Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
55 of 78 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Witnessing to Mormons? Here's a Great Resource, September 2, 2001
Ron Rhodes has proven himself very helpful to modern Evangelicals. This volume contains a lot of very helpful exposition and exposing of standard Mormon doctrine, rhetoric and psychology. But probably the most helpful aspect of this volume is Rhodes' and Bodine's ability to walk the reader through "reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons." The title itself is descriptive. Rhodes' and Bodine's recommended witnessing strategy of asking questions is not only good sense, it also provides greatly needed instruction for engaging Mormons in respectful dialog.
As I have sought to witness to my Mormon friends and acquaintances, as well as teach regularly on the subject, I have returned to this helpful volume and directed others to do the same. My main reason for this, as I mentioned before, is the recommended witnessing tactic of asking questions. After all, a question ends with something shaped like a fish hook. What better tactic can we employ in seeking to persuade others of the truth?
But as one reads this wonderful volume it becomes very clear that the authors are dependant upon a host of prior publications. This is not bad in and of itself. But I would recommend that the serious Christian consider availing herself or himself of that additional literature, especially the works of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, James White, the Ostlings, and the many helpful volumes published by Signature Books (e.g., the works of D. Michael Quinn) -- as well as the recently published "The Mormon Defenders" (J.P. Holding) and the soon-to-be-published, "The New Mormon Challenge" (eds., Francis Beckwith, et al). In combination, these works supply the scholar's perceptive analysis, the insider's insight, and the evangelist's wise strategies.
Probably the one area where I would take issue with is the authors' theological persuasion: Dispensationalism. Their commitments in this area tend to weaken their case against certain Mormon arguments, especially in the area of eschatology and prophecy (which can be bolstered with reference to such volumes as "Last Days Madness," by Gary DeMar) and faith and works (which can be bolstered with reference to such volumes as "The Gospel According to Jesus," by John MacArther).
Regardless of my few criticisms, as a former Mormon regularly engaged in witnessing, I believe this volume is a worthy addition to the library of every contemporary Christian seeking to bear faithful witness to Jesus Christ in a world filled with pseudo-Christian religions.
|
|
|
22 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Uneven and incomplete, April 19, 2005
Ron Rhodes does many things right in this book. It has some pretty good doctrinal discussions and bible-centered responses to mainstream Mormon doctrines. That said, it has some of the classic drawbacks of anti-Mormon ("A-M") literature and avoids responding to some of the toughest pro-Mormon biblical scriptures. Here is a brief review of the book by chapters.
Chapter 3 ("The Restored Church?") provides a generally good response to the biblical verses Mormons use to claim that a total apostasy occurred. However, Mr. Rhodes needs to expend a little more time and energy to find neutral, academic sources for his extra-biblical critiques of Mormon doctrine. Citing to other A-Ms (Farkas and Reed, Tanners, W. Martin, McKeever, etc.) is intellectually unbecoming. WILLING OMISSION ALERT: Mr. Rhodes provides no response to several pro-apostasy verses such as Isa. 11:11, Dan. 2:44, Amos 8:11-13 and 1 John 2:18-19.
Chapter 4 ("True Prophets of God?"), which addresses Mormon prophecies and church structure, is unconvincing. Mr. Rhodes' response to 1 Cor. 12:28 is to claim that prophets no longer exist in the traditional sense (pp 72, 79). This claim might surprise many sects with which Mr. Rhodes claims fellowship, who still believe in the gift of prophecy along with other spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:11-13).
Mr. Rhodes likewise falls short in his explanation of a lack of need for new apostles (p 73), considering the fact that the new testament shows several new apostles being ordained. WILLING OMISSION ALERT: Mr. Rhodes cites only one of the two tests for apostleship -- seeing Jesus -- and uses that to make his case there can be no new apostles, but ignores the other test -- that an apostle be a person "which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us" -- that would puncture his argument because it is a test under Mr. Rhodes' interpretation of the verse that the apostle Paul clearly would have failed. See Acts 1:21-22.
Mr. Rhodes is similarly shortsighted in claiming that because the foundation to the celestial city mentions twelve apostles (Rev. 21:14) that this necessarily means there can only be twelve apostles (p 74). Under his reasoning, not only would Paul, Barnabus and Matthias *not* be apostles, Judas Iscariot *would* be a foundation to the celestial city. Yikes!
