What is Calvinism?

 

Excellent short video explaining and refuting the heresy of Calvinism. In this analysis he also makes some exegetical errors of his own, which I will try to correct. He begins as follows:

“What is Calvinism? Hi! Welcome to Little Lessons. Today’s question, ‘What is Calvinism,’ is a great question. Calvinism is a theological belief about how God saves people; that is, how he keeps them out of hell, and gets them into heaven. Calvinists uniquely believe that God has sovereignly selected some to be saved, but not all. It is not God’s will for all people to be saved, in Calvinistic theology. He only selected some; in fact, he selected a minority to be saved. The rest, of course by default, he has selected them not to be saved. You can’t have one without the other, okay? Now you might be surprised about all that, but that is what Calvinism is all about. Anyone who says otherwise, doesn’t understand Calvinism at all. More specifically, Calvinists can be delineated by their five cardinal doctrines, that happen to be easily remembered by the acronym TULIP. It stands for T, total depravity; U, unconditional election; L, limited atonement; I, irresistible grace; and P, perseverance of the saints. Calvinists of course use that easy way to remember their five cardinal doctrines themselves. Let’s take them one by one. They are all really inter-related. Really if you believe one, you have to believe the others, because they are completely dependent upon each other. In fact, if you knock out one, that would knock out the rest as well.”

Very well reasoned, and excellent analysis of Calvinism. He continues:

“Let’s start with the T, ‘total depravity’. Now, you don’t have to read much of the Bible to find out that people are sinful. They fall short of the glory of God. They are rebels without a cause, and they are in big trouble because of that rebellion against God. I think it is safe to say from the Bible that people are depraved. You can even go so far as to say, they are totally depraved. But Calvinists have a unique spin on this: human beings are so totally depraved, that given the opportunity, they would never, ever repent and turn to Jesus. Of course, that is partially true, because Jesus did say that no one can come to the Father, no one can come to Him, unless the Father draws them. Apart from the Holy Spirit drawing us, none of us would ever come to Christ. But this leaves out the thousands of other scriptures that indicate that we do have a free will, and that under the influence of the Holy Spirit and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, free moral agents can exercise that will, and take that little tiny step of saying, ‘I am sorry I sinned, and I am going to make my best effort to change.’ Of course, the Holy Spirit goes right to work when you do that. This is not salvation by human works. This is salvation by grace through faith. The Holy Spirit goes right to work in someone who has, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, begun to take steps of trying to submit. The Holy Spirit helps that person submit. Okay, lots more to be said about that.”

He has got that mostly right, although still a bit wrongly influenced by his false Protestant theological baggage. He makes two mistakes there. The first is that, according to the Bible, mankind are still not quite as “depraved” as he would like to present them to be. The Bible teaches that many people are, have been, can be, and will be righteous, without first being unilaterally “regenerated” by God (see here for lots of quotes, given at the end of the post); and those who are righteous, will be saved, even if they are not “Christians” (quotes previously given and discussed here, here, and here). The second mistake he makes is that he has not understood John 6:65: “Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” correctly. He is still reading it the Calvinistic way, overlooking John 6:45: “Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me,” implying that they take the first step in coming to the Father, and learning of the Father, and then the Father leads them to Christ. In other words, the decision is not made unconditionally and unilaterally by God, as Calvinism teaches. I had previously discussed that here. He continues:

“Then U, ‘unconditional election;’ that is, God has elected certain persons from before the foundation of the world. Before any was created, Calvinists say, he selected some to be saved; and then by default, selected some not to be saved. It was an ‘unconditional’ election. Nothing he foresaw in them, like faith in Jesus, that caused him to select them. It was unconditional, just by “God’s good pleasure”, some Calvinists say. Well, the whole phrase ‘unconditional election’ is an oxymoron, right? All elections are conditional. You elect political candidates because they meet your conditions. In fact, all choices are conditional. If it is not a conditional choice, then it is not a choice at all, it is just random chance. If Calvinists would think about this, they would have to agree that people are saved not by grace; but they are saved by chance, a flip of the coin. There is nothing that God saw in anybody that caused him to ‘select’ them. He just selected them. It is random. It is not an ‘election’ at all. We ought to pray, ‘Oh, thank you for the luck that has saved me!’ But it is not luck at all. That is ‘unconditional election’. Of course Scripture does talk about the fact that we have been ‘elected;’ but again, Calvinists have added the word ‘unconditional’ before that. They have redefined what an ‘election’ is, and created an ‘election’ that really isn’t an ‘election’ whatsoever. I believe in a conditional election. God foresaw those who would, under his gracious influence, repent and make an attempt to believe in Jesus Christ, and then He went to work for them.”

