In the opening of the Bible, we read, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:1-2). So, God's first step in creating the physical universe was to create the earth, but as a formless and empty ball. The physical universe was a place all of chaos. The remainder of the creation passage describes God's organizing and filling that creation, with both celestial objects and with life, culminating in His creation of man.
And then what was God's plan for man, as expressed in His creation mandates to that man? "Then God said, 'Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping them that creeps on the earth... be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Genesis 1:26, 28). So God's plan for mankind was that we would extend His work of converting chaos into productive order. Men don't have the ability to create ex nihilo, so the expression of that was to be the use of the other living things to become productive under the rule of God.
However, that plan was interrupted by the Fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The consequences of that Fall included the disruption of God's order, and descent into disorder: "The Lord God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.' To the woman He said, 'I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.'
And to Adam He said, 'Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return'" (Genesis 3:14-19).
Fist, notice who is speaking here, the Lord, i. e., Jehovah. This is the first appearance of this name, the covenant name of the preincarnate Son, who here first appears in His mediatorial role. After the Fall, all of the interactions between the triune Godhead and men occur through His mediation alone. He first curses the serpent, i. e., Satan, as the instigator of these events. The preincarnate Son curses the foe of the Church. Then He proclaims for the first time the covenant of grace, the promises to His church of His own work on our behalf, to defeat this foe and redeem us from the conseque4nces of the Fall. Then He turns to Eve, the first to sin, and pronounces a curse on the essence of her womanhood, childbirth. And last, He turns to Adam, the head of creation, and pronounces a curse on all of Adam's work in fulfilling his role as the viceroy of God.
This first announcement of the hope of the Gospel will then be expanded in the rest of Scripture. For example, we have the promises of Yahweh of new blessings on agriculture in Isaiah. See, for example, Isaiah 44:3-4, which explicitly unites both childbearing and agricultural blessings with spiritual blessings: "For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour My Spirit upon your offspring, and My blessing on your descendants. They shall spring up among the grass like willows by flowing streams. This one will say, ‘I am the Lord's,’ another will call on the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, ‘The Lord's,’ and name himself by the name of Israel."
The same prophet gives another promise of God with relates it back to the promise of Genesis 3:15: "They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the Lord, and their descendants with them. Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain" (Isaiah 65:23-24). As men experience the restoration of peace to the creation, we will also see the curse carried out of that old foe, the serpent.
In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul picks up the same theme: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that
the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and
obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And
not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of
the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the
redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience" (Romans 8:20-25). He personifies the physical creation as waiting impatiently for the Church to reach her glory, because the creation, too, will be released from the curse under which our sin has brought it.
And Paul makes it explicit that these blessings flow from that first declaration of the Gospel in Genesis 3:15: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." As the body of Christ, we the Church are credited with the victory of Christ through us, finally bringing the chaos we created back to the order which God intended.
When will these times be seen? Only God knows. However, we can enjoy the hope today that they will come.
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Mormonism and the Issue of Race
As some may know, there was a time that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons, officially excluded black men from their priesthood. This was based on a belief that dark skin was the so-called "mark of Cain" (see Genesis 4:15). They were not alone in this belief. It was used as the justification for the American system of chattel slavery (see also the curse of Ham, Genesis 9:25). The Mormons repudiated their doctrine in the 1970's. Both the imposition and the repeal of the doctrine were by supposed revelations given to their leadership.
When someone brings up this past racism with Mormons, they will be quick to point to the ending of the doctrine. And correctly.
However, while that particular racial doctrine has been repudiated, it was not the only racist teaching in Mormonism. Their Scriptures include several more cases.
For example, in I Nephi 13:15, we read, "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceeding fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." So, the good guys are white!
Next, we can read in II Nephi 5:21, "And he [i. e., the Lord, previous verse] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." In this verse, we see two things. First, God curses a group of apostates by changing them from white to black. And second, we are explicitly told that this was become UNenticing. So, black skin is bad, and black skin is ugly!
Third, we can look at Jacob 3:5, 8: "Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fathers - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them... O my brethren, I fear that ye shall not repent of your sins that their skin will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God." So, whiter is better! And to be black is to be hated.
Fourth, we will turn to Alma 3:6-9: "The skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren... And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction. And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed." So blackness is a mark from God to prevent racial mixture between good white people and bad black people, because black people are a bad influence.
And finally, turn to III Nephi 2:14-16: "It came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; and their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; and their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites..." So, if a bad black person was converted, he didn't become a good black person. Rather, according to the story, he or she ceased to be black and became white and fair. That claim should disgust any fair-minded person.
