More on David and Steven Conversations

 

Since I had posted my previous message about a conversation between David Alexander and Steven McAuley on LDS theology and doctrine, I just noticed that several follow-up conversations have taken place between them which can be seen on David’s YouTube Channel. I am not going to link to the videos because in all of them David does all the talking, leaving very little room for Steven to talk, express his opinions, or to ask questions; and I am mainly interested in what Steven has to say. In the videos Steven gets to ask two basic questions that require to be properly answered:

The first relates to the eternal and unchanging nature of God, as understood in traditional Christian theology; and how it contrasts with the LDS understanding of the subject as found in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet Joseph Smith (that God was once a man who progressed to become God). The King Follet discourse is not part of the canonized scriptures of the Church, and therefore in the strict sense cannot be regarded as official Church doctrine. It carries a lot of weight because it was taught by Joseph Smith, and it has been the subject of a great deal of speculation among Latter-day Saints in the past; but until more information is given about it by revelation, and it is canonized, it cannot be regarded as official Church doctrine. Anything said about it amounts to speculation, rather than expressing official, approved Church doctrine. The theology and doctrine of the Church is ultimately contained in its scriptural canon. Anything taught that cannot be supported by that is not Church doctrine.

The second question he asks is whether we consider our prophets and Apostles to be “infallible”. The answer is, yes and no! The correct theology about that is taught in the following passage from LDS scripture:

Doctrine and Covenants 68:

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

So the correct answer to that question is that they are not infallible. Their teachings may be considered to be “infallible” only when they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, as they write or speak; and that may not always be the case. There have been instances in the past when they have taught doctrines which have not always been correct. So they are not infallible—only as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, when they write or speak. The question then arises: How do we know when they are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The answer is given in Doctrine and Covenants 50:17-23. We will know, when we ourselves are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”. So this is the will of the Lord concerning his saints: that they should always have the Holy Spirit with them; and always be able to discern truth from error, regardless of its source or origin.

The fault I find with David Alexander is that he seems to like the sound of his own voice too much! He likes to do all the talking, rather than let those he is interviewing to do any talking. What is the point of interviewing other people, if you are not going to let them say anything, and do all the talking yourself?

Is Repentance a Gift From God?

 

I came across the above video in which David Alexander discusses LDS theology and doctrine with Steven McAuley, who is an investigator, a potential convert to the Church. I am going to comment only on a brief segment of it. At 39:33 minutes into the video Steven asks David the following question, to which David then gives the answer as follows:

Steven: “Can I ask you a question about that? As far as repentance, is that like … I have always been taught that repentance also was a gift from God, that pretty much was impossible outside of his grace. Do you also view repentance in that way, that repentance is a gift; or more of a choice that everybody has?”

David: “Well it is a gift, it is a gift. It is a gift of God to repent for sure; and if someone believes in Jesus, truly sees that Christ died for your sins, the normal response man—if I see somebody died for me, I owe them my life, sure; and if he says ‘repent,’ I want to repent; it isn’t like somebody has to twist my arm. If you have to twist somebody’s arm, they don’t even understand that Christ died for them …”

That is not the best possible answer to that question, from an LDS theological perspective. It sounds too much like a Calvinistic or Evangelical answer, rather than an LDS one! David is well versed in the Bible, due to his former Evangelical background; but he has not yet sufficiently mastered modern LDS scripture to be able to extract correct LDS theology from it. The correct answer to that question, from an LDS point of view, is yes and no! Repentance is a gift from God, but not in the Calvinistic or Evangelical sense. The correct LDS theological perspective on that is to be found in the following verse from the Book of Mormon:

Alma 34:

15 And thus he [Jesus] shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

What that means is that without the Atonement of Jesus Christ, repentance would not have been possible. It is the Atonement of Jesus Christ that makes it possible for mankind to repent, and thus obtain the remission of their sins, and the promise of eternal life. So repentance is indeed a gift from God, in the sense that without the Atonement of Jesus Christ, repentance would not have been possible. But the choice is still theirs whether to repent or not. It is indeed “a choice that everybody has”. But it is not a “gift” in the Evangelical and Calvinistic sense: that you can only “repent” if God wants you to and makes you to, and has predestined and predetermined you to, and thus gives you the necessary “grace” to enable you to.

