Category: Apologetic

The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon: a Contrast of Writing Styles

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations

When we compare the Bible to the Book of Mormon, we’re essentially contrasting a literary masterpiece like Shakespeare with a Junior High creative writing class. Both have their unique narratives, but one stands out as a masterwork. While the Book of Mormon is often touted as another testament of Jesus Christ and a scripture volume on par with the Bible, I find it challenging to draw more than a surface-level comparison between the two.

Continue reading “The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon: a Contrast of Writing Styles” →

The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon: Another Challenge to my LDS Friends

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations, Mormonism

The Book of Mormon is subtitled “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints website,

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel. [1]

Most members of the church read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Sunday School classes teach a three-year rotation with a year spent studying the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon.* So, the three are familiar enough to you, and you probably see many similarities between them.

You probably won’t be surprised to hear that when I read the Book of Mormon, I don’t recognize the same voice, the same message, or any more than a superficial comparison between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I understand that might offend you, but I hope you will at least consider my perspective. You might find it helpful, at least, to know why orthodox Christians like me cannot accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture.

I want to offer the following points of contrast: the Bible and the Book of Mormon don’t have comparable sources, don’t have a comparable theme, don’t have a comparable writing style, the prophetic voice is not comparable, the moral standing is not comparable, and the glory that shines from the Book of Mormon does not compare to the glory that shines forth from the Bible.

Continue reading “The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon: Another Challenge to my LDS Friends” →

Subjective Truth vs Objective Truth: Some Thoughts for the LDS

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations

One of the most attractive features of the LDS church is the encouragement members get to pursue revelations. In the early days of the church, this might have been its most popular custom. However, after a short time with this arrangement, Joseph Smith recognized its dangers.

In September 1830 Joseph and Emma Smith moved from Harmony, Pennsylvania, to Fayette, New York. When they arrived, they found that some Saints were being deceived by claims of false revelations: “To our great grief, … we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive, and seeking whom he might devour. [1]

In response, Smith received a revelation that placed a limit on the revelations that might be received by members of the church.

But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses. And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church. [2] (D&C 8:2-3)

The church still encourages revelations. In fact, the church insists that if you haven’t received a revelation, you haven’t received the Holy Ghost. As Harold B. Lee taught,

Any Latter-day Saint who has been baptized and who has had hands laid upon him from those officiating, commanding him to receive the Holy Ghost, and who has not received a revelation of the spirit of the Holy Ghost, has not received the gift of the Holy Ghost to which he is entitled. [3]

But these revelations are subject to the teachings of the church. As Elder Gerald N. Lund insisted in a 1997 devotional address at BYU,

Revelation from God does not contradict gospel principles or go contrary to established Church policy and procedure.

When there is new doctrine or new procedures to come forth, you will get it in one of three ways:

a. A formal press conference will be called by the leaders of the Church, at which an official announcement will be made.

b. It will be announced through the Church News, the Ensign, or other official Church communications.

c. It will be announced in general conference by those in authority.

Otherwise, we should be very wary about accepting it, and we should not share it with others. [4]

Over many years of life and ministry in Utah, I have heard many accounts of personal revelations. One man told me about personal conversations with George Washington and Ben Franklin. Politicians tell voters they received a direct impulse from the Spirit that led them to run for office. John Hyrum Koyle received a visit from the Angel Moroni. According to Koyle’s account,

the messenger showed him in vision a massive depository of gold ore in the hills near his home. He was also told that the mine would produce financial relief, in the form of gold coins, after a future economic collapse. The sacred treasure would benefit the people by keeping alive the local economy during the financial crisis and other devastating calamities. [5]

Thus, Koyle founded a mining operation and established the Dream Mine. Other members of the church (such as the Lafferty brothers and Brian David Mitchell) have had revelations that led them to commit heinous crimes. Thankfully, this kind of “revelation” is not common among the members of the church.

Continue reading “Subjective Truth vs Objective Truth: Some Thoughts for the LDS” →

Why Good People Object to the Doctrine of Perseverance

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church

I also think that that little catch phrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading because again, it suggests that the persevering is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. Now, I believe, of course, that saints do persevere in faith and that those who have been effectually called by God and have been reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit endure to the end, so that they do persevere. But they persevere not simply because they are so diligent in their making use of the mercies of God. But the only reason we can give why any of us continues on in the faith even till the last day is not because we have persevered so much as that is because we have been preserved. And so I prefer the term the preservation–the preservation–of the saints, because this process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God. (R.C. Sproul, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK-QdF64yng)

I understand the “P” in the TULIP to say that the God who saves a man keeps that man to the end. Thus, Sproul and many others have suggested that the “P” would better represent Calvinist theology if it stood for “preservation” instead of “perseverance.” Indeed, the Bible emphasizes not the perseverance of the saints but God’s preservation of the saints.

