When defining “traditional Christianity,” Kyle Beshears (Reformed Baptist) links it intimately with the belief in the Bible being unique as “inspired scripture.” Consider the following:
Along the way, I’ve encountered surprises
that challenged my preconceptions. I’ve found areas of common ground I never expected,
and I’ve gained a deeper appreciation for Latter-day Saint culture. At the same
time, I’ve come to recognize our real differences more clearly, free from the
fog of misunderstanding and caricature—differences that are serious, and, in
some instances, utterly irreconcilable. (p. 11)
By “traditional Christianity,” I
mean the faith that holds to four things:
1. the Holy Bible alone as
inspired scripture (i.e., not the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, nor
Pearl of Great Price);
2. the ecumenical creeds (e.g.,
Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed);
. . .
The first point rallies around
the common authority, the Word of God inspired by him. . . . Confessing the
ecumenical creeds further differentiates the two traditions. (Kyle Beshears, 40
Questions About Mormonism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2026], 15)
It should be noted that Beshears, as a Reformed Baptist,
cannot hold to (1) the canons of Nicene and other ecumenical councils
(which teaches an ordained, sacerdotal priesthood, viaticum, and baptismal
regeneration, and other beliefs that are erroneous, if not heretical in his
view). The same for Nicea and its ecclesiology and sacramental theology not
being “Calvinistic” (such as its explication of baptismal regeneration). One
can read the canons of Nicea (325) here.
Furthermore, Beshears tends to read into the biblical texts
(1) cessation of public revelation at the end of the New Testament and (2) formal
sufficiency of the Bible into passages without providing any meaningful
exegesis of the texts. In the book, it is assumed, but never exegetically
proven. Consider the following elsewhere in his book:
[In early LDS history, the Bible]
was foundational as an authority and necessary as a source of revelation, but
it was not final. (Ibid., 97, comment in square brackets added for
clarification)
The Inspiration of the Bible
God delights to reveal himself in
the handiwork of his creation (see Ps 19:1-6) and in the “divers manners” (Heb
1:1) he communicates. Theologians call these general and special revelation,
respectively. It is general because God reveals himself generally through
creation to all people across time and every culture, and special because
he also reveals himself in more comprehensive, concrete, and clear ways than
natural forms of revelation. At the core of God’s divine revelation is Jesus
Christ, the Word of God incarnate (see John 1:1, 14; Heb 1:1-3). All generation
revelation was “created by him, and for him” (Col 1:16), and all special revelation
readies, reveals, and reminds us of him (see Luke 24:25-27, 44-49; John 5:39).
Throughout centuries, Christians recognized this message in the special
revelation of the Bible—the word of God proclaimed by his Spirit, penned by
inspired writers, and providentially preserved by him who illuminates faithful
reading in the hearts of all saints.
The Bible is a library of books
collectively testifying of God’s work to bring about redemption for his glory.
The New Testament declares “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2
Tim 3:16) and every passage has the quality of being inspired, or God-breathed.
The Old Testament is often self-consciously aware of its inspiration as a
record of the very voice of God (e.g., “Thus saith the Lord”), recognizing prophecy
did not come “by the will of man: but the holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet 1:21). The NT frequently draws upon the OT
while recognizing its own content being among “the other scriptures” (2 Pet
3:16). (p. 98)
Under the heading “The
Sufficiency of the Bible”:
It’s better to call the canon
set, not closed, to recognize how Christians still believed God spoke, though
he had chosen to do so through inspired texts about the Lord Jesus (see Heb
1:1-3). The living God does still speak—his gospel proclaims Christ’s
redemption, his Spirit testifies of Christ, and God whispers in his still,
small voice to his saints in prayer. The Bible trains Christians how to recognize
God’s active voice. (Ibid., 99)
Under the heading of “The Authority of the Bible in Mormonism”:
Ultimately, the most significant
difference between traditional Christian and LDS views on the Bible orbits its
nature. Is the Bible a sufficient source of special revelation, or does it need
supplementing by an extended canon? Of course, Latter-day Saints have long
believed in the need for additional scripture. However, many traditional
Christians view supplemental scripture with suspicion. For conservative Protestants,
the denial of the Bible’s sufficiency is tantamount to rejecting sola
scriptura because the “authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired [if]
total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded.” (Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy, introduction). Worse yet, to tamper with the word of God
is to jeopardize the gospel. (Ibid., 102)
Summary
The Bible is foundational to
Mormonism, but as an authority it is not final. The difference between
Christians and Latter-day Saints concerning the Bible isn’t whether it is
important but why it is important. Mormonism denies the sufficiency of
the Bible because it suffered corruption in its manuscript history, and God
continues to speak through prophets today. This point is especially amplified
on the nature of salvation. While Christians believe the Bible contains all
things necessary for salvation, Mormonism includes other texts, like the Book
of Mormon. (Ibid., 102-3)
Was [Joseph Smith] a true prophet
or a false one, and how could we tell? Was he even a prophet at all, if “in
these last days” (Heb. 1:2) God has spoken finally by his only begotten Son,
the Word of God (see John 1:1), and not a mere man? (Ibid., 40, comment in
square brackets added for clarification)
Apart from reading many of the essential “building blocks”
of Sola Scriptura into the Bible, Beshears shoots himself in the foot with
respect to his comments on Heb 1:2. After all, absolutizing the passage, it
means that public revelation ceased at the ascension, which means none of the
New Testament books are “God-breathed,” instead, only useful historical witnesses
en par with the Didache and 1 Clement. Furthermore, after the ascension, God continued
to reveal public revelation to “mere m[e]n,” i.e., all the New Testament authors.
To see why Heb 1:2, 2 Tim 3:16-17, and other texts do not
support Sola Scriptura, see:
Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