That of course is the Arminian point of view, which I also agree with. That is what RC Sproul used to call, “looking through the corridors of time!” That was his disingenuous way of disparaging that doctrine. The answer to that of course is that God does not “look through the corridors of time”. He doesn’t need to. There is no “time” with God. From God’s perspective, the whole of the past, present, and future is one great ever-present NOW, and he makes his choices and decisions accordingly. He then continues:

“Hurrying along here, L, ‘limited atonement’. Of course, if God has only pre-selected a minority of people to be saved, why would Jesus die for everyone? That is a great question. In Calvinist theology, Jesus didn’t die for everyone. He only died for those whom God pre-selected. Even though the Bible says that God ‘desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Timothy 2:4). Even though John wrote that Jesus ‘is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world’ [1 John 2:2]. That is not what Calvinists subscribe to. It is amazing the lengths they go to, to undo those scriptures that I have just quoted, and many like it.”

Very well reasoned, no need to add more. He continues:

“Then ‘irresistible grace,’ that is the ‘I’ in TULIP. Those whom God has pre-selected at his chosen time, he zaps them with a grace that is ‘irresistible;’ and that is what causes them to be ‘born again,’ against their wills as it were. Even though the Bible is a book, practically from cover-to-cover, about people who resist God, and God lamenting it, and God calling everyone to repentance, and God telling us to go preach the gospel to everyone in the whole world, calling everyone to repentance. You are not going to do that unless God has pre-selected you, and zapped you with some ‘irresistible grace,’ according to Calvinists.”

Also very well reasoned. Not much needs to be added to that. He continues:

“Finally, perseverance of the saints. Obviously if God has pre-selected some people to be saved, those people will be saved. When they come to faith in Christ and are born again, they will never fall away. They will never turn the other way. Even though the Bible is full of examples and warnings of that very thing happening; because we are saved by grace through faith; and we have to continue to believing to be saved; and that is why there are so many admonitions to continue in the faith in the New Testament. But this is not a possibility in Calvinistic theology.”

Also very well reasoned, although still tainted a bit with the heresies of Protestantism and Calvinism. The “continuing in the faith” happens not just by “faith alone,” but by faith coupled with genuine repentance, which in the heresy of Calvinism is almost non-existent. The only other thing that needs to be added here is that there is an element of truth in the doctrine of the “perseverance of the Saints,” but it is not as it is understood in Calvinism. Those who persevere in the faith, and in the path of righteousness, are assisted by the grace of God to continue, and not be overcome (1 Thes. 5:23; Jude 1:1). They will not be tempted above that which they are able to bear; but with the temptation the Lord also prepares a way for their escape (1 Cor. 10:13). But the “perseverance” is not “unconditional” or “irresistible”. The choice is still theirs at any time to rebel against God and be damned, if that is what they really want to do. He then continues:

“Where do Calvinists come up with these ideas? By isolating scriptures from the rest of the Bible. That is how all wrong and bad theology is concocted. You have to harmonize your doctrine with the other 30,000 verses in the Bible. I could easily take the Calvinistic proof text, and harmonize them with the rest of the Bible, and it fits my theology quite well. Calvinists cannot harmonize their proof text, rather their interpretation of their proof text, with the rest of the Bible. They love Romans 9, of course taking that out of its context, saying this is how God chooses someone and doesn’t choose the other, whereas Paul was not talking about people being individually saved. He was arguing about the fact that if God wants to, He can sovereignly choose to save Gentiles by faith, the same way He has been saving Jews for all that time. He can save Gentiles by faith if He so desires, and he does desire. That is up to God.”

Very well reasoned, agreed! I have discussed Romans chapter 9 in more detail here and here, for those who may be interested. He continues:

“Praise the Lord! Not by works, not because of what the Gentiles did, but because of God’s love and his grace.”

Not quite. Like I said, he is still carrying some Protestant and Calvinistic heretical baggage. There is no salvation without repentance and keeping the commandments of God; and that is not the same as “works”. He then concludes with these remarks:

“I have written many articles about Calvinism, and all the specifics of it, and taken a look at all their various arguments on my website: www.DavidServant.com Just search Calvinism there. I think it will come up with at least seven in-depth articles that I have written to refute your standard Calvinistic arguments. We love Calvinists, but we don’t like their doctrine. Thanks for joining me. God bless you.”