These quotes come from Mormon Scripture. That means that no individual Mormon can dodge responsibility for it with their standard response: "That isn't official doctrine." When the LDS organization claims that it no longer holds to the racist views of the past, those claims are whitewashing, no pun intended, not reality. Their own Scriptures testify against them.
When someone brings up this past racism with Mormons, they will be quick to point to the ending of the doctrine. And correctly.
However, while that particular racial doctrine has been repudiated, it was not the only racist teaching in Mormonism. Their Scriptures include several more cases.
For example, in I Nephi 13:15, we read, "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceeding fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." So, the good guys are white!
Next, we can read in II Nephi 5:21, "And he [i. e., the Lord, previous verse] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." In this verse, we see two things. First, God curses a group of apostates by changing them from white to black. And second, we are explicitly told that this was become UNenticing. So, black skin is bad, and black skin is ugly!
Third, we can look at Jacob 3:5, 8: "Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fathers - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them... O my brethren, I fear that ye shall not repent of your sins that their skin will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God." So, whiter is better! And to be black is to be hated.
Fourth, we will turn to Alma 3:6-9: "The skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren... And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction. And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed." So blackness is a mark from God to prevent racial mixture between good white people and bad black people, because black people are a bad influence.
And finally, turn to III Nephi 2:14-16: "It came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; and their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; and their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites..." So, if a bad black person was converted, he didn't become a good black person. Rather, according to the story, he or she ceased to be black and became white and fair. That claim should disgust any fair-minded person.
These quotes come from Mormon Scripture. That means that no individual Mormon can dodge responsibility for it with their standard response: "That isn't official doctrine." When the LDS organization claims that it no longer holds to the racist views of the past, those claims are whitewashing, no pun intended, not reality. Their own Scriptures testify against them.
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Calvinism and the Gift of Faith
One of the fundamental differences between Arminianism and Calvinism is their view of faith. In Arminianism, Jesus died equally for every man in the world, making the offer of salvation, receipt of which is conditioned on a response of faith. In Calvinism, in contrast, Jesus died for a particular mass of men, exclusive of others, and His death provided for every grace required by those men, including the faith to receive that salvation.
So, to the one, faith is a condition on man's part, while, for the other, faith is a means purchased in the atonement, and given by God.
There are several places in Scripture in which faith is descried as given by God, such as Romans 12:3: "By the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." And in Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." And negatively in II Thessalonians 3:2: "Not all have faith." It is given to some, and not to others.
But the one that I especially want to consider here is Philippians 1:29: "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." Faith is granted, not something created by men. That is why Jesus could say, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). Contrary to the claims of the Arminian, no man grants his faith to Jesus. Rather, faith is granted to everyone for whom Jesus died.
So, to the one, faith is a condition on man's part, while, for the other, faith is a means purchased in the atonement, and given by God.
There are several places in Scripture in which faith is descried as given by God, such as Romans 12:3: "By the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." And in Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." And negatively in II Thessalonians 3:2: "Not all have faith." It is given to some, and not to others.
But the one that I especially want to consider here is Philippians 1:29: "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." Faith is granted, not something created by men. That is why Jesus could say, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). Contrary to the claims of the Arminian, no man grants his faith to Jesus. Rather, faith is granted to everyone for whom Jesus died.
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
Spiritual Corpses, the Gospel, and the Logical Necessity of Calvinism
Part of the basis of Calvinism is not just its biblical consistency, but also the practical necessity from the human perspective.
The Bible says, "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:1-2). Not sick, not swooning, but dead. Even Jesus makes the same point: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24). Not from sickness or weakness, but from death. And to emphasize the importance of that fact, He precedes it by His signature "truly, truly." It is a fact that He wanted us to take to heart.
The thing about death is the helplessness of the person. A dead person cannot revive himself, bury himself, or in any way act for his own welfare.
The prophet Ezekiel used the same analogy: "The hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. And He led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. And He said to me, 'Son of man, can these bones live?' And I answered, 'O Lord God, You know.' Then He said to me, 'Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.' So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. Then He said to me, 'Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.' So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army" (Ezekiel 37:1-10). The prophet receives a vision of a valley full of dead bones, and he is commanded to prophesy to the bones. As he does so, God joins the bones together, clothes them in flesh, and gives them life. This is an image of regeneration, in which the dead soul of the unbeliever is transformed into a living soul by the Holy Spirit (see Ezekiel 36:25-27).
