with God, right? When you get baptized, you make a certain commitment to obey the Lord’s commandments, to live as he would have you live; and even if your understanding of God is imperfect, and is not quite right—now there are there is a limit to that, I mean you can’t believe whatever you want, right? There are things that are authoritative; but it is much broader. What we care about; and this is the thing if you go to our churches, what you hear us talking about all the time isn’t, “Do you accept Jesus into your heart” per se; although we want people to do that. Our thing is, is your faith in Christ manifesting in you keeping the commitments that you have made to him? And you are never going to be able to do that perfectly; but are you striving for it? Are you seeking the Lord in your life?”

Sure. That is something that sets apart Latter-day Saints from Evangelical Christians, and Protestants in general. We lay emphasis on being obedient to the will of God, keeping his commandments, and obeying his will. But that does not diminish the importance of “belief” in the theology of Latter-day Saints:

Doctrine and Covenants 68: 8 Go ye into all the world, preach the [restored] gospel to every creature, acting in the authority which I have given you, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 9 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.

Doctrine and Covenants 112:

28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my [restored] gospel unto every creature who has not received it;

29 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

The Restored gospel of Jesus Christ is all about “belief”—believing in true sound doctrine, believing in the right thing.

G3 Ministries On Cessationism!

 

I came across the above video by Virgil Walker, from G3 Ministries, in which he argues in favor of cessationism—meaning the cessation of spiritual gifts following the days of the Apostles. The following clip is from the first four and a half minutes of the video:

In recent years a growing number of Christians have embraced what is often called open but cautious cessationism, a middle ground approach that acknowledges the possibility of miraculous gifts, like prophecy and healing, while remaining weary of their abuses. While this position may appear balanced, I contend that it introduces significant theological confusion, neither fully rejecting nor affirming the cessation of Apostolic gifts. This ambiguity undermines the sufficiency of scripture, and opens the door to doctrinal error. Cessationism, rooted in scripture and upheld by theological stalwarts like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and B.B. Warfield, affirms that the miraculous gifts of the Apostolic age ceased with the completion of the New Testament Canon. Calvin famously stated in the Institutes of Christian religion quote:

“Assuredly the Holy Spirit is still present with the people of God. Without His guidance and direction the church of God cannot subsist, for we have a promise of perpetual duration, by which Christ invites the thirsty to come to Him, that they may drink living water; but those miraculous powers and manifest operations which were distributed by the laying on of hands have ceased. They were only for a time.”

Calvin warned against expecting ongoing revelations, or miraculous signs, asserting that such gifts served a specific purpose during the early church’s foundational period; yet despite this clarity, “open but cautious cessationism” continues to blur the lines, weakening the church’s doctrinal integrity, in an age increasingly driven by emotionalism and personal experience. It is vital that believers stand firm on the sufficiency of scripture, and the finality of God’s revealed word—the historical foundation of cessationism. Cessationism is neither a modern concept, nor confined to the theological insights of a specific group of Reformers. Throughout church history, prominent voices have supported the cessation of miraculous gifts. For example Augustine of Hippo, an early Church Father, initially believed that miracles continued; but later in his life he acknowledged that the miraculous signs accompanying the Apostles had ceased. Quote:

“In the earliest times, the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed, and they spake with tongues which they had not learned, and the Spirit gave them utterance. These were signs adapted to the time, for there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the gospel of God was to run through all tongues, over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening and it passed away.”

This view aligns with the broader historical understanding, that the extraordinary gifts were for the church’s foundational period, and not meant to continue indefinitely. By the time of the Reformation, Calvin and other theologians echoed these same convictions, solidifying the cessationist position as a critical aspect of Reformed theology. Misunderstanding cessationism, one of the core issues with the “open but cautious cessationist,” is its fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional cessationist position. Cessationism is not a denial of God’s power to heal or perform Miracles; it is not an argument that God has ceased intervening in his creation. Instead, cessationism asserts that the miraculous gifts, specifically the gift of healing, prophecy, and other Apostolic signs, ceased with the end of the Apostolic era. The critical point is that while God can and does heal according to his sovereign will, no one today possesses the Apostolic gift of healing, enabling them to heal at will. In other words, healing and miracles are by definition extraordinary acts of God, not normative or expected practices. The same applies to prophecy. While God has revealed his will through scripture, there is no longer a gift of prophecy, whereby individuals receive new direct revelation from God. The authority of the Apostles and prophets, upon whom the church’s foundation was built, is complete (Ephesians 2:2).