I haven’t read his articles, but I am sure they are good, and worth a read.

What will God’s People be Doing in the Next Life?

 

Another short clip from Ligonier, in which Derek Thomas answers the question, “What will God’s people be doing in the new heavens and the new earth?” Here is the transcript:

“There are certainly those who are going to be out of work, you know, lawyers and doctors, who are going to be out of work. Maybe there will be a different kind of medicine to do. Maybe there will be a different kind of legal work to do. But I think that the new heavens and new earth, you know, what is it going to be like? It is going to be like this: without sin. So, there are trees, and rivers, and fish, and birds, and animals, and redeemed human beings who are going to live forever. And we will still, I think, be engaging in making the world, exploring the world, understanding the world. So, engaging in ethical science, and engaging in art, and composition, and music, and all kinds of things.”

He forgot about this bit:

Revelation 1:

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

They shall reign as kings, and minister as priests. If so, they must have people to “rule over” as kings, and people to “minister to” as priests. Jesus of course remains King of kings, and Lord of lords:

Revelation 17:

14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Revelation 19:

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

Pastor and LDS Have Boring Conversation!

 

Pastor Jeff McCullough has just put out his latest video discussing various Latter-day Saint topics. This one is in the form of a conversation with a Church member by the name of David Snell, hosted on another YouTube channel called Saints Unscripted. This video is identified as “Part 1”. At 13:43 into the video Jeff puts the following question to David Snell:

“Does the LDS church still embrace and adhere to plural marriage?”

To which David then gives an incoherent and erratic reply. The correct answer to that question is that polygamy, or plural marriage, is no longer practised in the Church because it was declared illegal by the US government; and we believe in obeying the law (Articles of Faith, 12). But the underlying theology or doctrine of polygamy has never been rescinded. That doctrine is still in the canonized scriptures of the Church (D&C 132), meaning that it is still considered a doctrinally valid principle. Plurality of wives is an extension of the doctrine of the eternity of the marriage covenant, although it is not a sacramental requirement for exaltation. The only thing that is a sacramental requirement is the eternity of the marriage covenant. That means that if a man is sealed in marriage for eternity to more than one wife (because his first wife passed away for example, and he had to remarry), in the resurrection he will remain sealed to both wives in heaven, and will be having more than one wife in heaven. So polygamy is theologically still a valid concept, although currently not practised in the Church.

At 22:10 minutes into the video Jeff raises an objection to the Latter-day Saint doctrine of the eternity of family relationships (and by extension, the eternity of the marriage covenant), as follows:

“If there is one thing that when I am looking at the LDS Church though, that I will pump the brakes on, and be like, Hold on, be careful here. I love family; family is like perfectly the most important thing to me. I think that where I have gotten concerned when I have talked to LDS Church members before is as it pertains to what we are reaching toward in the afterlife. It is almost as though God is a means to immortality so that we can spend eternity with our family; as opposed to, if you go back to what I was saying about what we believe the the biblical narrative is, redemptive narrative: It is that family is important, in so much that it points to the type of unity that we can have with God. This is Ephesians chapter five, marriage specifically. But that heaven is about reconciliation with God, and being in his all-fulfilling presence for eternity; and even if we are not still within our family, we will still be with other believers. So I believe I will still be with my wife and my kids, and all that other stuff; but the point of heaven is God forever. And maybe you, if you want to speak to that you can—as opposed to what is perceived as the point of heaven is, yes, God—so that I can be with my family. So what that does then is that puts me in a position where I wonder in the LDS Church, can family be replacing beautiful virtuous aspects of who God is? In a way that is what I have heard some people say within the Protestant church, that family is kind of an idol in a sense, because it is more important than God.”

The correct answer to that question is that in the theology of Latter-day Saints, salvation in the celestial kingdom of God is a “family affair;” we are saved as “families”. It does not diminish the role of God in the process, but enhances it. Indeed, being sealed to your wife in marriage for eternity is a sacramental requirement for exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God—the highest degree of heaven. In the theology of Latter-day Saints, heaven consists of three levels or degrees of glory. In order to get to the highest, where you will dwell in the presence of God eternally, the eternity of the marriage covenant (i.e. being sealed to your wife in marriage for eternity), is a sacramental requirement. That is how God has ordained it to be (D&C 132). And any children born to such marriages are likewise sealed to their parents for eternity. That is how the system works in that theological framework. None of this “diminishes” the role of God in the salvation process, but enhances it, and God is “glorified” thereby.

