Category: Gospel Conversations

The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon, Part 3: A Contrast of Prophetic Messages

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations, Mormonism

Prophecy is central to the LDS church. From the time of Joseph Smith to the present, the title for every president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been “prophet, seer, and revelator.” Most members of the church believe that the word of the current prophet takes precedence over the words of former prophets. As I am told repeatedly, “That’s why we have a living prophet.”

The faith of most church members is rooted in a unique revelation that their church is the true church. These members believe their church’s departure from Biblical Christianity is justified, not because they can prove that “all Christian churches are apostate” or that Joseph Smith restored the gospel, but because they have a personal testimony that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. This personal revelation, often described as a spiritual witness, is a cornerstone of their faith. So, the church relies on special revelation for every claim it makes, and the people depend on revelation (rather than objective reasons) for believing these special revelations. We could argue that the church hangs entirely on prophecy – the prophecies of the Book of Mormon as revealed by Joseph Smith, the living prophet, and the personal revelation received by the faithful.

The Apostle Paul gives a rule for handling prophecies and a prophetic word.

And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (I Corinthians 14:32)

Likewise, John teaches us,

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (I John 4:1)

This aligns with the noble Bereans, who “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). The Bible, as the authoritative voice of God, serves as the litmus test for any prophetic word. All revelations must be measured against this standard. Testing prophetic words with the Bible is not just a suggestion but a necessity for maintaining the truth and ensuring that the church’s teachings agree with the divine word.

Our examination of the Book of Mormon centers on a desire to hold it up to the standard of God’s Word. We have already pointed out several contrasts between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Here is another: the Book of Mormon doesn’t handle prophecy like the Bible. Let me demonstrate.

A Contrast of Prophetic Messages

The Book of Mormon has several notable prophecies in it. Consider this example from I Nephi 10:7-11.

Continue reading “The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon, Part 3: A Contrast of Prophetic Messages” →

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” →

God Chose Us Before the Foundation of the World

On By Dave MallinakIn Calvinism, Expository, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church

Election is a mystery. I admit it. But the Bible teaches election, so we must as well.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6)

A Few Exegetical Notes

The word “chosen” in verse 4 is the verb form of the word “elect.” Peter uses an adjective form of the same word in I Peter 1:2.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ…

Peter uses “elect” descriptively, emphasizing the method God uses in saving them that believe. Paul uses “chosen” as a verb, showing what God did on our behalf. Paul emphasizes the result of our salvation – that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.[1] Because God has chosen us, we are sanctified (4), adopted (5), accepted (6), redeemed and forgiven (7), and we have an inheritance (11).

Paul uses the aorist middle indicative “hath chosen.” The indicative points to the reality of the choice. God’s choice is actual, not potential. The timeless aorist tells us the choice is made for all time. The middle voice tells us that God made the choice for His sake, not ours. 

This selection of the saints in this age of grace is the act of God choosing out from among mankind, certain for Himself. These become His own, to be used for a certain purpose.[2]

The context confirms this.

Continue reading “God Chose Us Before the Foundation of the World” →

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” →

Saving Grace Is Not Absolutely Irresistible

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

A friend of mine likes to remind me that in the free offer of the gospel, God isn’t play-acting. God doesn’t make a show of extending the offer of salvation to sinners when, in reality, He has withheld any possibility of them being saved. Perhaps this summarizes the conflict over Calvinism better than any other illustration.

The “I” in the TULIP represents “Irresistible Grace,” which has been described as the difference between God’s “external” call and His “internal” call. Some have modified the adjective “irresistible” to “effectual.” However, the teaching itself is fairly consistent among Calvinists.

In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended. (https://www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm)

In his online lecture on Irresistible Grace, R.C. Sproul acknowledges the problems with the term “irresistible.”

Now beloved, the history of the human race is the history of relentless resistance by human beings to the sweetness of the grace of God. What is meant by irresistible grace is not what the word suggests, that it’s incapable of being resisted. Indeed, we are capable of resisting God’s grace, and we do resist God’s grace. But the idea here is that in spite of our natural resistance to the grace of God that God’s grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome our natural resistance to it. That’s why I prefer the term effectual grace rather than irresistible grace because this grace that is irresistible effects what God intends to effect by it.

And in Chosen by God, Sproul says,

Calvinism does not teach and never has taught that God brings people kicking and screaming into the kingdom or has ever excluded anyone who wanted to be there. Remember that the cardinal point of the Reformed doctrine of predestination rests on the biblical teaching of man’s spiritual death. Natural man does not want Christ. He will only want Christ if God plants a desire for Christ in his heart. Once that desire is planted, those who come to Christ do not come kicking and screaming against their wills. They come because they want to come. They now desire Jesus. They rush to the Savior. The whole point of irresistible grace is that rebirth quickens someone to spiritual life in such a way that Jesus is now seen in his irresistible sweetness. Jesus is irresistible to those who have been made alive to the things of God. (Chosen by God, pp. 122-123)

I will admit that I have often thought of my coming to faith in Christ this way – that Christ was, in a certain sense, irresistible to me, that I found His grace irresistible when I finally embraced Him as my Savior. I would guess that believers who fought His saving call ferociously would agree that eventually, after long resistance, they found that they were powerless to resist any further.

Continue reading “Saving Grace Is Not Absolutely Irresistible” →

Why I Don’t Believe in Limited Atonement

On By Dave MallinakIn Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church2 Comments

No doubt we’ve all heard Calvinists make statements like this: “Jesus doesn’t love the world,” “Jesus didn’t die for the world,” “Christ didn’t die for all or all would be saved.” As one man said,

The Bible teaches again and again that God does not love all people with the same love. “Loved by God” is not applied to the world but only to the saints.

Defending limited atonement in Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul says,

The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation) or to the inclusion of Gentiles in addition to the world of the Jews. (Sproul, p. 206-207)

Sproul explains that the word “any” in 2 Peter 3:9 – God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” – doesn’t mean “any” in an absolutely unrestricted sense.

Any time we use the word any, we’re assuming some reference–any what? any of which group? Certainly Peter doesn’t say that God is not willing that any person perish. We had to supply that “person” as if it were tacitly understood.

But is there any other possible reference to the “any” besides any human being? Well, obviously, there are other possibilities, not the least of which is a particular class. You have a class here of people, and that word “people” makes up a distinctive class. And if I said any of that class, I would mean any person. Or I could have another class, a class called Jews, and if I spoke of any of that class, it would refer to anyone who is Jewish, or American, or whatever other group I would incorporate within that circle.

Continue reading “Why I Don’t Believe in Limited Atonement” →

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” →

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” →