The problem with that argument is that it ignores certain passages of scripture that contradict it:

Mark 16:

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

According to this scripture, faith is the only requirement for the performance of miracles; nothing else is required. Throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments, miracles have been performed by faith; and nothing else but faith has been the requirement.

The highlighted bit in his quote, “heal at will,” is also problematic. Neither Jesus, nor his Apostles and disciples, were able to “heal at will”. They were only able to heal, or perform miracles, on condition of, and in accordance with the faith of those involved:

Matthew 13:

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

58 And he did not many mighty works [miracles] there because of their unbelief.

Matthew 17:

19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Mark 6:

6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

None of them were able to “heal at will”—including Jesus. They were only able to do so on condition of, and in accordance with the faith of those involved. When faith was sufficient, miracles could be performed; and without faith, no miracles could be performed—not even by Jesus.

This of course is not meant to be an argument in support of Charismatics and Pentecostals etc. It is also possible to make false claims. That is why we are commanded to “try the spirits” (1 John 4:1). But just because it is possible to make false claims, it doesn’t follow that it is impossible to make true claims. I had previously discussed this subject in an earlier blog post which can be seen here.

Catholicism Versus the Book of Mormon!

I came across the above video in which Trent Horn argues against the Book of Mormon. Here is the transcript:

“If Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired! Mormons and Catholics agree that Jesus established a hierarchical visible Church led by successors of the Apostles who possess the priesthood; we just disagree with the Mormon claim that this church left the Earth for 1700 years until Joseph Smith allegedly restored it in the 19th century. After all, Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Moreover, this church gave us sure knowledge of the very canon of scripture found in the King James Bible, that Mormons rely on as a sacred text; but the church that gave us the Bible authoritatively teaches that there has been no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles, which includes the Book of Mormon; therefore one can make this argument: if Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired.”

It is a short video, so I can break it down and discuss it in detail. He begins his statement as follows:

“If Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired!”

That argument works both ways. The counter-argument goes like this:

If the Book of Mormon is true and divinely inspired, then Catholicism isn’t true; the Book of Mormon is true and divinely inspired, therefore Catholicism isn’t true! He continues:

“Mormons and Catholics agree that Jesus established a hierarchical visible Church led by successors of the Apostles who possess the priesthood;”

That is not quite correct. We believe that Jesus established a hierarchical visible Church led by the Twelve Apostles—not by “successors of the Apostles”—who possessed the priesthood. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never meant to be discontinued. When one of the Apostles died, another was appointed to succeed him, as in the case of Matthias, who was appointed to succeed Judas, who had committed suicide (Acts 1:15–26); or of Paul, who was ordained an Apostle to succeed James, who had been put to death by Herod (Acts 12:1–2). To the Ephesians Paul wrote:

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

All these offices are necessary for the “perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,” not just some of them; and all of them are necessary in order that “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” not just some of them. That obviously includes the offices of “Apostles” and “prophets”. They were meant to continue, just as the offices of “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers” etc. were meant to continue. When the Twelve Apostles were alive, they acted as the governing body of the church. If a dispute arose for example, they met in council to resolve it (Acts 15). The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never meant to be discontinued; and they governed the church by revelation. It was the persecution of the Christians, and the apostasy of the early church that prevented that institution from continuing in the church thereafter.

Paul wrote: “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, …” (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also said: “And [you] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). This, coupled with the fact that whenever one of the Apostles died, someone was appointed to succeed him, proves that the institution was meant to continue. And the bishops were never meant to be successors to the Twelve Apostles. The bishops had local jurisdiction over their own local areas, not over the whole church. They could never take over the leadership of the whole church. He continues:

“we just disagree with the Mormon claim that this church left the earth for 1700 years until Joseph Smith allegedly restored it in the 19th century.”

The LDS doctrine of the Apostasy doesn’t mean that the church “left the earth” altogether. A church ultimately consists of the body of its membership; and there still remained many true, faithful, believing Christians in the world who had a saving faith in Jesus Christ; and who constituted God’s true church. It only means that the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church was lost, so that the church could no longer be led by revelation, as it originally was, when the Twelve Apostles were alive and governing the church. It also meant that valid sacraments could no longer be performed. He continues:

“After all, Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.”