Pastor Jeff Answers LDS Questions

 

Pastor Jeff McCullough has posted a new video in which he attempts to answer questions put to him in the comments section of his videos. I am going to respond only to the first question put to him, and his response to it. Someone by the name of Vicki Wannop puts to him the following question:

“Have you prayed to God with an open heart and contrite spirit to know if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and those things you don’t believe in, are true? Have you searched the scriptures to see the true meaning? Are these things that might be very controversial in your religion, and cause you to be afraid, or not open up to the truth of them? I am not trying to be smart or anything, just asking real questions?”

To which he then gives the following answer:

“This is a really good question Vicky, because it really drives at a really foundational question, and that is, how do we arrive at what we believe, or what we put our faith in? I am aware that Vicky is asking this question because in the Book of Mormon, and throughout Latter-day Saint teaching, there is a call, after reading the Book of Mormon, or meeting with missionaries, or contemplating Latter-day Saint doctrine, to pray and ask the Lord if it is true; and if you get a feeling that it is true, or if you feel a burning in your bosom, then that is confirmation that the Holy Spirit is giving you faith to believe in these things. The opportunity for someone to embrace a more biblically orthodox, mainstream Christian understanding of the gospel, doesn’t start with, ‘You have heard all these things, do you think they are true?’ It actually starts with something is being presented, doesn’t match your reality. Let me explain:

“The mainstream Christian idea of the gospel starts with this very real and simple concept that ever since the garden of Eden, all of mankind is lost, and dead in their sin; that we are conditionally sinful, and separated from God. So really the consideration to embrace the gospel starts with looking in the mirror, that this idea talked about in the scriptures, of this conditional reality, matches the reality of how we experience existence every day. It is when we agree with God on our fallen condition, and our need for a Savior, that we then are able to consider taking a step of faith, of embracing the invitation that he has given us to put our faith in Jesus as the remedy for our sin.

“So to answer Vicki’s question, I have thought about, and I have prayed about, and I am investigating the claims from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; but my lack of embracing those things, is more tied to the fact that I believe what the Bible teaches about my condition that matches my reality; and I believe that the faith that I have put in Jesus has brought me alive in ways that I never experienced prior to putting my faith in Jesus; and there is nothing that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint teaches, that in any way sort of augments this joy-filled and peace-filled reality that I experience on a daily basis as I walk indwelled by the Spirit, looking forward to the hope of resurrection with him. So I appreciate and understand the question, and hope that my honest response to that gives insight into how I consider the truth claims of the LDS church.”

I have issues with both the question that is put to him (or how it is phrased), as well as the answer he gives in response to it. The “question” relates specifically to the Book of Mormon. It relates to a promise that is contained in the Book of Mormon, as follows:

Moroni 10:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things [i.e. the Book of Mormon], if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

The promise is contained in the Book of Mormon itself. It specifically relates to the Book of Mormon, and is associated with prayerfully reading the book, not just “praying” about it. The “witness” comes as a result of prayerfully reading the book, with a sincere desire to know of its truth. It is not about praying to know if the “Church” is true, or the “missionaries,” or “contemplating Latter-day Saint doctrine” etc., as he has expressed it. Once the truth of the Book of Mormon has been established (by a personal revelation), however, that also confirms the truth of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and of the Church that he established by a revelation from God. Either the Book of Mormon is true, or it isn’t. It can’t be half and half, or somewhere in between. And if it is true, that also makes Joseph Smith a true prophet, and the Church he established God’s true Church. That is what the “praying” is all about. It is about establishing the truth of the Book of Mormon first and foremost, not something else.

