On Jacob’s Response to Alex O’Connor

 

Alex O’Connor in the past has been a very staunch, uncompromising young atheist who it seems has softened his stance quite a bit recently, which I hadn’t been aware of until I watched the above video by Jacob Hansen; and Jacob does a good job of quoting and engaging with his remarks. But Jacob has also made some technical errors, which if he fixes he will be able to do a much better job of engaging with Alex. Jacob begins the video with the following statement:

“So about five or six years ago I discovered a young British YouTuber named Alex O’Connor. Initially he just seemed like a mini-Christopher Hitchens, recycling the same old atheist talking points. However, one day I saw a video where he went through the many logical fallacies made by Christopher Hitchens, and why many of Hitchens’ arguments were actually very weak, or nonsensical. I was surprised, and then I began to notice in subsequent videos that Alex’s tone began to change. Suddenly, despite his continued atheism, he seemed totally earnest in his seeking.”

Then he shows a video clip from Alex, the transcript of which is as follows:

“The last time I debated Jonathan a number of years ago, when I was just a few months out of being a teenager, I said that even if I found Christianity to be true, I still wouldn’t want to worship the God that it promotes. I now since then have realized how irrational and self-defeating this assertion is. I stand before you today as an example of a non-resistant non-believer. I think it would be great if God existed; I really do. I would absolutely love to escape death. I would relish being the recipient of unconditional love. Less selfishly, I would love to be able to worship that which deserves to be worshipped. So when faced with a Psalm, like Psalm 139, I am overwhelmed with a sense not of beauty and consolation, but envy and disappointment: ‘Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?’ Where can I go, I should ask in response, to find it?

“Of course you cannot know my heart, you can’t know if I am truly as non-resistant as I claim; but I hope that my actions here might betray me. As a Catholic child I was once an altar boy; I would serve the altar of Mother Church every Sunday, dressed in a white robe. In the time since then, I have to put it mildly, been looking for God. I went to Catholic schools; I studied philosophy and theology at A levels; I made a career out of engaging with religious arguments; I have explored arguments from contingency, from fine-tuning, from motions, from mathematics, indeed from irreducible complexity, and the alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

“It may surprise my followers online to learn that at university I visited numerous churches, on the invitation of various friends; I spent hours talking with religious friends, until the sun rose again, if you like. I attended Bible groups regularly too, which might surprise people as well—and in fact, I still do attend such groups. Just recently I agreed to embark on a series of study of the wisdom literature, specifically reading it again in the hopes that this time I might finally feel a divine presence seeping from between the lines. I moved into a house for a year with two devoutly Christian housemates, with the express intention of seeing if the obvious truth of Christianity and theism that people like to talk about can be found in the minutiae of daily life.

“I read Athanasius and Anselm; I read Augustine and Aquinas; I looked in Julian of Norwich, and Katherine of Siena; I looked at the sociological origin of religious belief in Durkheim, and Marx, and Freud, and Young. I looked at religious experience in William James, and Rudolph Otto. I have looked in the modern works of people like Ed. Feser, and Bill Craig, and Michael Murray, and Richard Swinburn, Alvin Plantinga. I have looked in poetry; I have looked in the Psalms; I have looked in Job; I have looked in Ecclesiastes; I have looked in Dostoevsky. I read C.S. Lewis; I listened to worship music; I prayed; I studied the gospel; I even got an actual degree in theology from a university.”

I am impressed! I commend Alex for his honest research into religion, in the hope of finding some revealed truth, or some genuine indication of God’s existence. He didn’t mention the Book of Mormon! I am guessing that is because he hasn’t read it yet! I highly recommend him to read it. Here is an interesting quote from the Book of Mormon for him to think about:

“For he that diligently seeketh shall find, and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them by the power of the Holy Ghost; as well in these times, as in times of old; and as well in times of old, as in times to come; wherefore the course of the Lord is one eternal round.” (1 Nephi 10:19)

If he sincerely and honestly wants to know of the truth about the existence of God, the Book of Mormon can help him. That is why it was given, to reveal that truth (and much more) to those who honestly and sincerely seek it. That truth will be revealed to him as he sincerely and prayerfully reads and ponders the contents of the book. Jacob then continues his comments as follows:

“Now Alex still holds on strong to the idea that God does not exist; but over the years he has become far less dogmatic, and he is open to hearing all points of view. Alex is one of the rare people who genuinely steelmans the other side, before offering critiques; and frankly, Alex has some excellent critiques of credal Christianity. With that in mind, it has also been really interesting to see how his honest seeking has also led him to some extremely similar conclusions to those held by Latter-day Saints. For example Alex makes a very sharp and well-founded critique of the credal Christians’ notions about Adam and Eve. In the following he offers a response to the Christian apologist Ken Ham’s view on the Fall:”

The only issue I have with this statement is that there is no such thing as “creedal Christianity”. Something is either “Christianity” or it isn’t; but there is no such thing as “creedal” vs. “non-creedal” Christianity. If he wants to distinguish between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the one hand, and traditional or historical Christianity on the other, that is not the best way to make that distinction. The two major creeds of Christendom, generally accepted and adopted by mainstream Christianity in general, are the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed; both of which teach doctrines fully acceptable to LDS. And the LDS Church also has a creed; it is called the Articles of Faith.