When Adam and Eve were married by God in the garden of Eden, they were eternal beings, because death had not yet entered into the world; and their “marriage” likewise was meant to be “eternal”. They were not married “until death do you part,” because there was no “death”. They were married for eternity. That means that in the resurrection, their marriage likewise will be restored for eternity as it was before. That is the purpose of the resurrection, to restore everything as it was before. And according to our theology, likewise their other family relationships will be restored. And all of this is done to further promote the glory of God, not diminish it.

Everything that God does promotes his glory. He created Adam and Eve for his own glory. He married them for eternity in the garden of Eden for his own glory. Then he redeemed and resurrected them for his own glory; and they will remain married for the rest of eternity to come for his glory. And what applies to Adam and Eve, applies equally to the rest of mankind. Adam and Eve are the type, a model for the rest of the human race. That is how God is glorified, or glorifies himself, in heaven and on earth, and in eternity. He is glorified by the creation of eternal human family relationships. I am hoping that the second part of the video is not going to be as boring as this one!

What Makes a Christian Distinctly Protestant?

 

Another short clip from Ligonier, in which Robert Godfrey answers the question: “What makes a Christian distinctly Protestant?” Here is the transcript:

“I would say what most makes a Christian a Protestant is the issue in the first place of authority. Where do we look for authoritative truth to guide us as Christians? And Protestants believe it is in the Bible. It is the Bible alone, sola scriptura, as the formal principle of the Reformation; and I think that is crucial, especially in our day where there are so many doubts about the Bible. But when one accepts the authority of the Bible, one will then find the doctrines of grace alone and faith alone clearly taught there.”

The problem with that argument is that the Bible can be misread, misunderstood, or misinterpreted. That is why there are so many different churches and denominations—even within Protestantism—all of them based on some doctrinal disagreement. So when there is a disagreement on how the Bible should be interpreted, is there an independent judge who can be trusted by all sides to arbitrate, and determine whose interpretation is right, and whose is wrong? What makes the Protestants the soul, legitimate, exclusive, interpreters of the Bible—especially when they have disagreements even among themselves?

Peter says of the writings of Paul, “… in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). So Paul can easily be misread and misunderstood (on which Protestant theology is almost entirely based). And he is not the only biblical author who can be misread and misunderstood; all scripture to some degree can be, as Peter says. Isaiah is not an easy book to read and understand correctly either. So what makes the Protestants so sure they have understood the teachings of Paul right?

In another place in the same epistle Peter again says, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). So according to Peter, the Bible can be misread or misinterpreted. It is easy to fall into the error of a “private interpretation” of the Bible. So who made the Protestants the soul arbiters and interpreters of the Bible? That is make-belief and self-deception. They are no such thing. I have made clear beyond dispute, in numerous posts in this blog, that the Protestant “doctrines of grace alone and faith alone” is not biblical. It is a heresy. It is not what the Bible teaches. The Protestant doctrine is based on a few misconstrued passages of Paul, to the exclusion of 99% of the rest of the Bible which teaches something different. It is a heresy, plain and simple. There is no other way to describe it.

Do Latter-day Saints Baptize Dead People?!

 

Pastor Jeff McCullough has just put out his latest video discussing Latter-day Saint beliefs, practices, and teachings. In this video he focuses on the Church’s doctrine of baptism, including the practice of proxy baptisms for the dead. In this video he is commenting on another cartoon video put out by the Church, explaining the Church’s unique doctrine of baptism for the dead. That video can be seen on the Church’s website here. He says:

“This is something I didn’t even know was a thing until very recently, so I am really interested in learning, reacting, and giving you my perspective as a Christian pastor; so let’s dive in.”

Then, after displaying his first clip from the Church’s video, he adds the following comment:

“Allright, so I have a feeling off the bat here that there are going to be a lot of references here that are probably going to require more research and more study on my part. So just this whole idea of “priesthood,” I understand is a really important thing in the LDS Church. But I don’t know if this video is really going to get into how priesthood really ties into this practice of baptism.”