Another mistake that he makes (which may also in part be the fault of Latter-day Saints), is that he associates this testimony of the Holy Ghost with “feelings,” which again is not correct. The Holy Ghost is a revelator, it reveals truth:

John 14:

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 John 2:

20 But ye have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

• • •

27 But the anointing [Holy Ghost] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

When the Holy Ghost reveals to you the truth, then you know. You are not “guessing,” or just having vague “feelings” about it. That is how Peter knew that Jesus was “the Christ”:

Matthew 16:

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Peter knew something. He wasn’t just “guessing,” or having some good “feelings” about something. That is how the testimony of the Holy Ghost works. It is spirit communicating with spirit. It is something that can only be experienced. It is not something that can be described, explained, communicated, or conveyed to someone else. Each person can only experience it for himself. It is like the “oil in the lamp,” which cannot be “shared” with someone else (Matt. 25:1-13). The reason why Latter-day Saints sometimes talk about it in terms of “feelings” is because they have no other way to describe it. But it is a knowledge, an assurance, a divine witness, not just a “feeling”. How did Peter know that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16-17)? He wouldn’t have been able to explain to someone else how he knew; that is why Jesus had to tell him. But he knew; he wasn’t just guessing, or having good “feelings”. The testimony of the Book of Mormon by the power of the Holy Ghost is obtained in the same way.

The rest of what he has said in his response to that question are basically irrelevant to the answer to that question. How he understands the gospel based on his biblical or historical understanding of Christianity is irrelevant to the question of whether the Book of Mormon is true or not. The Book of Mormon does not contradict what is in the Bible. The Book of Mormon claims to be a book of ancient scripture in addition to the Bible, and confirms and supports what is in the Bible. It is more of the same. It serves several purposes. Its first purpose is to be a witness to the restoration of the gospel in the latter days. If it is true, that means that the Restoration is true. It means that a restoration of the gospel has taken place. Its second purpose is to clarify many doctrinal matters over which the Bible has been ambiguous, or has lacked sufficient clarity, and which has resulted in numerous doctrinal and theological controversies among Christians (see Doctrine and Covenants 10:62-65). Its third purpose is that “faith also might increase in the earth” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:21). Having gained a divine witness by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and is true; it also increases our faith and testimony that God lives, that he is real, and that he is “unchangeable” (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 7:24; James 1:17; Mormon 9:19; Moroni 8:18; Doctrine and Covenants 20:17); that he is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8; 1 Nephi 10:28; 2 Nephi 2:4; 27:23; 29:9; Alma 31:17; Moroni 10:19; Mormon 9:9; Doctrine and Covenants 35:1); and that he is just as willing and able to reveal himself to us in our time as he did to prophets anciently; and to give us revelation and scripture as he did anciently; which in turn has a tremendous power to increase the faith of those who have obtained that divine witness for themselves. These are the purposes for which the Book of Mormon has been revealed in our time. And the promise is that much more shall be revealed in due time.

Finnish MP Prosecuted for Tweeting Bible Quote

 

So talking about sin in public in Finland is now a criminal offense. I wonder what comes next? Holding church services in public will next be a criminal offense. Preaching Bible sermons will be a criminal offense. Praying to God in a congregation will be a criminal offense. It is not far from that.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2023

More developments have been taking place regarding this case in Finland since I posted this message 55 days ago, which can be seen in the following video:

Waiting to see what the end result will be. Hope that the Finnish establishment have a bit more sense than they appear to at the moment.

David Alexander vs. Calvinists

 

I found the above video in which David Alexander debates the gospel with two Evangelicals, Michael Jacqmein and Theodore Jantzen. Michael has his own YouTube channel called “Found Cause,” where the same video appears in a somewhat different format, which can be seen here. It is one and a half hours long, parts of which are incoherent, so I will try to give it a selective reply. The main focus of the discussion is the meaning and purpose of the “Atonement,” from either LDS or Evangelical perspectives. The following quote from the transcript begins at about 2:43 minutes into the video. This is how the Evangelical side define the Atonement, from their theoretical point of view (emphasis added):

Michael: “But Theodore, you want to take that question? What is the Atonement? How do you see it?”

Theodore: “I guess there is like … ‘at-one-ment,’ like bringing us back to God, I guess; bringing us into the right relationship with God. And then the Atonement I suppose has also to do with it the forgiveness of sins, repentance, obedience, and faith. But the Atonement it is basically Jesus dying on the cross, paying our price for sins with, and we are given his imputed righteousness upon faith. And therefore on Judgment day, God basically sees Jesus’ righteousness, instead of our attempts at righteousness, or something like that.”