The implied suggestion of the above statement is that it is inherently wrong to have a creed! Or that the LDS Church does not have a creed! That is incorrect on both accounts. There is nothing wrong with having a creed; and LDS Church very much has a creed. The Articles of Faith is a fully fledged creed, no difference. So both sides are “creedal” in that sense of the term. They both have a creed. What really distinguishes LDS from traditional or historical Christianity is the belief in the restoration of the gospel in the latter days. That is the real difference between the two sides that needs to be focused on and emphasized, not the “creeds”. Constantly harping on about and obsessing with the “creeds” obscures that essential distinction.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Church to officially declare once for all exactly where it stands with regard to the historic creeds of Christianity; which ones it accepts, and which ones it rejects, and why; so that Latter-day Saints can then focus on more important theological differences between the two sides that distinguishes between them—and engage more intelligently in a discussion of them. The actual theological differences between the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and traditional and historic Christianity are far more significant and important than this LDS obsession with the creeds.

Then the conversation enters into some complex philosophical issues most of which I will skip, except for two points brought up which I will briefly comment on:

The first is the problem of evil. In LDS theology, the problem of evil is resolved by accepting the complete libertarian freewill and moral agency of man. God respects that moral agency, and grants man the freedom to exercise it at his own discretion—to choose between good and evil—so that the judgement that God will bring on them on judgement day will be just. Evil exists in the world because mankind are free to yield to the enticing of Satan and choose evil rather than good—and many do. In Evangelical, Calvinist, and Protestant theology in general, that freewill is non-existent. Everything has been predestined and predetermined by God. But that is not true of all Christendom. In Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (which are the majority), freedom of the will is fully accepted.

The second point brought up is the meaning of “sin”. Sin is not “missing the mark”. Sin is identified, in both the Bible as well as in modern LDS scripture, as the “transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4; James 2:11; Romans 5:13; 2 Nephi 2:7, 13; Mosiah 2:33; Alma 42:17-24; D&C 88:35). “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness” etc. is the “law”. You “sin” when you break the law. You “repent” when you stop breaking that law, and start keeping it. And Jesus is not standing by us helping us to “try and try again” until we “hit the mark!” He is there to forgive us our sins when we believe in him, exercise faith, and genuinely and sincerely repent of our sins—so that we can then be forgiven, and move on in the path of eternal life:

“Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I the Lord remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold he will confess them, and forsake them.” (D&C 58:42-43)

LDS Theology is Sola Scriptura!

 

I came across the above video on the Thoughtful Faith channel which I thought was interesting and worth commenting on. It is about 51 minutes long, and it would be a bit too tedious to unpack it and discuss it in detail. Luckily that is not necessary, because the main message that he wants to convey through it is well expressed in the video title:

“Why Protestants Are WRONG About The Bible – Sola Scriptura Debunked”

And that is what I am going to focus on. In short, LDS theology and doctrine is very much Sola Scriptura—the only difference being that we have a lot more “Scriptura” than traditional Christianity does. In addition to the Bible, we also have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, which together with the Bible constitute the canonized scriptures of the Church—the Standard Works. But strictly speaking, the theology and doctrine of the LDS Church is derived from that canon of scripture—and from no other source. Sure enough we believe in continuing revelation, and in modern prophets and Apostles. That is what distinguishes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from all other Christian churches. But unless a new revelation is received and canonized, the theology and doctrine of the restored Church is strictly contained in, and derived from the existing scriptural canon. Anything that deviates from that, or is not supported by that—regardless of who teaches it, or where it comes from—is not LDS doctrine. This has been the verdict of the past leaders of the Church (emphasis added):

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said; if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only insofar as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203–4.)

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve, and sustained by the body of the Church [i.e. canonized]. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973.)

“If it is not in the Standard Works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement Era, January 1969, p. 13.)

“The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. These have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” (B. H. Roberts, Deseret News (July 24, 1921) sec. 4:7.)

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world … to be satisfied with anything I do [or say], unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied … Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 3:5.).

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book, 1976. p. 194)

And LDS scripture confirms this:

D&C 33:

16 And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.

D&C 42:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

D&C 42:

59 Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law [including doctrine], to be my law to govern my church;

In the above video, Jacob also gives a quote from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland; but in that quote Elder Holland is not arguing against Sola Scriptura; what he is saying is that Sola Scriptura is not limited to the Bible; it includes modern LDS scripture—plus any further revelations or scripture that might subsequently be canonized.

The way in which Jacob Hansen argues against Sola Scriptura in Protestantism, however, would equally undermine Sola Scriptura in Mormonism—because both are equally Sola Scriptura. The fact that Latter-day Saints also believe in continuing revelation, and in modern day prophets and Apostles, does not alter that fact. The nature of the argument remains the same. The theology of the restored Church is strictly contained in the scriptural canon of the Church—and nowhere else. So Jacob has gone off on a tangent again, substituting his own ideas, views, and concepts for LDS beliefs and doctrines.

Incongruous 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 gospl of Jesus Christ is all about “belief”—believing in the restoration of the gospel in the last days; believing in true sound doctrines; believing in all the right things.

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.