Transcription
What's going on, guys? They say some of the hardest people to evangelize are those who think they're saved. But the second hardest have got to be people who think their religion is superior to Christianity, particularly Mormons. Mormons think that all other religions are false. They suffer from a superiority complex that's second to none. Frank Turk finds himself challenged by one of those Mormons in this video, but the conversation takes an interesting turn. So stick around to the very end to see how the conversation unfolded.
But if you're new here, this is "By the Book." My channel is dedicated to giving you sound biblical commentary and apologetics, and giving you answers to the toughest questions. I'm going to chime in here and there, and I'm going to give my thoughts at the end. So let's get right to it. Thanks for being here.
I'm a big fan. I've read three out of your four books (here, up on the screen). I agree with probably 95% of your presentation today. Really good.
Good, 'cause I only agree with 93%.
Good, excellent. I'm a Latter-day Saint, also known as a Mormon. Yes. And one of the things that prevents me from being an Evangelical or Protestant Christian is the tradition of *sola scriptura*. Do you accept *sola scriptura*, properly defined?
Okay, would you agree with *sola scriptura* being that the Bible, the 66 books of the Protestant Canon, are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians?
No, not defined that way. Tell me how you would describe that because *sola scriptura* means—and this was typically a debate between Catholics and Protestants—that for faith and practice, the scriptures are our authority, not church councils, not tradition, not popes. But *sola scriptura* itself technically isn't quite enough because, in order to understand what's in the scriptures, you need reason, you need logic, you need context. So there's something in theology you may be aware of, Hayden, called *prolegomena*. That's what you do before you do theology. You have to know logic, you have to know cause and effect, you have to know that words mean things—grammar, this kind of thing—that's *prolegomena*. You need to do that to read an article on the internet, much less the Bible.
Okay, so... so that's great. I guess my question—natural revelation—in other words, my question more so goes around the idea of the scriptures being infallible. Do you take that stance?
Yes.
Do you... do you posit that as a theological claim, or do you have evidence for that? Or... I'm wondering about your argument. I... it... in... on the authority of Jesus. Okay? Because Jesus said the Old Testament is the word of God, and he promised the New Testament. And I just have a personal policy, Hayden, that somebody predicts and accomplishes his own resurrection from the dead, I just trust whatever the guy says.
Can you help me understand what you mean? Jesus said that the New Testament would be infallible? Is that your position?
Well, he said the scriptures are infallible. Okay? And the implication is the Old Testament scriptures were in his day, but he promised his disciples he would lead them into all truth and bring to their remembrance everything he said and did, so they ultimately would write it down. And then those people were confirmed by miracles. And Peter himself actually refers to Paul's letters as scripture.
Does Christ ever say the scriptures are infallible? I'm hung up on this infallibility of scripture.
If you go to John 10:38, he says the scripture cannot be broken.
Okay, that's right. Yes. Also, he says to the Sadducees or the Pharisees—I'm trying to remember which—when he says, probably the Sadducees because they didn't believe in the resurrection, and that's why they were sad... do you see... you'll never forget that, right? Um, he says to them, "You... not knowing the Scriptures..." It would be odd to say, "You not knowing the Scriptures," if the scriptures also erred, wouldn't it?
Do the scriptures need to be infallible? Or like... I... I still don't... why... why are you having a problem with infallibility because you want to add the Book of Mormon?
Not necessarily. We don't believe the Book of Mormon is infallible either.
Right. We don't believe the standard default position is that humans are fallible; therefore, anything we produce is fallible.
Oh, that's not true.
Okay, I'm not saying we can't say things that are true, because then the statement you just made sure could be has to be wrong.
Not necessarily.
It could be. That's right. Not necessarily. It could be wrong.
It could be. That's right. I can say things that are true, say things that are false.
That's right. So... so do you think we need an infallible source? Or... well, if God is the standard of truth, and that's of course what everyone knows to be God... yes, he's going to produce a revelation that doesn't have errors in it. Now we may misunderstand it. Okay? So that's my question.
Why... why do you posit that the authors of the Bible—most of them anonymous—could understand and interpret infallibly? I'm not saying it's not correct. I'm saying 'cause fallible would be possible of error, but your... your position would be they are not possible of error. My... my concern is they could be possible of error. But I'm going... that's... I'm going on the authority of Jesus.