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6)

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. (2 Timothy 2:12)

I have attempted to engage honestly with Calvinism, avoiding caricatures while expressing my objections based on Scripture. My main objection has been to the Calvinist tendency to blur or erase the paradox, the mysterious interaction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility and free will. This tendency shows up in various ways in the first 4 points of Calvinism. But in the doctrine of perseverance, I see a different problem related to what R.C. Sproul acknowledges above. If Sproul admits the problem, I am not alone in my concern. But Sproul and other Calvinists haven’t done themselves any favors.

The word “perseverance” is terribly misleading. Nor do these quotes help things. Consider what a variety of famous (or infamous) Calvinists have said.

Conclude we, then, that holiness in this life is absolutely necessary to salvation, not only as a means to the end, but by a nobler kind of necessity — as part of the end itself. (A. W. Pink “On Sanctification” https://gracegems.org/Pink/sanctification.htm)

Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort.  (Charles Hodge comments on I Corinthians 10:12 https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hdg/1-corinthians-10.html)

Endurance in faith is a condition in salvation (R. C. Sproul “Grace Unkown” – this article deals extensively with Sproul’s book: https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/grace-unknown-the-heart-of-reformed-theology/)

Continue reading “Why Good People Object to the Doctrine of Perseverance” →

Five Lies of Easy-believism

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church3 Comments

Once upon a time, people would deny that they preached “cheap grace,” even if they did. But we live in a brave new world where up is down and down is up. Today, if you speak out against “easy-believism,” hordes of people rush to embrace the charge. They love that low-grade, 1-ply grace, wide as the ocean, deep as spit on a sidewalk. They defend it furiously. If you disagree, “Go ahead and go to hell, you dog!”

If you ever interact with this deadly heresy, you will quickly discover that you aren’t dealing with the sharpest tools in the tool shed. They hover somewhere on the idiot-o-meter between a poached egg and a bread crust. This is the kind of lie people believe when they have determined not to think. I would be grossly overstating the case to say they have a half-baked theology. Trying to follow their argument is like trying to trace the flight path of a sparrow. Rhyme and reason made a dramatic escape from the prison of their minds long ago.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

So, why engage this stick figure of a doctrine at all? Because easy-believism has been gaining a head of steam for a while now. I had no idea until I posted one thing on Twitter, pointing out the lunacy of the thing. Suddenly, a virtual confetti storm of trash arguments descended on my head. Easy-believism is the illegitimate child of Jack Hyle and Stephen Anderson. I wish to treat it with all the dignity it deserves.

Having interacted with the cheap grace champs, I see five lies regularly promoted in their arguments. These five lies are argued like Joe Biden preaching the virtues of Bidenomics. Though Bidenomics might have slightly more intrinsic value (if that is even possible). I mention these five lies because you might accidentally step in something and wonder what the smell is coming from your shoes. You’ll want to understand how to clean that off your shoe.

Here are the five lies of easy-believism:

Continue reading “Five Lies of Easy-believism” →

Unconditional Love, Unconditional Election

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Calvinism, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church1 Comment

R.C. Sproul objects – I should say strongly objects – to the notion of unconditional love. In a popular video discussion, Sproul was asked, “When everyone is talking about the love of God, and God loves me just as I am, how would you respond?” He answered,

The kingdom of God is not Mr. Rogers’s neighborhood. I think there are few things more dangerous than preachers out there preaching that God loves everybody unconditionally because the message that is heard by the people who hear that is there are no conditions. I can continue to live just as I’m living in full rebellion against God, and I have nothing to worry about because there aren’t any conditions that I have to meet. God loves me unconditionally. I don’t have to repent, I don’t have to come to Jesus, I don’t have to leave my life of sin. No conditions, no strings attached. God loves me just the way I am. He’s glad that I turned out so nicely…

I don’t disagree with this. At least, not entirely.