The answer to that question is that, unlike the Protestant churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is very much a sacramental Church. We believe that baptism is a sacrament, meaning that it is both required (mandatory) for salvation, and also necessitates proper priesthood authority for it to be validly performed—and that priesthood authority rests exclusively in the restored Church of Jesus Christ today, and is possessed by no other church. That is why we don’t recognize baptisms performed by other churches. Anybody wanting to join our Church, who had been previously baptized in their previous Christian church or denomination, needs to be baptized again. In this respect, we have something in common with the Catholic Church—except that we are more strict. The Catholic Church still allows some leeway in case of an emergency, about who can legitimately baptize; whereas we don’t. Other differences are that we baptize only by immersion, and we don’t perform infant baptisms. He then continues:

“But I will say that in the rest of Christianity, there is the belief that baptism is important. It is not fully embraced that one needs to be baptized in order to be saved though. In fact the vast majority of non-LDS Christianity says, You don’t need to be baptized in order to be saved. I will get into the reasons as to why we think baptism is important, and why Jesus commanded it; but I wanted to get back to the video here really quick.”

We believe that baptism is not only “important,” but is required for salvation, because it has been commanded by the Lord (as he admits). If Jesus commanded it (which he did –Matt. 28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16), what right has he (or anybody else) to put it aside? He continues:

“But before I do, there are various denominations that might require whoever is administering the baptism, to have a certain level within the church. I don’t know if it would necessarily be called “priesthood”. It is in some cases, but not in all cases. But there is also a lot of denominations that don’t necessarily believe that someone has to have a specific office in the church; but as long as they are a follower of Christ, that they can baptize others, because as Peter says, that we are a “royal priesthood, a holy nation”—that anybody who is a follower of Jesus is considered part of the priesthood, or the intermediary between God and humanity, being that we have put our faith in him. But this seems to be tied to maybe a lot of other doctrines in the LDS Church, but hopefully this is still good foundational information, so I can understand baptism for the dead.”

That quote from St. Peter (1 Peter 2:9) is grossly misrepresented and misunderstood. In the restored Church of Jesus Christ, all worthy male members of the Church, aged 12 and over, without exception, are entitled to receive the priesthood—and they do. But it happens by ordination—which is what St. Peter was referring to. He doesn’t mean that people automatically become “priests” by virtue of their membership of the Church. In the restored Church of Jesus Christ, all worthy male members of the Church, without exception, are priests—but it is done by ordination. It doesn’t just happen automatically because they have joined the Church. That is what St. Peter is referring to. Then he continues by displaying the next clip from the Church’s video that he is commenting on, as follows:

“But here is the problem, What about those millions of people who died without baptism; or were baptized, but without proper authority?”

To which he then adds the following comment:

“That is a good question. I think in a non-LDS context, we would say, well, it is not any specific work that gets you saved, it is what Christ did on the cross; so anybody who wasn’t baptized doesn’t necessarily lose their salvation, or their standing in heaven; so it is not necessarily a problem that needs to be solved after they have died. But obviously this video is setting it up to say that if someone does die, and they were baptized without the right authority, or they weren’t baptized at all, that is a problem that needs to be fixed.”

That is correct. We believe that baptism is a sacramental requirement for salvation, which means that it cannot be skipped. But God has provided a way for those who have died without that opportunity, to still participate in the ordinance by having it performed for them vicariously here on earth—although they still have the choice to accept or reject that offer in the spirit world. Baptism is not “forced” on anyone when they are dead. And baptism is a “commandment,” not a “work”. We are not “saved by baptism;” we are saved by God when we do what he says. Those are two different things. We need to keep the commandments of God to be saved, and baptism is one of those commandments. Then he displays the next clip from the Church’s video, which starts talking about the practice of proxy baptisms for the dead, and comments on it as follows:

“Okay, I have got to say, I really do love this explanation of proxies, especially as it is tied to Jesus. The rest of Christianity does agree, and believe that Jesus was a proxy on our behalf when he died on the cross, that he paid the price for our sin. That he was sort of a stand-in for the punishment that we deserved. The phrase that is kicked around in a lot of the rest of Christianity is ‘substitutionary atonement,’ but just this whole idea of a substitute teacher, and a proxy, very similar ideas there. I will say, this idea of individuals standing in his proxies to be baptized, very unique to the LDS Church.”

That is true of course. I know of no other church that does proxy baptisms for the dead. He then displays the next clip from the Church’s video, and comments on it as follows:

“Okay, that is really helpful. I did not know that. I actually didn’t know that you could get baptized in an LDS chapel or a ward house, because I have never been in one. But I am going to, I promise. But this makes sense though, because I have seen models of the inside of LDS temples before, and I have seen sort of the the basin with the oxen around it, that I believe shares a lot of ancient symbolism. But I didn’t know that the living aren’t baptized in temples, and only proxy baptisms take place in the temple, so that is really helpful information. I wish I could talk to this video, because I would want to know why. Why does it have to happen in the temple, and that is just going to be some insight that I am still learning, as to the significant role that the temple plays, and how it is consecrated or set apart to do these very special things.”

