What is a Biblical Christian? – Kelly Powers!

 

Another short video by Kelly Powers, questioning the validity of the LDS faith! Skipping the initial introductory remarks, he begins his criticism of the LDS Church as follows:

“First, you got to know the biblical Jesus. Do you believe in the Jesus of Mormonism, that he is a man who became a God, …”

False statement. We believe that Jesus was God who became man, not “man who became God”. That is what the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures teach:

Mosiah 13:

33 For behold, did not Moses prophesy unto them concerning the coming of the Messiah, and that God should redeem his people? Yea, and even all the prophets who have prophesied ever since the world began—have they not spoken more or less concerning these things?

34 Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son.

That is the true source of LDS theology and doctrine, not Kelly Powers. As far as Jesus being the “spirit brother of Lucifer” is concerned, I had previously discussed that issue elsewhere in my blog, which can be seen here. And as far as the gospel being “lost for 1,800 years” is concerned, that is not correct either. It depends on what you mean by the “gospel”. If you mean faith in Jesus Christ, that was not lost; and the Book of Mormon and other modern LDS scripture and revelation fully acknowledges that, as discussed in my blog post linked to above. What was lost was the priesthood, the prophetic and Apostolic authority of the original church. The original church was led by revelation, through prophets and Apostles. 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:

And likewise to the Corinthians he wrote:

1 Corinthians 12:

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

That institution 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 (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). All of the offices mentioned in the above quotes are necessary for the “perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12), 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” (Ephesians 4:13), 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. That is what was “lost”, which has now been restored in God’s true Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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 dissolved or discontinued; and they governed the church by revelation. It was the persecution of the early Christians by the Romans, and the eventual apostasy of the early church that prevented that institution from continuing in the church at that time. The original church also possessed a true priesthood, which enabled them to perform valid sacraments for the church—which was also lost. Those are the things that were “lost”, which needed to be restored; and they have now been restored in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is what makes the LDS Church God’s only true Church in the world today. And as far as “men becoming gods” is concerned, that is something that I have previously discussed in several previous blog posts, such as here. The Early Church Fathers all believed in, and taught the deification of man, or theosis; numerous examples here.

What is the Gospel? – Kelly Powers!

 

I noticed the above short video by Kelly Powers in which he criticizes the beliefs and teachings of Latter-day Saints. He raises two main objections. The first relates to the need for water baptism for salvation; and also the gift of the Holy Ghost necessarily following water baptism. His argument is that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation; nor a necessary prerequisite for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is his first argument—which is unbiblical. Here are some references:

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Peter does not qualify his statement by adding, “But if you are not baptized, don’t worry about it, you will still be okay.” Here is another:

Acts 19:

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Again, baptism is made both a requirement for salvation, as well as a necessary prerequisite for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. If the baptism of John which they had previously received was sufficient, why did they need to be baptized again, in the name of Jesus, before they could receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? Here another:

Acts 8:

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Again, baptism in the name of Jesus precedes receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Another example:

Acts 22:

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Again, baptism is made a prerequisite for the remission of sins, which in turn is a prerequisite for obtaining the gift of the Holy Ghost. Here are some more:

Romans 6:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1 Corinthians 6:

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed [of their sins, by baptism], but ye are sanctified [made holy, by receiving the Holy Ghost], but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 12:

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 3:

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Titus 3:

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration [baptism], and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

1 Peter 3:

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

In the video, he focuses a lot on John 3:5; presumably because that is the one verse that Latter-day Saints like to use most often as proof-text in affirmation of the need for water baptism:

John 3:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

His argument being that verse 5 does not explicitly mention water baptism—as if that is somehow the only biblical proof text for baptism, which of course it isn’t. He also fails to provide an adequate alternative explanation for John 3:5, which is more plausible than a reference to water baptism. If he is convinced that John 3:5 is not referring to water baptism, he should be able to provide an alternative explanation for it that is more plausible, and he fails to do so. The truth is that a reference to water baptism is the most plausible, likely, and obvious explanation for John 3:5. He also focuses on Mark 16:16:

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 [and consequently not baptized] shall be damned.