The “gates of hell” did not “prevail” against the church, for the reasons explained above; and the Catholic Church deserves credit for preserving that culture and tradition in the world. That is not in dispute. He continues:

“Moreover, this [Catholic] church gave us sure knowledge of the very canon of scripture found in the King James Bible, that Mormons rely on as a sacred text; but the church that gave us the Bible authoritatively teaches that there has been no new public revelation since the time of the apostles, which includes the Book of Mormon;”

There are several issues with that argument. Firstly, the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible”. It was given to us by God over many centuries past, through his prophets and Apostles, until the Apostasy set in, which meant that those institutions could no longer continue in the church, as he himself acknowledges in the above quote. Secondly, the Catholic Church has no authority whatsoever to “authoritatively teach that there has been no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles,” as he claims; because it has no power or authority to actually receive such a revelation—and doesn’t even claim to be able to. The reason why there have been “no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles” is because the Catholic Church has not had the power and authority to receive them, and doesn’t even claim to be able to (as the LDS Church does). Those powers were lost through the Apostasy, when the last Apostle died—which is why they needed to be restored in the latter days. And lastly, the Book of Mormon is indeed a book of ancient scripture like the Bible, received by revelation in our time; the fact that he or the Catholic Church do not recognize or acknowledge it, is irrelevant. The Jews (who gave us the Old Testament) do not recognize the New Testament as scripture. So what? It doesn’t make it so. The same argument applies here. And his last comment is as follows:

“therefore one can make this argument: if Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired.”

He has got the first part of the argument right, but not the second part. It is either one or the other. If one is true, the other can’t be. That is correct. The question is, which one? The answer is that the Book of Mormon is indeed true, a book of ancient scripture, divinely inspired, and a revelation from God; therefore Catholicism which rejects it (assuming it does, it has not officially declared that it does), cannot be true. The Catholic Church deserves credit for preserving Christian tradition (and scripture) in the world, as I said before; that is acknowledged; but if it rejects the Restoration of the gospel in the last days, it cannot be ordained of God.

The Coming of a False Peace – John MacArthur

 

Good sermon by John MacArthur. He hasn’t figured out all of it perfectly right; the bit that I am particularly interested in occurs between 6:28–24:03 minutes into the video, where he talks about the globalists trying to create a One World Government, and the biblical parallels to it. He has got that bit right. Here is the transcript of the relevant part of the sermon:

“Now this is a very popular desire: world peace. I think we know that. We are all aware of the fact that people have been talking about global unity, One World Government, for a long time; and there are many conspiracy theories about people secretly moving everything in that direction. But there are also realities which are anything but secret; and are not theories, but are certainly actions being taken by globalists to move the world toward One World Government. This is escalating among the elitist, power-hungry people who control the levers of culture and society; they want One World Government. And why do they want that?

“Well they give several reasons: one is what they call equity, so that they can redistribute all the assets, and all the wealth, and all the possessions equally across the planet to everyone. Another one is because of currency; they have a desire for a singular currency, global currency; and they would like that to be crypto currency, electronic currency, so they can control all finances, and all spending by everyone. And then another one of their motivating desires is environment; they want equal commitment upon every nation of the world, all people of the world, to the environmental plan. Right now many nations are supposedly doing what they can to achieve environmental goals; while many other nations pay no attention. Another one of their goals is taxation: they want global taxation so that no one, no corporation, can escape to some location where the taxation is lower.

“Another reason for their desire for a global One World Government is immigration; they want to eliminate immigration altogether; they want to eliminate it by simply saying, anybody can go anywhere they want to go, anytime, any way—free movement of everyone. Another one of their goals in having a One World Government is what they call crisis response, which was illustrated during the lockdown and the pandemic with Covid. They want to make sure the whole world responds the way the World Health Organization thinks they should respond; they want control over the responses to any kind of disease, any kind of pandemic; and they want uniformity. And then of course, a big one: war; because nations fight each other; and this seems to go on all the time. They want to eliminate nations, so that there are no national wars. And the goal of all of this: if they can create equity, common currency, control of the environment, universal taxation, eliminate borders so there’s no illegal immigration, control all crises, and end all wars—will bring about world peace.

“I don’t know if you know this, but they already have a flag, it is called the One World Flag. It is the flag of humanity and the unity of the nations. Part of it is green for the earth, humanity, human progress and unity, agriculture, and life; part of it is blue for the United Nations, hope, water, atmosphere we breathe, and sky; part of it is black for the darkness of space, hardship that humanity will overcome, and the last frontier of human exploration, and settlement of the solar system and beyond. And it has 13 stars because they have divided the globe into 13 regions—One World Government.