Proxy baptisms for the dead can only be performed in temples because that is how God has ordained it. There is no other reason. Only the most sacred ordinances are performed in temples, and baptism for the dead is one of them. When the Church was first organized, and the doctrine of proxy baptisms for the dead was first revealed, and a temple had not yet been built, the Lord permitted Church members to perform proxy baptisms for their deceased ancestors outside of temples temporarily, while waiting for a temple to be built (see D&C 124:30-36). But once a temple was built, that was no longer permitted. He has also overlooked 1 Cor. 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?” Baptism of course is not the only sacrament that is vicariously performed in our temples on behalf of the deceased. Confirmation (the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost), ordination to the priesthood, sealings, eternal marriage etc. are all important sacraments, and are also vicariously performed in our temples on behalf of the dead. Then he displays the next clip from the Church’s video, and comments on it as follows:

“This is great, I didn’t know that. So I am a huge fan of ancestry.com. I have a lot of different family trees that I have investigated. I have actually gone to places where my family used to live, and found like gravestones, and stuff like that. So I did know that the LDS Church was really big on ancestry, and this is connecting it out for me. So as you do genealogical research, you then can be a proxy for your ancestors. See, this is why I am doing this channel, this is great.”

He then displays the next clip from the Church’s video, as follows:

“You may be asking yourself, isn’t it a little presumptuous for Mormons to perform a baptism for the dead, who may not even want it? Well, the Bible teaches us that individuals have the right to choose. Mormons believe that right continues after death, and that spirits of the dead can be taught the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

To which he adds the following comment:

“Okay, so where there were some similarities, here we have veered into an area that is very different than what the rest of Christianity teaches. We believe that death is final, when it comes to your standing before God; and that after one dies, that you don’t have the ability to choose any longer, which is why it is so important that while we are here on earth, that we respond rightly to a call to be reconciled to God. I think one of the passages I would point to is in luke 16, when Jesus is giving a parable of Lazarus and the rich man; and you should go and read it for yourself; but it is essentially this conversation that is taking place beyond this life, where this man named Lazarus, who is a servant to a rich man, finds himself in paradise, and the rich man finds himself not in paradise; and he can’t cross that chasm. In fact the rich man is concerned about his still living family, and wants Lazarus to go back and warn them. They need to be made aware of what is important about the decisions they make in life, and how that impacts eternity; but Lazarus is not able to do that. So that is just one parable that I would point to; and there is a few other passages that talk about why it is important for us to deal with these things on earth, because once we have died, we can no longer progress.”

There are two issues raised in there that need to be separated. The first relates to those who have died without having had the chance to accept or reject the gospel in this life. Are they eternally condemned through no fault of their own? We know that God is just; and justice demands that they should be given the same chance as everyone else. The theology of the Restoration teaches that they do have that second chance in the spirit world after death, and also the opportunity to accept or reject the vicarious sacraments of the gospel performed for them in our temples on their behalf. So they are indeed given a “second chance”. The second issue raised in what he says relates to those who did indeed have the chance to accept the gospel in this life, but rejected it. Are they eternally lost, or can they still repent in the spirit world and be forgiven—after they have paid the penalty of their sins in the next life? There are several passages in the Bible that give the answer to that question. The first is this one:

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.

These verses teach that Jesus after his death went and preached the gospel to the antediluvian sinners in the spirit world, who had once rejected the gospel in the days of Noah, and were drowned in the Flood because of their sins. Why would Jesus want to go and preach the gospel to those condemned sinners in the spirit world, if it wasn’t going to do them any good? The answer can only be that they had suffered enough to pay the penalty for their sins, and they were now ready to repent and be forgiven. St. Peter again says:

1 Peter 4:

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Here St. Peter explicitly states that the gospel was preached to the dead. Again, the question is raised: Why was the gospel preached to the dead, if it wasn’t going to do them any good? The answer can only be that they are given a second chance to repent and be saved—after they have paid the penalty for their sins in the spirit world. Here is another scripture that relates to that subject:

Matthew 12:

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

The implication there is that sins, other than the sin of “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,” can be forgiven in the “world to come”. That is the only logical reading of the text. Here is another set of scripture that relate to that subject:

Luke 12:

47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Matthew 5:

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence [i.e. from hell], till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

What these verses suggest is that punishments in hell are not all the same. Some receive greater punishment than others. Some are beaten with “many stripes,” and some with “few stripes”. For some, the punishment eventually ends; for others, it is permanent. Some “come out thence” after they have paid the “uttermost farthing”. Others (those who sin against the Holy Ghost) will not be forgiven in this life or the next. According to these verses, hell is not a “one size fits all” (any more than heaven is). Some receive a greater punishment in hell than others; while for some the punishment is temporary, and for others it is permanent.