Michael: “Yeah, and I will just piggyback off that and give the like official scholarly phrase we both believe. I believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ as payment for sin is penal, meaning it is taking on a penalty from God. So God punishes sin because he is a just God, it is part of his character, and so he has waited patiently, and he hasn’t punished everyone in their due time. But come their death, there will be a day where God ultimately judges and punishes sin. And so in the Atonement of Christ, he takes on that punishment in the place of his people. So that is penal, and it is substitutionary, meaning, like Theodore said, he is subbing out his righteousness for ours, and our unrighteousness for his. So he becomes a curse on the cross, as scripture says, it is hung on a tree. He takes on all of the payment that we would rightfully take from God, and instead he receives all of our due damnation; meaning he was killed, he was bodily killed, and went into sheol, to the grave; but of course he is God, and rose again because he is the Lord; he is not a man, or just a man; and then equally and we instead of having all of our unrighteousness, all our sins against God judged on Judgment day, we will instead be judged on Christ’s righteousness, his obedience to the law. And therefore the results of the Atonement are manifold right there, there are many; but one of them is that we get to live in the freedom from the law; and free to obey God out of joy, not out of obligation or confirmation. So that is the basics of our view of the Atonement. How would you take the Atonement? How would you describe it?”

He has described the Calvinistic and Evangelical theological position very well, which is not biblical. There is no such thing as “imputed righteousness,” in biblical terms. The words “impute” and “imputed” as used in the Bible don’t have the kind of meaning that they like to attribute to it. In biblical terms, the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes it possible for us to repent of our sins and be forgiven of them, which otherwise would not have been possible; and to “repent” means to turn away from sin. It means to stop doing what one knows to be wrong, and start doing what one knows to be right. It is another way of saying, “keeping God’s commandments”. And the Atonement of Jesus Christ does not mean that we “get to live in the freedom from the law” either, as he has expressed it. That is as false and unbiblical as it can get. The Atonement does not free us from keeping the law. It makes it possible for us to repent when we break the law, and be forgiven; but it does not free us from obeying the law. The Bible defines sin as a “transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4; James 2:11; Rom. 5:13). To suggest that we get to “live in the freedom from the law,” would imply that we are free to commit sin with impunity and get away with it, which is indeed the (unstated) theological position of Calvinism, and which is about as damnable, heretical, unbiblical, and false as it can get. The gospel of Jesus Christ is all about repentance, meaning to turn away from sin, and keeping the commandments of God. Nothing is taught more clearly in the Bible than the need for repentance, in order to obtain forgiveness and remission of sins, and reconciliation with God:

Matthew 4:

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 12:

41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Mark 6:

12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Luke 5:

32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 13:

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Luke 15:

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just [righteous] persons, which need no repentance.

Luke 24:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

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 17:

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Acts 20:

20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,

21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 26:

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Romans 2:

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

2 Peter 3:

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Revelation 2:

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; …

Revelation 3:

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

And to “repent” means to turn away from sin (as the people Nineveh did: Jonah 3:5–10; Matt. 12:41). Jesus came not to call the righteous but sinners to “repentance” (Luke 5:32); and there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that “repenteth,” than over ninety and nine just [righteous] persons, which need no repentance (Luke 15:7). “Repentance” is the prelude to the remission of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). There is no forgiveness of sin without genuine repentance; and repentance entails doing works meet for repentance (Rom. 2:4; also Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8). It doesn’t just mean to “change your mind;” and it is not something that just “happens” to people, like it or not, because they have “believed”—as the heresy of Calvinism teaches. The choice is always theirs whether to repent, keep God’s commandments, and be saved; or to continue in sin and transgression, and be damned. “Believing” doesn’t prevent one from doing either. “Devils also believe, and tremble” (James 2:19); and “believers” who sin receive a greater punishment than “unbelievers” who commit the same sin (Luke 12:47-48).