His argument being that in verse 16, it does not explicitly mention “not baptized”—which is a meaningless and nonsensical objection, because it doesn’t need to be mentioned. Baptism follows faith, belief in Jesus and the gospel, and repentance. Why would anyone want to be “baptized” if they haven’t “believed”?

Another objection he raises to LDS theology is belief in vicarious baptisms (and other sacraments) for the dead—his argument being that once you are dead, you don’t get a “second chance”. He has badly misunderstood that as well. The LDS doctrine of vicarious baptism for the dead doesn’t mean that you get a “second chance”. If you have knowingly and willfully rejected the message of the restored gospel in this life, you don’t get a “second chance”. LDS doctrine of vicarious baptisms are intended for those who have not had a first chance. There are two points to be made here. Firstly, in LDS theology, the various ordinances or sacraments of the gospel—including baptism, confirmation (laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost) etc., require a valid priesthood authority to perform them, which currently only the LDS Church possesses, and no other church does—nor has had since the first century. Therefore if you have previously been baptized, or received such ordinances through other channels, that doesn’t count. You need to receive them again, by proper priesthood authority—in order for it to be valid, and be in force in heaven—which only the LDS Church possesses, and is able to provide; no other church does. Vicarious baptisms (and other sacraments) for the dead are intended to fulfil that requirement. That is the first point. The second point is that once you have had a proper chance to accept the fullness of the gospel in this life, and knowingly and willfully rejected it (like he is now doing), you don’t get a second chance; your fate is sealed. And as far as biblical references are concerned, the Bible affirms baptisms for the dead:

1 Corinthians 15:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Baptisms for the dead were performed in the ancient church, in the days of Paul. We also have this biblical passage:

1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Jesus after his crucifixion, and during the three day period between his death and resurrection, spent his time in the spirit-would, preaching the gospel to the spirits of the dead. Why would he want to do that, if it didn’t provide them with the chance to repent, accept the gospel message, and obtain salvation through faith, repentance, (vicarious) baptisms for the dead, and other necessary (vicarious) sacraments?

And lastly, he has titled  his video, “What is the Gospel?”. That also requires a response. The “gospel” is literally the “good news” of the salvific and redemptive work of Jesus Christ, which is received through faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands of those having proper priesthood authority to perform them, as expressed in the Bible verses quoted above, as well as in articles 3-5 of the LDS Articles of Faith (emphasis added).

Articles of Faith:

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

And that is not the same as “works salvation”. We don’t “save ourselves by our own works”. We are saved by God when we do what he says—not the same thing. And the LDS Church is the only church on earth at the present time which has the necessary priesthood authority to perform those sacraments—both for the living and the dead. No other church does.

Hayden Carroll’s Obsession is Getting Boring

 

After I had posted my previous message, discussing Hayden Carroll’s issues with Sola Scriptura and the biblical canon, I found two more short video clips from him (seen above), in which he again questions the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible. It is not necessary here to discuss in detail what he has said, because I have already given enough detailed discussion in my previous posts. In this post I am going to focus on only one issue. In the first video, responding to Jeff Durbin, he says the following:

“Do you see the issue here? They are literally admitting they can’t justify their [66 book Bible] standard. They are self-admittedly presupposing it as the infallible, ultimate authority. Jeff, unless you can justify your standard, the 66 books you hold today, why should we believe it? If God didn’t say it, why are you?”

In the second video, again addressing Jeff Durbin, he says the following:

“Jeff, using your own standard, you are just kicking the can down the road; in other words, how do you know that the 66 books you use today are God speaking? Again, where did God publicly reveal this? …”

My question for him is, if he has such a serious issue with the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible, why is he still LDS? Because the LDS Church fully accepts the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible:

Doctrine and Covenants 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.

If he has such a serious issue with the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible, then why is he still LDS? He is in the wrong religion. He should go and find himself some other church or religion that agrees with his theological views—because the LDS Church doesn’t.