They are serious about this; this is one of the reasons I told you months ago that they have a problem with America, because of the emphasis here on nationalism. That is a threat to their efforts to remove national identity.

“Is this a good idea? Is this a reasonable idea? We can find that out very easily by going all the way back to the book of Genesis; so turn in your Bible to Genesis chapter 11. One World System is not a new idea, it is a very old idea—and by the way, a very Satanic idea—an old idea. When I say that, I mean Genesis chapter 11. Not long after God had destroyed the the entire world in the flood, leaving only eight people to reconstitute humanity again; soon after that we come to chapter 11; and this is what we read in verse one: the whole earth used the same language, and the same words; so there was every reason to assume that they could rather easily pull off one world government—since they all spoke the same language—that would eliminate one formidable barrier. And it came about in verse 2, that as they journeyed east, that they found a plane in the land of Shinar—that, by the way, is the Mesopotamian valley between the Tigers and the Euphrates, where the Garden of Eden once was—and they settled there.

“Now that sounds innocent enough, but the problem with that is that wasn’t God’s design. Back in Genesis 1—and they knew this, this was the creation mandate—verse 28: after God made man in his own image, after he created him male and female, verse 28 of Genesis 1, God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it’. Part of the creation mandate was to spread over the whole earth. They had done that, God drowned that evil society, and they were to start all over again with the descendants of Noah. But they didn’t want to do that; they wanted to settle in one place. So they said in verse 3 to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks, burn them thoroughly’—that is to say, so that they would be strong; and they used brick for stone, and they used tar for Mortar—and they said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven; and let us make for ourselves a name; otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth’.

“They knew they were supposed to be scattered over the face of the whole earth. That was the creation mandate. That was God’s order to them, in the original creation. But they were rebels against God; they did not want to do that. They wanted to stay together; and so they decided that they would build a city, and they would build a tower, and they would make a name for themselves. The Lord came down, verse 5, to see the city, and the tower which the sons of men had built. The Lord said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language, and this is what they began to do; and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language so that they will not understand one another’s speech’. So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth, and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. And by the way, the scattering is described in chapter 10; chapter 10 gives you the scattering, in chapter 11 gives you the reason. God wanted them scattered over the whole earth.

“What is going on here? Well, first of all man says, ‘Come, let us,’ ‘Come, let us’—same language, same words—literally in Hebrew, one lip, and one set of words. We are all unified. They were all descendants of Noah. They realized that they were in power; and they wanted to concentrate that power; and concentrated power concentrates and exacerbates evil—a unified force of sinners with no restraints, as the Lord says in verse 6: ‘They will do anything they purpose to do, nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them’—there are no restraints. This is concentrated power of evil people. One evil ruler could corrupt the whole world. Nations provide restraint; and the power of sinners is diffused, and spread out. World Unity is an absolute disaster; it puts too much power into too few Sinners—and maybe too much power in even one sinner. World Unity is a complete disaster; it is what Satan wants; it is what God does not want—at least until he releases Satan to accomplish his purpose. Satan wants, and showed his hand in Genesis 11, a One World Government led by a coterie of sinners who can function without any restraint. This is a picture of Antichrist—a dictator who will rule the world, who will consolidate evil across the entire face of the earth. This is Satan’s desire.

“Now looking a little deeper, there was a leader in Genesis—go back to chapter 10, in verse 8, and you see there the name Nimrod. He was from the line of Ham—Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah. Nimrod was from the line of Ham. It says in verse 8, he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter—literally the word means warrior, or killer. He was not a killer of animals, he was a killer of people—in other words, he ascended to power by killing people. It is as if that he was next to the Lord—he had assumed such power. It was even said commonly, Nimrod is a mighty killer before the Lord, meaning he is a rival in a sense to God himself, he has so much power; and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel.

“So here we have some very interesting things; this is the first time the word kingdom appears in scripture. This is the first time there is a kingdom, it is the first time there is a king. He is a fascinating figure. In verses 8 and 9, three times he is called ‘mighty’—mighty in an evil sense. He is a killer. He is the great grandson of Noah, the grandson of righteous Ham. He wielded deadly power; he was ruthless in the Euphrates valley; no doubt establishing his kingdom by the means of death—and having established that, he literally could perpetuate his own evil through the entire population of the world, because there were no other powers to stop him. But God identified it as Babel because he wouldn’t allow it to happen. It becomes known as the Tower of Babel, because God changes their language, and all that comes out of that effort is confusion; and then in verse 9, the Lord scatters them abroad over the whole earth.