As an aside, note that Mr. Rhodes gets his date wrong on the appearance of the Salamander Letter (p 69). It was late 1983, not 1980. Get your facts straight, Mr. Rhodes.
Chapters 5-6 (the Book of Mormon) are uneven. The author has some good material, such as a well-done rebuttal to purported Book of Mormon prophecies in Isa. 29:1-4 (pp 92-98) and Ezek. 37:16-17 (pp 101-103). By not overextending himself on Rev. 22:18, he also puts forth a good case that the JST version of the bible violated that verse (pp 111-113, 144).
However, Mr. Rhodes' analysis of James 1:5 falls short (pp 105-111). I have never understood why A-Ms object so vehemently to the Mormons' straightforward interpretation of this verse, which also meshes with the injunction of Jesus in Mat. 7:9-11 (ask God for something and like a good father he will grant it).
Chapters 7-10 (bible inerrancy) are weak. According to Mr. Rhodes, simply because a book is cited in the bible doesn't mean it was supposed to be included (p 140). Oh? He seems to be working backward from a conclusion. Mr. Rhodes previously cited Jer. 30:2 for the principle that inspired written words are scripture (p 91), but somehow, the book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chron. 29:29) is not? Call me simpliste, but that seems a tad inconsistent.
I also got a laff out of Mr. Rhodes' table of fulfilled bible prophecies (pp 157-158). He would have had difficulty maintaining the fiction of biblical inerrancy when comparing Mat. 27:9 and Zech 11:12 (Matthew mistakes Jeremiah for Zechariah), so he glosses that over by referencing a more opaque Matthew verse (Mat. 26:15) and comparing it to Zech. 11:12, at the expense of the clearer Mat. 27:9.
Chapter 11 (migration to the Americas and the other sheep) was adequate. Mr. Rhodes does a satisfactory job rebutting the Mormon interpretation of John 10:16, although he doesn't directly address the "hear my voice" issue.
Chapter 12 (the Melchizedek priesthood) was poorly thought-out and unfocused. Mr. Rhodes' discussion of Melchizedek seems to be more an argument against some of his co-religionists, rather than against Mormons (pp 199-208). His alchemy for turning the priesthood of Jesus (Heb. 7:24) from the KJV's "unchangeable" into "untransferable" is to hunt for a preacher who says so (p 210). I guess when Mr. Rhodes said that when talking with Mormons one should "use only the King James Version of the bible" (p 35) he really meant to add "...except when it's convenient not to." Besides, if the priesthood were untransferable, then how did Melchizedek come to hold it? Hmm? Then, after telling us there is no more Levitical Priesthood and we cannot share in the Melchizedek priesthood (pp 213-215), Mr. Rhodes commits the classic A-M blunder of asserting "all who personally place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are 'priests'" (p 216). Am I missing something? Is there some other priesthood I don't know about?
Chapters 13-15 (nature of God) have Mr. Rhodes struggling, mostly unsuccessfully, with various scriptures regarding God's nature. He tries to explain away the visibility of God by saying that when God spoke to Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend" that just meant God was speaking to Moses "clearly and openly" (p 224), not that God was actually talking to Moses like one friend actually talks to another. I ask you: which interpretation is more literal and straightforward? I guess when Mr. Rhodes counsels us to employ "a literal method of interpreting scriptures" (p 181) he really meant to add "...except when it's convenient not to." Then he tries to shore up this hermeneutical sandcastle by pointing out that God refers to himself as a bird in Ps. 91:4 (p 224). Therefore, by some magic, that means Exod. 33:11 must be figurative too? Mr. Rhodes needs to read his own book, where he classifies the Psalms in the genre of biblical "poetry" and counsels "[t]he wise interpreter allows his knowledge of genres to control how he approaches each individual biblical text" (pp 180-181). So we should interpret historical narrative (Exodus) with poetry (Psalms)? Physician, heal thyself! Also, Mr. Rhodes later apparently forgets his position on this issue and states "Isaiah saw the Lord God Almighty seated on a throne" (p 304).