In 2011, Tullian Tchividjian (Billy Graham’s grandson) published his book Jesus + Nothing = Everything.In 2013, he published One-Way Love: Inexhaustible Grace for an Exhausted World. Tchividjian is a neo-Calvinist, definitely not orthodox (consider his “Upside-Down Christianity” described here). However, Tchividjian has borrowed heavily from classic Calvinist teachings to describe God’s unconditional love. Tullian likes to use edgy language in his descriptions of God’s grace. For example,

Continue reading “Unconditional Love, Unconditional Election” →

No Faith Without Repentance

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church1 Comment

Jack Hyles and Curtis Hutson catechized and indoctrinated many Independent Baptists into believing that repentance merely means a turning from unbelief to belief in Jesus. Piggybacked onto this false notion of repentance is the idea that any attempt to call sinners to turn from their sin is preaching “works salvation.”

At the end of last week, a Tweet came across my feed, and I responded. My response shouldn’t be controversial, yet out of the woodwork came the easy-believism brigade, led by @BeBerean7, @Honest_Mommy_, and @Pastorb_IFB. @BibleLineMin jumped in briefly but without much substance. Here is the “controversial” tweet.

I can see why this would be a popular “gospel.” Telling people they only need to add “belief in Jesus” to their somewhat crowded lists of self-interests must be very attractive. Though I don’t generally hear the promoters of this false gospel say it in so many words, sinners everywhere hear the message loud and clear: “I can hang on to my sin and still go to heaven when I die.” In fact, @weecalvin1509 helpfully provided me with an example of a pastor preaching easy-believism at its ultimate conclusion:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxZk7VBSpAmtedx94X2LH9lW9NYiKiu4dv?si=XR9iPEX2PtPU-1hY

Easy-Believism 101

It isn’t unusual for the promoters of easy-believism to isolate “faith in Christ” and treat it as if it were a lone act and as if it were possible for that to be the sole obedient response to the gospel call. They talk as if a person can make a one-time profession of faith, forget all about it, live the remainder of their days without regard for God, and still expect to hear “well done, good and faithful servant” at the end of their days. The advocates for easy-believism treat every kind of discipleship, sanctification, “following Christ,” obedience, and so forth as optional add-ons. They will argue that we don’t need to follow Christ to be saved. “Saved” merely means (as @BibleLineMin has pinned on his Twitter page) that you “believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and is risen to pay for all your sins. The moment you believe, you receive eternal life that can never be lost.”

Continue reading “No Faith Without Repentance” →

TULIP Trouble

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church3 Comments

The relation of divine sovereignty to human responsibility is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. It is plain from Scripture in any case that both are real and that both are important. Calvinistic theology is known for its emphasis on divine sovereignty – for its view that God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). But in Calvinism there is at least an equal emphasis upon human responsibility. (John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, p. 14)

I open with this quote because, first, John Frame is a well-known Calvinist, and second, because he accurately describes here the mysterious interaction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in salvation. Recently, I placed as the tenth on my list of things I wish would change among Independent Baptists, “overstated anti-Calvinism.” In my explanation of that objection, I said that quite often, in their haste to refute Calvinists, many Independent Baptists caricature Calvinism. In response to that article, some friends asked me to explain my objections to Calvinism, which resulted in an initial post in which I objected to the way Calvinists tend to blur the paradox between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in their presentation of the gospel. Now, I want to raise before you the primary proof that in Calvinism, this paradox is either blurred or ignored.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The TULIP does not account for man’s responsibility at all. Period. It gives no consideration to man’s responsibility, and nothing in it would give anyone the idea that man is responsible before God to repent and believe the gospel. If a person learning the TULIP were to take that as the summary of Christian doctrine, they would conclude that man has no part in God’s plan for our salvation other than to wait and hope that God might save him. The TULIP is an effective mnemonic device, for sure. But as far as a summary of Christian doctrine, it falls woefully short. One could argue that the TULIP only gives one side of the coin – later, I will contend that it also goes beyond Scripture in its attempt to describe God’s sovereignty in salvation. But supposing that the TULIP does give one half of the truth, half the truth is not the truth.

Continue reading “TULIP Trouble” →

One Example of the Shoddy Way People Treat the Preservation Passages

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Hot Topics, Preservation9 Comments

And yes, I know that is a long title.  Maybe I read the Puritans too much.

Recently, I encountered a lengthy but well-written blog post describing the three major approaches to the preservation of God’s Word.  The article on the Berean Patriot blog sets forth its purpose in the title: Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101.