And no one is “saved” until they have “endured to the end” (Matt. 10:22; 24:12-13; Mark 13:13)—meaning to remain faithful to the gospel to the end of one’s life. “Instant salvation” is a figment of the Evangelical and Calvinistic imagination, there is no such thing. The parable of the sower explains how one “endures to the end” (Matt. 13:1-9, 18-23; Mark 4:1-10, 14-20; Luke 8:4-15). It means to remain true to the faith, true to the gospel, to the end of one’s life, and not be overcome by the temptations and persecutions that one may have to encounter for the truth’s sake. Now this does not mean that we cannot have an assurance of our salvation. It is possible to have that assurance, by knowing that we have made a firm commitment, and unalterable decision, to remain true to the gospel to the end of our life—regardless of the consequences, or all the temptations and persecution that we may have to encounter. 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). So it is possible to have the assurance of one’s salvation. But there is no such thing as “instant salvation” of Calvinism and Evangelicalism.

So to summarize, the biblical meaning of the Atonement is that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross on our behalf makes it possible for us to repent of our sins and be forgiven of them, so that we will not be held accountable for them on judgment day. There is no “imputation” (as the Evangelicals and Calvinists like to understand it); and there is no “freedom from the law” either, as he has expressed it. We still need to keep the law. The difference is that we are no longer bound by the Law of Moses. That law was abolished by Jesus Christ. We are now bound by the higher law that Jesus gave in the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. This doctrine is neatly summarized in the following verse in modern LDS scripture:

Alma 42:

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

Doctrine and Covenants 19:

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Doctrine and Covenants 58:

42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I the Lord remember them no more.

43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold he will confess them, and forsake them.

Calvinism and Evangelism is antithetical to repentance—which is central to the biblical message. It pays lip-service to repentance; but in reality and in practice, denies it. It is all about “faith alone,” and no “works!” Repentance is something that just “happens” to people whether they like it or not just because they have “believed!” Doing good, repenting of our sins, and keeping God’s commandments are “works,” and you are dammed! That is the theology of Calvinism and Evangelicalism.

At around 15:17 minutes into the video, after David had done a good job of explaining the LDS doctrine of the Atonement, Theodore interrupts, and after quoting 2 Nephi 2:22-26, interjects this question: “Do you think God also fell such that he would have joy?” That is a dodge. It is a digression, and a complete change of subject. The subject of the discussion is the meaning and significance of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, not about where God came from. At 18:07 minutes into the video Michael, in response to David, makes the following Comment:

Michael: “Well if I may … give our response to a couple of items … and then you can pick right back up. One was you said, quoting 1 John—which I would encourage anybody, Mormon and Christian like to read—1 John talks about those who walk in darkness, and say they walk in light, are liars, they make God a liar, and we would absolutely affirm that; that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is purely at the judgment seat; so when we die, and we are faced with judgment, and God is deciding righteous or unrighteous, that he judges you righteous based on Christ’s works, not your own. That is not to say that we are guaranteed heaven because of some ticket that got punched and therefore we can do whatever we want on the earth, like 1 John says, if we walk in darkness, but say we walk in light, we are liars, we are not actually under Christ’s blood. So it is not that we were under Christ’s blood, and then got out of it; that we never were Christ’s. So if our heart has not changed, and we aren’t doing righteous works here on earth, we really have no stance to think that we are Christians. And so we should be in fear that on that judgment day, when we come to God in judgment, that he will not say, you are not under Christ, he will say you are getting judged in your own works, because you never were in Christ.”

To that then David replies: “And then you I think the Latter-day Saints would say this would say the same thing.”

I have to disagree with David on that one! That is not how I would respond to that. I see two problems with what Michael has said in the previous quote:

(1) On judgment day, we will not be judged on the basis of the “imputed righteousness of Christ”. On judgment day, we will be judged on the basis of whether we had repented of our sins, and thus obtained a remission of them in this life, by virtue of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, or not. There is no such thing as “imputed righteousness,” neither in this life, nor on judgment day. Indeed, the Bible teaches that repentance is the more critical element in obtaining forgiveness and salvation than faith. An unbelieving Gentile who does what is good and right in his life out of a good conscience, will be saved; whereas a believing Christian who does evil (and does not repent), will receive a greater condemnation. That is the message of these verses: Acts 10:1-8, 21-22; Rom. 2:6-16; Col. 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17; John 5:28-29; Matt. 7:21-27; 25:31-56; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 6:7-10.