He has also got the story of Lazarus wrong (Luke 16:19-28). Lazarus was a “beggar,” that sat at the gate of the rich man’s house, begging for food. He was not a “servant” to the rich man. Then he plays the final clip from the Church’s video:

“They can then choose to accept or reject it, and the corresponding proxy baptism. And to be clear, deceased individuals for whom a baptism for the dead is performed, are not counted on the membership roles of the Mormon Church. Baptism for the living and for the dead is another important way God shows his love for his children; so when you hear the term “baptism for the dead,” remember, it refers to Mormons using proxies, living stand-ins to provide baptism by immersion, with proper authority, for those who have died without that opportunity. Now you know.”

And comments on it as follows:

“Now I know. Allright, so in the spirit of this channel, where I am comparing and contrasting, and I am showing the things that are different, but also the things that are similar. There are a few different beliefs surrounding baptism and the rest of Christianity that are worth pointing out. One of them is tied to the idea of immersion, and this was actually talked about in this video: how important is it for someone to be fully immersed in water; or maybe you have seen in some traditions, where water is poured on like a baby’s head, or something like that. How important is immersion? Some faith traditions believe that it is incredibly important, and that that was a model that was demonstrated in the Bible, and that we should follow that model; whereas others say, well it doesn’t really matter whether you are fully immersed or not, as long as the symbolism gets across.”

The word “baptism” literally means “immersion”. That is the literal meaning of it. “The word ‘Baptism’ is a transliteration of the Greek word BAPTIZO which means to immerse” (WikiBooks). There is no such thing as “baptism” without “immersion”. In the early church no one was converted who was not baptized; and it was done by immersion. Here are some examples:

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.

Acts 2:

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

Acts 8:

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 8:

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Acts 9:

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Acts 10:

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 16:

15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:

33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Acts 18:

8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Acts 19:

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

Acts 22:

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

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 1:

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

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.

Ephesians 4:

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Colossians 2:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Galatians 3:

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

Hebrews 6:

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

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:

No one was converted who was not baptized—and the word “baptize” in those verses simply means to “immerse;” it has no other meaning. Substitute the word “immerse” for “baptize” in all of those verses, and you get the idea. And sure, there was a lot of symbolism associated with baptism; but that did not make it optional, or not mandatory. There is strong symbolism associated with all aspects of the gospel. There is strong symbolism associated with the sacrificial death and Atonement of Jesus Christ for example; but that does not make it optional, or not a requirement for salvation. Then he continues:

“The other thing that is talked about a lot in the rest of Christianity, is something tied to infant baptism. There are a lot of faith traditions that believe that something spiritually sort of transpires when one is baptized, that baptism is a gift from God, and that when someone is baptized, there is a sealing of sort that takes place, of one receiving God’s promises, and having the confidence for the rest of their life to know that baptism sort of sets the stage for the spiritual regeneration that takes place in an individual.”

Infant baptism is not biblical. In the Bible, baptism is tied to repentance and remission of sins, neither of which is applicable to infants:

Matthew 3:

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

• • •

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:

3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

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.

Acts 13:

24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Acts 19:

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.

Acts 22:

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

Infants can neither sin, nor are they capable of repentance; therefore baptism does not apply to them. His problem is that he believes in a false, apostate religion which is leading him astray. The Christianity that he believes in apostatized in the first century, and lost the priesthood and Apostolic authority that it once possessed. His best chance of salvation is to recognize that, and accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in our time. He then continues:

“So what do I believe the Bible teaches, and how do I practice this? It is actually in keeping with most of the rest of Christianity, where we believe that baptism was an ancient ritual specifically found in Judaism, that was tied to cleansing, and tied to being accepted into the community of God’s chosen people; and that Jesus sort of adopted that symbolism to command his people to sort of put action behind what is taking place in them internally. Another way that we describe this is baptism is a physical representation of a spiritual reality, so when Jesus does meet us, and we are born again, like his conversation that he had with Nicodemus, the reason why baptism is spoken about there is, because in the same way that Jesus died on the cross, and he was buried, and he rose from the dead; when we enter into baptism, we are joining Christ in that whole idea of dying to our old self, and being brought back to life, regenerated, born again. But the actual water doesn’t do anything to us, it is symbolic; that even in ancient times, when someone was baptized, it was something that was done in a public sense, and you are sending a message to your community, whether they are people who are believing the same way you are or not, to say, ‘I have experienced an encounter with the Creator, with the Maker, with my Savior, and he has changed me, and I am going to do something to publicly profess what that is, that I am joining in Christ in his death, and I am no longer the old self, and I have been resurrected with him into new life, and I look forward to an actual future resurrection.’ And it is more tied to a testimony and a proclamation, than something actually taking place.”