What these passages indicate is the absolute helplessness of the unbeliever to regenerate himself or to believe unto salvation. It can happen only as the sovereign, monergistic work of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is why Arminianism, in addition to being unbiblical, is impossible. It describes a man, a spiritual corpse, who can choose to believe in Jesus, only then to be brought to new life by the Holy Spirit. Try that at your next funeral: "C'mon, corpse, if you try hard enough you can become alive again!" That is the gospel of Arminianism.
The Bible says, "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:1-2). Not sick, not swooning, but dead. Even Jesus makes the same point: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24). Not from sickness or weakness, but from death. And to emphasize the importance of that fact, He precedes it by His signature "truly, truly." It is a fact that He wanted us to take to heart.
The thing about death is the helplessness of the person. A dead person cannot revive himself, bury himself, or in any way act for his own welfare.
The prophet Ezekiel used the same analogy: "The hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. And He led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. And He said to me, 'Son of man, can these bones live?' And I answered, 'O Lord God, You know.' Then He said to me, 'Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.' So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. Then He said to me, 'Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.' So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army" (Ezekiel 37:1-10). The prophet receives a vision of a valley full of dead bones, and he is commanded to prophesy to the bones. As he does so, God joins the bones together, clothes them in flesh, and gives them life. This is an image of regeneration, in which the dead soul of the unbeliever is transformed into a living soul by the Holy Spirit (see Ezekiel 36:25-27).
What these passages indicate is the absolute helplessness of the unbeliever to regenerate himself or to believe unto salvation. It can happen only as the sovereign, monergistic work of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is why Arminianism, in addition to being unbiblical, is impossible. It describes a man, a spiritual corpse, who can choose to believe in Jesus, only then to be brought to new life by the Holy Spirit. Try that at your next funeral: "C'mon, corpse, if you try hard enough you can become alive again!" That is the gospel of Arminianism.
Saturday, April 11, 2020
Jesus, Justice, and the Woman Caught in Adultery
There is a strange and controversial story found in John 7:53-8:11. In the story, the Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman who was caught in adultery. They say, and correctly, that the Law required those convicted of adultery to be put to death (see Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22). Yet, we notice at least one problem with their presentation: Where was the man caught with her? So, the Pharisees ask Jesus, what do You say that we should do with her?
Jesus does not respond with law. Rather, His response is to point at the character of the woman's accusers. Rather, He says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (verse 7). In our popular culture, this has been taken to mean that any person with any sin has no grounds for criticizing the actions of any other person. Well, we know that Jesus meant no such thing, because He had prescribed righteous judgment just before this story (John 7:24). And that indicates the problem that He had with the Pharisees in this case. Their accusations did not come from righteous grounds, regardless of their pious citation of Moses. Note that these are men who had allowed a guilty man to depart without punishment, while they were prepared to punish the woman with death! I think that this was the specific intent of the response of Jesus, quoted above. These men had justified the man because they shared his same proclivities for illicit sex, but they still wanted to play at being righteous! They all walked away in shame because Jesus had torn off the bandage with which they had been hiding their perversion.
If the text is a legitimate part of John, a question which I am not qualified to answer, then why is it here?
I started thinking about this story because of something I read in my private Bible study this morning: "I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with prostitutes and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hosea 4:14). Doesn't that sound a lot like the story from John? And in it I found what I surmised about the story that I described above. Jesus was exemplifying the same redemptive purpose that He, in His preincarnate state, had inspired in the prophecy of Hosea.
Jesus was not, and is not, opposed to true justice. After all, He was also the source of the Law. He was the Yahweh who revealed the commandments to Moses in Exodus 20:1. However, He is also our compassionate Redeemer who went to the cross on behalf of His people. Notice how He deals with the repentant thief on the cross next to Him (Luke 23:40-43). He promised the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise in just a few hours. However, He did not take the thief down from the cross. The thief was redeemed and forgiven, but still received the due temporal, legal consequence of his wicked acts (Luke 23:41). There is no sign here of the sentimental supposition that no one can judge the sins of someone else.
Jesus does not respond with law. Rather, His response is to point at the character of the woman's accusers. Rather, He says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (verse 7). In our popular culture, this has been taken to mean that any person with any sin has no grounds for criticizing the actions of any other person. Well, we know that Jesus meant no such thing, because He had prescribed righteous judgment just before this story (John 7:24). And that indicates the problem that He had with the Pharisees in this case. Their accusations did not come from righteous grounds, regardless of their pious citation of Moses. Note that these are men who had allowed a guilty man to depart without punishment, while they were prepared to punish the woman with death! I think that this was the specific intent of the response of Jesus, quoted above. These men had justified the man because they shared his same proclivities for illicit sex, but they still wanted to play at being righteous! They all walked away in shame because Jesus had torn off the bandage with which they had been hiding their perversion.