(2) The second problem with that is the assertion, or assumption, that once we are “in Christ,” or “under Christ,” or “under the blood of Christ,” as he describes it, that it is impossible for us to go wrong, or do wrong, or go astray, which again is not biblical. You base your theology on what all of the Bible teaches on a given subject, not on a few isolated passages that appear to support your view, and ignore the rest which evidently contradict it. There are plenty of scriptures that teach that it is possible for us to go wrong, depart from the faith, after we have believed and had faith etc. (Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-28; 2 Peter 2:20-22; Ezek. 18:24-26).

After that David quotes from Matthew 7:15-21, “Trees are judged by their fruit,” to which Michael then replies:

Michael: “Well, we would say a tree is judged by its fruit; but the Judgment of the tree is not indicated by its fruit. A good tree produces good fruit; so it is not that a tree becomes good because it produces good fruit; it is that it is a good tree, and therefore it produces good fruit. And so we are all about the nature of somebody being changed, not appearance”.

That again is a misreading of the scriptural passage (Matt. 7:15-21). Jesus gave that as a test by which to judge a true prophet from a false one. He didn’t mean by it that a “good tree” automatically produces “good fruit,” and cannot do otherwise; and a “bad tree” automatically produces “bad fruit,” and cannot do otherwise. In the analogy that Jesus is employing, the “tree” can decide whether it wants to bring “good fruit” or not, and thus to become a “good tree” or not. In John 15 Jesus explains how that happens:

John 15:

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

If we choose to abide in him, we become a “good tree” bringing forth “good fruit;” if we choose not to abide in him, then we become a “bad tree” bearing forth “bad fruit”. The choice is ours. Can a true prophet (bearing good fruit) apostatize, and produce bad fruit? Of course he can. Can a false prophet (bearing bad fruit) repent, become a true prophet, and bear good fruit? Of course he can. Calvinism’s potential to lead people astray is limitless.

A little further down, following a comment by David that our nature can be changed through the gift of the Spirit, the following exchange takes place:

Michael: “Well, and I agree that through the Holy Spirit, that our natures have changed; but I think this is actually where I have a problem, and then Theodore has probably, the Protestant church has a problem, with the so-called authority of the LDS Church; because they refute the Protestant, the Christian understanding of Atonement, that has been an understanding for the past 2,000 years. They refute and say, Those who believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement are damned, they are wrong, they are in the wrong Church. I don’t know your opinion, that is why we are asking you David.”

There are several issues with that. Firstly, I am not sure that the LDS Church would be so harsh and judgemental on anyone who believes in “Penal Substitutionary Atonement”. I haven’t seen any official sources that would indicate that. “Penal Substitutionary Atonement” is not a biblical term; so whether it represents a correct theology or not, would depend on how it is defined by those who advocate it, or make use of the term. I can define it in a way that it would support my theology, and Evangelicals can define it in a way that supports their theology; it all depends on how you want to look at it. The second issue I have with that statement is that according to my research, Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a Protestant invention, it is not something that has been believed by Christians throughout history—certainly not the Protestant understanding of it. I have no problem whatsoever with Jesus dying on the cross as a “substitute” for us, to pay the “penalty” for our sins—and neither would the Church. It is the additional baggage that Calvinists, Evangelicals, and Protestants like to add to it that causes the problem. His conversation with David then continues as follows (emphasis added):

David: “Can you explain again Penal Substitutionary Atonement?”

Michael: “Yes, ‘penal’ meaning there was a punishment, just punishment for sin; and those not under Christ, are under the punishment of death, as scripture says, the penalty for sin is death, the payment for sin is death … and then ‘substitutionary’ meaning that Christ took all of our sins on him, so he has substituted himself in our place. So it is not that he pays just for our Original Sin, just for the Fall of Adam; and not just for some of our personal sins, but for all of our sin; so and he changes our nature, so we are substituted by Christ entirely. It is not, we are not brought into the Kingdom with conditions, it is a pure substitution. Would you agree with that?”

My answer to that would be No. I can agree with part of that theology, but not all of it. I can agree that Jesus’s Atonement is “penal,” meaning that Jesus paid the “penalty” for our sins. But the application of it to us is not “unconditional”. It is conditioned on our repentance. And repentance means to turn away from sin. And it is something that we chose to do or not to do. It is not something that just “happens” to people whether they like it or not just because they have “believed”. The conversation with David then continues as follows:

David: “I don’t know, good question! You will probably hear me say, ‘I don’t know’ a good bit! … I am just curious, what do you do, there is I mean, we could look them up, but I think there is roughly five different places in the New Testament, where it talks about how we are going to be judged according to our works; what do you do with those things?”