Kudos

The article is, according to the author, more than 18,000 words (I took his word for it).  I had a long flight recently, so I loaded the article before the flight and read it (with a few breaks) over about 3 hours.  The author does (in my opinion) tremendous work laying out the principles of textual criticism and the nuanced approaches of those who hold to the critical text compared to those who hold to the majority text.  I especially appreciated Berean Patriot’s (BP) honest interaction with these two approaches. 

But BP’s handling of the Confessional position (about 2/3 through the article) left much to be desired.  If you take the time to read it, you will no doubt notice the shift from careful analysis and interaction to a casual dismissal of the confessional position.  I find this bias frequently, so I thought I should take the opportunity to interact with BP’s description and analysis as an example of the shabby ways the confessional position gets treated. 

But before I deal with what BP gets wrong, let me say he gets some things right.  He rightly states that confessional bibliology assumes

God must have “kept (the scriptures) pure in all ages”.  By this, they mean that God wouldn’t allow the true version of the Scriptures to be replaced with a corrupt version of the scriptures.  Or at least, He would preserve a true version for His faithful followers.

He quotes Thomas Watson in support of this, which I appreciate.  John Owen also wrote extensively about this, and recently Jeff Riddle has published John Owen’s work on this subject.  It is helpful to note that the Puritans believed that God preserved the words of Scripture, not just the message and that this is the historic view of preservation. 

I appreciated BP’s clarification of the source for the Textus Receptus:

The primary Greek source for the King James Version was the 1598 version of Theodore Beza’s Greek New Testament.  The main source for Beza’s New Testament was Robert Estienne’s 1550 Greek New Testament.  (Estienne was also known as Stephanus.)  Estienne’s New Testament is remarkably similar to Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, but Estienne claimed he didn’t use Erasmus’ work as a source.  The first document to be called “Textus Receptus was the 1633 printing of the Elzevir Greek New Testament, which was substantially identical to the 1565 version of Beza’s Greek New Testament.

Continue reading “One Example of the Shoddy Way People Treat the Preservation Passages” →

Here’s Hoping for a Solid Debate on the Text Issue

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Preservation2 Comments

On February 18, James White will debate Thomas Ross on the text issue.  You can learn more about the details of the debate here.  I look forward to the debate for several reasons.  Let me tell you how:

First, my appreciation for James White

I understand if some of my KJVO friends don’t share my enthusiasm for James White.  He has handled some of us pretty roughly over the years.  But I do have an appreciation for Dr. White.  I have had the privilege of meeting him; I have had the opportunity to get to know a fine young man planting a church in Salt Lake out of Apologia Church, and we share several mutual friends.  Despite several significant differences, I believe Dr. White to be a brother in Christ.  That said, here are a couple of things I appreciate about Dr. White.

First, I live and serve the Lord in Utah.  I cannot express the value of Dr. White’s ministry in this state.  For many years, he has traveled to Utah to preach the gospel to the LDS and engage them in debates or discussions.  I have to say that he has set a tremendous example for the way we ought to engage these neighbors.  My good friend, Pastor Jason Wallace, hosts Dr. White almost annually and has held a variety of debates at the University of Utah – including one infamous debate with a nut-wing professor who attempted to get Dr. White to drink antifreeze on stage.  Dr. White has shown a willingness to engage unbelievers from nearly every form of unbelief, but I believe his best work has come from his engagement with the LDS.  I had the privilege of sitting in on a discussion he had with Alma Allred, which I consider to be one of the most important public discussions with a Mormon in the past decade. 

Second, I appreciate Dr. White’s willingness to continue to engage on the text issue.  Yes, I recognize that he wants to defeat the position I hold dear.  But I am grateful that he believes we are still worthy of debate.   

Third, Dr. White believes in presuppositional apologetics, as do I.  I consider this key in the debate with Thomas.  We should take a presuppositional approach to preservation. 

Second, the opportunity to hear a Biblical case for textual criticism

I am excited to hear Dr. White present a presuppositional case for textual criticism.  I have searched the Internet, hoping to find someone who would make the case from Scripture for textual criticism, and so far have come up empty.  Perhaps one of my readers can point me to a book, YouTube video, or website that lays out the case from Scripture for textual criticism, but I have yet to hear one.

Continue reading “Here’s Hoping for a Solid Debate on the Text Issue” →