Except that most of that is fairy-tale, not biblical. And what he keeps calling “the rest of Christianity” is just Protestant or Evangelical Christianity—who are not the majority. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox combined make up by far the greater majority. He should quit equating his heretical Protestant, Calvinistic, Reformed, or Evangelical Christianity with the “rest of Christianity”. The Bible makes baptism mandatory for salvation, as demonstrated in the above quotes. St. Peter for example says:

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:

He then continues:

“Now again, there are debates about this in the rest of Christianity. But I think one of the main reasons why it is important for me to point out why I teach it the way I do, is because we can’t do anything to save ourselves. In fact I have spoken to a lot of LDS Church members who say that they agree with that, that we are saved only by what Jesus did through the atonement. But if that is the case, just on a logical level, that we can’t do anything to save ourselves, that necessitates that when we look at baptism, a lack of baptism shouldn’t prohibit us from salvation, or being in God’s presence, because it is fully what Jesus did on the cross. So I teach that we have to be careful that we understand the importance of baptism, and the command to be baptized; but that you don’t have to be baptized in order to get into heaven. And if someone does have a true and real restored relationship with God by faith in Christ, and they die before being baptized, that has no implication on where they are going to spend eternity. Jesus is the one who has the primary implication on where we spend eternity.”

The error that he is making there is that he is being deceived by the heresy of Calvinism, general Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and so-called Reformed theology. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that obedience to the will of God, and keeping his commandments, is required for salvation—and that is not the same as “works,” or “saving ourselves by our own works”. Those are two different things. We are saved by God when we do what he says, which is not the same as “saving ourselves by our own works”. Nothing is taught more clearly in the Bible, than that we need to repent of our sins, and keep the commandments of God to be saved:

Matthew 7:

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

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life [salvation]; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 16:

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Revelation 22:

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Luke 6:

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Luke 12:

47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Matthew 25:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

2 Corinthians 5:

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

1 Corinthians 3:

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1 Corinthians 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 2:

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew [or Christian] first, and also of the Gentile [or pagan];

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew [or Christian] first, and also to the Gentile [or pagan]:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Galatians 6:

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

James 1:

22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Romans 14:

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Revelation 20:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Psalm 62:

12 Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

Proverbs 11:

31 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.

Proverbs 24:

12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

According to these verses, one does not even needs to be a Christian to be saved. Anybody who lives a righteous life, and does what is good and right in his life out of a good conscience, will still be saved, regardless of what religion they are in. They are still saved by virtue of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, whether they realize it or not. They don’t “save themselves,” and they are not “saved by their own works”. According to the Bible, on judgement day, judgement will take place according to men’s works, not according to their “faith”:

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life [i.e. salvation]; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Revelation 20:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

This applies to people of all faiths and religions, not just to Christians. See further Matthew 25:31-46; Romans 2:6-16 quoted above, which teach the same thing. This does not mean that there is no virtue or merit in preaching the gospel. The virtue of it is that if they come to faith in Jesus Christ, they stand a better chance of repenting of their sins and keeping his commandments, which is what saves them. “Faith alone” is a heresy. There is no salvation without genuine repentance (Matt. 4:17; 12:41; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3; 15:7; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:20-21; 26:19-20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Rev. 2:5; 3:19); and to “repent” means to stop sinning. It means to stop doing what one knows to be wrong, and start doing what is right—which is another way of saying, keeping God’s commandments. His problem is that he believes in a false, apostate religion that is not biblical, and is leading him astray. His concluding remarks are as follows:

“So I hope it provides an insight and a perspective into something that maybe you didn’t know about, because I didn’t know a lot about this, which is why I just love doing this channel, because it is a reciprocal learning experience. I am learning, while also sharing what I believe, so that maybe you can learn. But I love doing videos like this. I am going to be doing a lot more, so you need to come back. So until then, I will see you later Saints.”

When he has read the Book of Mormon, and starts to intelligently comment on it, I will start to take him seriously.