“So Nimrod, rebelling against the creation mandate of God—evil Nimrod, murderous Nimrod, rebelled. Idolatrous Nimrod wanted to build a city; and why a city? because a city is concentrated humanity; and that of course is you have the greatest concentration and expression of sin and iniquity. We know that from how cities function even today. And then a tower, essentially a ziggurat, as it was called in ancient times. At the base would be some kind of idolatry, some kind of worship; and the tower ascending as far into heaven as they could build it, as in a sense a figure of their desire to reach the gods. And then having achieved the greatness of a city, and such a tower that penetrates even to the heavens and touches deity, they would have made a name for themselves.

“There was no concern for God, there was no interest in his will or his purpose; it was all about what they could accomplish. This is clearly Satanic. As a result God—and you can see it in verse 7—says, ‘Let us go down’. Verse 4 they said, ‘Let us build’. In response God said, ‘Let us go down, and confuse their languages’—very effective by the way, very effective. Chaos breaks out, the city plan is shattered, the religion is splintered into bits and pieces, they don’t make a name for themselves, and then the Lord scatters them all over the Earth. And you can see just where, as you read chapter 10. Human pride, human ambition, power, designing One World Government is thwarted by God. It gives too much power to too few people, without balance, without restraint. It is the worst of all possible human government.”

I like the man, I think he is a good guy! He is still saddled with the heresy of Calvinism; but that is okay. As long as his heart is in the right place, he can still be saved! 😄

Catholics and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

 

I came across the above video in which Trent Horn, a Catholic apologist from the Catholic Answers, is discussing and defending the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, against arguments to the contrary—in this case by James White. I am no fan of Protestantism. I have a lot more respect for Catholicism than for Protestantism. So my aim here is not to defend Protestantism against Catholicism. But the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is evidently unbiblical and incorrect, and needs to be refuted. The best way to refute it, however, is to start at something more fundamental than that. The Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary has a more foundational theological basis—and that is the basic Catholic idea that virginity and abstinence from sex is somehow morally superior to having legitimate sexual relationships within the bonds of lawful marriage. That is the justification for enforced priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church; and having monasteries filled with celibate monks and nuns! That is the real foundation for the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. She would be viewed as somehow less pure and holy if she had legitimate sexual relations with her lawful and legally married husband. That is the real, more foundational issue with Catholic theology and doctrine.

That doctrine, however, is undoubtedly unbiblical and incorrect. The first thing that God said after he had created Adam was, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). The Catholic Church says the opposite: it says, “It is good for man to be alone!” When God says one thing, and the Catholic Church says the opposite, it is a no-brainer which one is right and which one is wrong. And what it says in that scripture about “man” is equally applicable to “woman”. It is not “good” for either of them to be “alone”. So that is one obvious contradiction, but there is more:

The first great commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve after they were created was to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). He did not qualify that statement by adding, “But if you remain celibate, you will be more holy!” That again is in direct contradiction to the Catholic dogma and doctrine. In Catholicism, being celibate is more holy! Again, when God says one thing, and the Catholic Church says the opposite, it is a no-brainer which is the right one. Examples abound, one more example will be sufficient:

The greatest blessing that God gave to Abraham (and his descendants) was that he would multiply his seed as the “stars of heaven” for multitude, and as the “sand which is upon the sea shore;” and that through him and his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 22:15-19; see also Genesis 24:59-61; 28:13-14). God didn’t qualify that statement by adding, “But if you remain celibate, you will be more holy!” The Catholic Church says the exact opposite, and therefore it cannot be of God.

That is the real source and origin of the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. She would be seen somehow as less pure and holy if she had continued to have sexual relations with her legally and lawfully wedded husband, after she had given birth to Jesus—which contradicts everything that the Bible has said. So the best way to refute that false dogma of Catholicism is to start at a more fundamental level, than just by quoting the obvious biblical verses (Matthew 1:24–25; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:5-10) that do indeed contradict that doctrine, as James has pointed out.

Collective West Social Collapse

 

Good analysis of the rapid social, political, cultural decline of the collective West. I was particularly impressed by the insight into current affairs shown by Ania K, a Polish analyst, writer, and commentator from whom I hadn’t heard before. So kudos to The Duran for arranging an interview with her.