So you would agree they could... they are fallible? Poss... I'm not saying they are, of course, it could be. But then if I said the scriptures were fallible, I'd be disagreeing with Jesus, and that's never a good place to be.
Jesus... well, he never said the New Testament was... He's saying the Old Testament is the word of God, and he's promised in the New Testament... Do you think he's going to say the Old Testament is true, but the New Testament—these guys are going to write down—as false?
Maybe. But you also are pointing to the text to prove the text. Right? You're looking at... So do you accept that circular reasoning?
No, it's not circular reasoning because New Testament scholars that look into this have enough criteria when they look at these documents to know that Jesus said these things based on different tests, like embarrassing testimonies, one... dissimilarities, another... I believe the text is reliable. I do, but I don't see evidence for infallibility, and it seems like you agree that they could... that because they're written by humans... like... okay. But here... here's your... here's your... you're making... I think you're making a mistake, Ken. You're saying that since humans err, they always err.
No, I'm not saying that. Say... could... could human beings write down an inherent book?
No, because they are... they are... fun... inherent books other than the Bible.
Okay. Okay. But I mean, if you want to write a book that's one line that says, you know, "I exist," sure. But the Bible's not one line. It's very complicated. Right? So... so you're saying every line in the Bible is infallible? That's just... okay. While also saying that humans are fallible. So how can a human write an infallible book?
Let me chime in real quick, guys. The guy kind of refuted his position when he admitted that fallible people can write an infallible book, even if it's just one line. It kind of refutes his own point. However, the Bible's position is not that fallible men wrote an infallible book. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit guided fallible men to write an infallible Book. 2 Peter 2:20-21 says, "Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in scripture ever came from a prophet's own understanding or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God." So the guy is kind of building a straw man against inerrancy. But let's get back to it.
Humans write infallible books all the time.
Well, no, they write books that are true. Okay? But capable of error. That's... that's the question. They're capable of error. But most... most math books are true.
Okay. Okay. But are there errors in the math books?
There might be. But some math books don't have errors. Like when I read my first math book, 2 + 2 = 4.
Sure. If you want to make it one line. But the Bible's not one line. Okay. Right? Does that make sense? What are you... what are you trying to get at, Aiden? If I could believe... are you trying to find an opening for Mormonism? My... if I was... if I believed in the infallible... infallibility of the Bible, I would be a Protestant. So that's what I'm trying to figure out.
Welcome home. Why... why... why wouldn't you be? What... what evidence do you have that the Book of Mormon is true? Or... or Pearl of Great Price? Or Doctrine and Covenants?
I would argue that there are... there's... there are more witnesses for the Golden Plates of the Book of Mormon than there were for the... for the resurrection.
We can't go too much further in this. We got a big line. Let me just say this: Are... are Golden Plates a miracle in the way that they were received by Joseph?
Yes.
Do you know how he received them? I mean, you're arguing like an atheist. I could say... I could say... I could say the same thing about the resurrection. How do you know the resurrection? Well, because we have multiple eyewitnesses. How many eyewitnesses do we have for the Golden Plates?
Nineteen.
Nineteen. Yes. Who all saw them come from Heaven? They saw the Golden Plates. They handled them. They make Golden Plates in my garage. Sure. But you... how many extant witnesses or witness testimonies were left of the Resurrection? Who left of the Resurrection?
What do you mean, how many? How many firsthand accounts of the Resurrection were left? Witness testimonies were left?
Well, you have Paul. Okay? So one. You have John. Okay? You have Matthew. You have Luke, who interviewed eyewitnesses. You have Mark, who probably got his testimony from Peter. You've got Jude. You've got... who am I leaving out? James. Okay? So that's five or six. Okay? And then you got Paul saying to the church at Corinth there are 500 others, and if you don't believe me you ought to check with them. He would have lost all credibility if he had said that and there was nobody to check.