Anyhow, on to other items. How does Mr. Rhodes come to the conclusion from Isa. 31:3 that God "is formless" (p 230)? Also, Mr. Rhodes' chief explanation for the plurality of Gods in Gen. 1:26-27 ("let *us* make man in *our* image") is that Queen Victoria did it as well (p 248). This explanation is unsatisfactory to say the least, but when you don't have the bible to back you up, I suppose you gotta go with something.
On the trinity, if all three members of the trinity always had omniscience as Mr. Rhodes claims (p 258), how is that the Jesus is described as having *increased* in wisdom (Luke 2:52)? I was likewise mystified by Mr. Rhodes' analysis of Mat. 3:16-17 (the baptism of Jesus, with God the Father calling from heaven and the Holy Ghost descending like a dove on Jesus). The main thrust of his argument is that God is not three *personages* in one God, but rather "three persons in one Godhead" (p 255). Excuse my confusion, but isn't this the Mormon position? WILLING OMISSION ALERT: where is Mr. Rhodes' rebuttal to the Mormons' position that John 17:20-23 demonstrates a unity of purpose and not physical being? Any discussion Mr. Rhodes has on the nature of the trinity that doesn't address these verses is going to be, to a certain extent, a straw man.
Chapter 16 (the pre-existence) is poor. In his attempt to explain away Jer. 1:5, Mr. Rhodes admits that the verse "speaks of God calling and setting apart Jeremiah before he was born" but then Mr. Rhodes also states "the verse says nothing about Jeremiah pre-existing in any state whatsoever" (p 299). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if God calls you and sets you apart, does that not *necessarily* mean you exist in some fashion?
Mr. Rhodes also misapplies 1 Cor. 15:46 to the first and second stages of our existence (pre-mortal and mortal life), when the verse and the whole chapter of 1 Cor. 15 speaks to our second and third stages (mortal life and resurrection). WILLING OMISSION ALERT: nowhere in the chapter does Mr. Rhodes take on the tough pro-Mormon scriptures such as Job 38:4-7 or, if you're hung up on who the "sons of God" are, Prov. 8:27-31 (sons of men were with Wisdom in the pre-existence).
Chapters 17-20 (salvation in Mormonism) is uneven. Mr. Rhodes does a decent job refuting Mat. 5:48 (pp 313-316), but a poor job of trying to explain why baptism is unnecessary and why baptism for the remission of sins does not exist, when the bible clearly states it does (Acts 2:38) (his argument is essentially a word play on the word "for" in Acts 2:38 (pp 327-329)). His analyses of John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 are likewise unconvincing. In Mark 16:16 in particular, his response to "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" is to sic the second clause of that verse on the first (p 332). That's hardly harmonious scripture interpretation, I think you'll agree.
There's more word play in Mr. Rhodes' analysis of James 2:24, 26 and the need for good works. Mr. Rhodes proclaims "a person is justified by faith alone" (p 335). Too bad for Mr. Rhodes the scripture actually states "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only"...
Read more ›
|
|
|
33 of 50 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Superb book on Mormonism!, May 20, 2003
By A Customer
As a former devout and temple worthy Mormon Elder, I was thrilled to find this book. The best book I've found on Mormonism that accurately and fairly represents their beliefs vs. biblical teachings...and I've read quite a few. What I found so helpful is that the authors take you scripture by scripture, showing clearly and logically the accurate meaning of biblical passages while fairly presenting the Mormon interpretation/explanation as well. For example, I'd always believed that the bible had somehow been "tampered" with over the years. And yet, the authors explain how there are nearly 24,000 (that's right...24,000) copies, fragments or quotes from other sources that verify the complete accuracy of what's written in our bibles today.Amazing! In other words, what our bibles say today is exactly and precisely what the prophets, Jesus and his apostles wrote thousands of years ago! How sad for me, then, to discover that Mormon doctrine is a complete distortion of this, a dangerous "other" or "false" gospel to what Christ and his apostles actually preached. Simply put, this book is an absolute must read for anyone investigating, questioning or otherwise wanting to know more about the Mormon church and it's completely unique teachings. If you only buy one book on Mormonism, make it this book. You won't be disappointed. I just wish I'd found this book when it was first published in 1995...
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Ron Rhodes
by Ron Rhodes
by Ron Rhodes
by R. Philip Roberts
by Walter Martin