Michael: “Well, I thoroughly believe them, so Jesus Christ in the Gospel says this, right, he says … and so that is the view of being judged by your works, is that if you are not judged righteous, you will be burned; and if you are judged righteous by your works, you will be brought to heaven. But the question then, the gospel question there David is, whose works are being judged? Do you think you could be judged righteous by your works?”

The answer to that is definitely yes; we are judged by our works, our own works. “They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29). We are required to do good works; that is written all over the Bible. And we will be judged by them. Here is one example among many, by none other than Jesus himself:

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.

I see no “imputation” there anywhere, nor any kind of “substitution”. The only remaining question is, what happens when we have sinned? The answer is, we will be forgiven of them on condition of repentance. There is no “imputation” and no “substitution”. It is all about the forgiveness, the remission of sins on condition of genuine, sincere repentance.

At around 28 minutes into the video David quotes some Bible verses which suggest that gaining salvation is a process, rather than an instantaneous, one-off event, to which Michael then gives the following reply:

Michael: “We would refute that idea, and point right back to 1 John which you have already quoted, because 1 John he writes, ‘Little children, I write to you so that you might know that you have eternal life.’ Do you think that John means that you will have eternal life? Because he says it in the present tense, ‘you have eternal life,’ right now. In what way do you think we have eternal life right now?” 

The answer to that is that when two or more passages of scripture appear to be teaching contradictory doctrines, there can only be one explanation: There is something wrong with our interpretation of one or more of them. The word of God is consistent, it does not contradict itself. If sometimes it appears to, then the problem is with our reading of the text, not the text itself. When Jesus repeatedly says that only those are saved who “endure to the end;” and has taken the trouble of giving us the lengthy Parable of the Sower to explain how that works; and there are also numerous other passages of scripture that supports that in numerous ways (e.g. Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-28; 2 Peter 2:20-22); and then John comes along, and says something that appears to contradict all of that; the conclusion has to be that there is something wrong with our reading of John. The answer is that the passage in 1 John is not meant to be taken literally. That was a common way of speaking in those cultures at that time. For example Jesus in his final prayer to the Father says, “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, …” (John 17:11). That did not mean that Jesus was literally and physically “no more in the world,” because obviously he was. He was speaking figuratively, anticipating his death, which was shortly to take place. The same rule of interpretation applies to our reading of 1 John. It means that our salvation is assured, guaranteed, secured by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, provided that we remain faithful to the end. It does not mean that we are instantaneously “saved,” and cannot be “unsaved”.

Jumping further down, at about 43:25 minutes into the video, Michael responds to a comment by David as follows:

Michael: “I mean, you push too hard on this analogy (of the narrow way that leads to life). But I say the same thing: if it is reality that there are mixed people, there are people who are good, but also bad, why doesn’t the Lord describe some trees as yielding both good and bad fruit, and that they must choose the way of life, or something like that? Nowhere does they say that, not in any of his analogies does he say that there is a mix.”

Actually there is, or something close to it. In John 15:2 Jesus says, “… and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” It is always better to bring more good fruit than less. So all trees which bear “good fruit” are not the same. Some bear “more good fruit” than others. The same doctrine is taught in the Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:1-23, Mark 4:1-20, Luke 8:4-15). All seeds that fall on good ground don’t bear the same fruit. They “bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred” (Mark 4:20).

At 53:42 minutes into the video, David asks Michael the question, referencing 2 Corinthians 12:1-4: “Do you think there is three Heavens? Why would Paul say he was caught up to the third heaven?” To which Michael then gives the expected Evangelical reply. That is a question that I had previously dealt with in an earlier blog post, which can be seen here. There is more left in the video that could be talked about, which I will leave for a later time if I get time.

So the conclusion has to be that his Calvinistic, Evangelical, Protestant, “Reformed” theology is altogether unbiblical, heretical, and false. The sooner he ditches it, the better it will be for him.