Sure. But there's... there's no witnesses... I mean, there's no accounts from 500. Right? That's Paul on Paul's word. Take that. But why would Paul say that if he's trying to build credibility with the church at Corinth if there were none of these 500? There... they would have all... they'd have said, "Paul, you're lying. There's nobody here who says they've seen the resurrected Jesus." And by the way, I believe Paul, but I'm saying on the... on that same standard of witnesses... like if there was not 500, would you still believe?
Sure. Well, but we do have 500. It's... it's a counterfactual question. But let me just ask you this:
Sure.
How are Golden Plates a miracle? A resurrection is a miracle. Golden Plates can be a miracle, but they don't have to be. They can be... well created.
Sure. Is that your... is that your stance that Joseph created the... the plates? Is there any evidence for that whatsoever? Is there any... well, let's... it's not... I don't have the burden of proof to prove that Joseph created them. You have the burden of proof to say they came from Heaven. Okay? So I think the burden or the... um... evidence for the burden of proof would be the text of the Book of Mormon itself that Joseph translated or dictated in 65 days—over 4,000 words a day—he was translating... 269,000... that Joseph has been exposed as a fraud when it comes to translations—the Book of Abraham and all that. Do you know all this?
I know all the arguments. Yes.
Okay. Well, but you're arguing... but you're arguing like... like an atheist. You're casting doubt on somebody maybe who wasn't perfect.
I'm not saying he was. But no... I... I'm... so we could have a debate on the Book of Abraham. I'm willing to do that with you, but probably not right now.
No, no, no, no, no. Not right now. The question is: An Evangelical Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?
Yes.
Okay. But... but the issue is... the issue is I... I believe I'm a Christian, but not in the way that you obviously would define that.
Okay. Well, remember what Paul said about another gospel in Galatians chapter 1: If anybody comes to you and tries to give you another gospel, may that person be accursed. Mormonism—I hate to say it, but it's true—it's another gospel. It's not the true gospel.
Can we connect? How can we connect on this and talk more about this?
Well, you can email me. Go to cross examine.com. In fact, they do teach a different gospel. They're not Christian in any way, shape, or form. Mormons reject the biblical way God revealed himself. The Bible says that God is one, existing in three co-eternal and equal persons, whereas Mormons believe that there are many gods. There are thousands of gods. They're not just one God; there are thousands of God. And we... and in fact, God was once like us, and we are becoming God ourselves. Mormon doctrine also teaches that Joseph Smith received a vision from... from God saying that all other religions are false, which is a big red flag. Then he received another vision from an angel giving him Golden Plates, which amounts to the Book of Mormon. Galatians 1:8 anathematized that right there. That is accursed, according to the Bible. And the big one is Mormons do not believe that Jesus's death and resurrection on the cross is sufficient for salvation. They add additional requirements to be saved. That clearly is another gospel.
This guy really harped on inerrancy, but the Bible is indeed inherent, without error. You will be hard-pressed to prove otherwise because we don't have the original copies. However, because we do have so many copies of manuscripts in existence today, textual experts have thoroughly cross-referenced and cross-examined all of the Bible manuscripts and determined an almost 99% accuracy to the originals. We may not have the original copies to see exactly what God wrote, but the Bible is so accurate because of all of the evidence and all of the manuscripts that we can basically say this is exactly what God wrote, and there are no internal contradictions, there are no material errors, there are no doctrinal variances in the whole Bible, which we can conclude the Bible is indeed inherent. If there's something you don't understand in the scriptures, that's something that we've got to wrestle with and pray for more wisdom. We can't conclude that the Bible is therefore false. We must approach the scriptures reverently and prayerfully. But ultimately, I love how the debate ended—mutual respect. It's a conversation, discussion, challenging at times, a little pushy, but ultimately it was informative. And people in the crowd heard something or perhaps sparked their interest to research the inerrancy of scripture that much more and be therefore blown away by what they discover. The Bible is, in fact, inherent. I believe Mormons are so insulated and isolated from society at large, they think they're the True Religion because they're blinded by their own works. They must repent because they believe a different Jesus, and that Jesus cannot save them. That doctrine cannot save them. So pray for Hayden, pray for Mormons at large, and shout out to Frank Turk for doing an amazing job handling that conversation. If you enjoyed this video, you want more content like this, do me a favor: Subscribe to this channel, like this video. I'll be back next week with another one. Peace. [Music]