If the text is a legitimate part of John, a question which I am not qualified to answer, then why is it here?
I started thinking about this story because of something I read in my private Bible study this morning: "I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with prostitutes and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hosea 4:14). Doesn't that sound a lot like the story from John? And in it I found what I surmised about the story that I described above. Jesus was exemplifying the same redemptive purpose that He, in His preincarnate state, had inspired in the prophecy of Hosea.
Jesus was not, and is not, opposed to true justice. After all, He was also the source of the Law. He was the Yahweh who revealed the commandments to Moses in Exodus 20:1. However, He is also our compassionate Redeemer who went to the cross on behalf of His people. Notice how He deals with the repentant thief on the cross next to Him (Luke 23:40-43). He promised the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise in just a few hours. However, He did not take the thief down from the cross. The thief was redeemed and forgiven, but still received the due temporal, legal consequence of his wicked acts (Luke 23:41). There is no sign here of the sentimental supposition that no one can judge the sins of someone else.
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
Mormons, the Canon, and the Trustworthiness of the Bible
While this appears on April 1, it is not a joke.
One of the ways that Mormons attract novice Christians to their religion is by undermining the trust of the Christians in the Bible as the word of God. A major thrust in that effort is to point to books named in the Bible, but not included in it, such as the Book of Jasher. If the Bible is trustworthy, the Mormon asks, then how have those books been lost?
For example, the Mormon scriptures, the Book of Mormon, claim (I Nephi 13:26), "For they have taken away from the gospel of the lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away."
In contrast, the Book of Mormon is said to contain "the fullness of the gospel" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:9), "the fullness of the everlasting gospel" (27:5), and again "the fullness of the gospel" (42:12). Yet, mysteriously, the books supposedly lost from the Bible never appear in the Book of Mormon, or any other Mormon Scripture. If they were so valuable, why are they not found in "the fullness of the gospel"?
More interestingly, the "missing books" also don't appear in Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible, supposedly written through supernatural inspiration. He doesn't restore these lost books! In addition, Smith lost another book, the Son of Solomon! If the Mormons are correct about the Bible, then they refute their own "prophet," because he increased the supposed defection of the Bible! This is the man of whom "God" said, "I have sent forth the fullness of my gospel by the hand of Joseph Smith" (Doctrine and Covenants 35:17).
The essence of this is that Christians have nothing to fear from this challenge from Mormons. If the Mormon claim is true, it undermines their own religion. In other words, if Mormonism is true, then Mormonism is false!
The truth of these books which were supposedly lost from the Bible is that they were never part of the Bible. They were consulted by the Bible writers, and the relevant information entered the biblical text through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is comparable to this blog post. I have cited books which I have not included in the text itself. Are the books, therefore, lost? Of course not!
One of the ways that Mormons attract novice Christians to their religion is by undermining the trust of the Christians in the Bible as the word of God. A major thrust in that effort is to point to books named in the Bible, but not included in it, such as the Book of Jasher. If the Bible is trustworthy, the Mormon asks, then how have those books been lost?
For example, the Mormon scriptures, the Book of Mormon, claim (I Nephi 13:26), "For they have taken away from the gospel of the lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away."
In contrast, the Book of Mormon is said to contain "the fullness of the gospel" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:9), "the fullness of the everlasting gospel" (27:5), and again "the fullness of the gospel" (42:12). Yet, mysteriously, the books supposedly lost from the Bible never appear in the Book of Mormon, or any other Mormon Scripture. If they were so valuable, why are they not found in "the fullness of the gospel"?
 |
| Smith's Scriptures |
More interestingly, the "missing books" also don't appear in Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible, supposedly written through supernatural inspiration. He doesn't restore these lost books! In addition, Smith lost another book, the Son of Solomon! If the Mormons are correct about the Bible, then they refute their own "prophet," because he increased the supposed defection of the Bible! This is the man of whom "God" said, "I have sent forth the fullness of my gospel by the hand of Joseph Smith" (Doctrine and Covenants 35:17).
The essence of this is that Christians have nothing to fear from this challenge from Mormons. If the Mormon claim is true, it undermines their own religion. In other words, if Mormonism is true, then Mormonism is false!
The truth of these books which were supposedly lost from the Bible is that they were never part of the Bible. They were consulted by the Bible writers, and the relevant information entered the biblical text through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is comparable to this blog post. I have cited books which I have not included in the text itself. Are the books, therefore, lost? Of course not!