GREAT DEBATE: Christian vs. Mormon on the Bible

Good evening. Welcome. If you could find your seats, please. You will notice it is exactly 6:30, which means we will be timely this evening. I am the moderator, and if any of you have seen any of my debates, you know that I am a stickler for that. I consider it the means by which you show respect to your opponents and to the audience as well. So, we will start on time. Welcome to a real debate. This is not going to be something like you watch on television. They don't have debates on television any longer, especially if they have anything to do with politics, and that's not what this is going to be about this evening. We will be talking about ultimate authorities.

And so, a few words to, uh, admonish you from the beginning. You are here to listen, not to participate. Your participation will be done through questions. There will be baskets put at the back of the room, and if you have questions, you basically have the first half of the debate to formulate them on the note cards in the back and place them in the appropriate box. So, if you want to ask a question of the Protestant side or the LDS side, then put them in the proper box, uh, for the, the side you want the question to be asked of. During the Q&A at the end, uh, myself and another individual will be going through them. Uh, there'll only be a, a matter of minutes for questions, so please do not get too upset if yours does not get asked. But you need to be formulating the questions in the first half of the debate so we have time to go through them and be prepared to ask them at the end of the debate.

Please remember, a question ends with a little squiggly mark. It's not a sermon. It's not time for you to announce that you think you should have been doing the debate, not the bozos that are up there. That's when you ask the actual question. That way, it may actually get, uh, get asked. Okay? So, we do not participate in the debate by applause, by boos, hisses, deep loud sighs, uh, giggles, laughs, or loud amens, or anything along those lines, okay? If there's interruptions, you're taking the time from your side in the first place, okay? So, keep that in mind. We are here to listen and to observe and to learn from there, uh, not to participate in any other fashion. Leave that to the folks who have already done the work to be prepared, uh, to present their material to us this evening.

I would strongly encourage you to have something to write with and write on, other than your neighbor. That is. And I would encourage you to draw a line down the middle of your paper and as one side presents, write down what you would consider to be relevant points to the thesis of the debate, not stuff that doesn't really matter, but stuff that actually supports their position, relevant to the thesis of the debate in regards to what the ultimate authority for us is in this day in religious matters. Then, when the other side gets up, do the same thing on their side. When rebuttals take place, remember, you cannot rebut everything the other side has said. You know why? Because they're going to have 15 minutes of opening statement, and you have half that amount of time to provide a rebuttal. So, it's just not possible. But you should check off, okay, they thought this was important, they responded to it. Don't write down emotional things. Don't write down rabbit trails. Stay focused on the subject of the debate and mark on your sheet what points are answered, whether they're answered well, where they're not answered well, on both sides, as well as during the cross-examination, all the way through the closing statements. And by the end of the time, you should have a decent mechanism whereby you can judge how the debate went. That's not how most people do things today, but it is the way it should be done. It really, really is.

So, let me introduce our debaters this evening. Uh, we will, uh, announce before each of the sections, uh, what the time frames are going to be. Basically, we'll be starting, uh, with 15-minute opening statements, and then before each of the rebuttals, cross-examination, second rebuttal, cross-examination, and closing, I'll give you the time frames for those, uh, as they are about to begin. You'll forget them unless you're writing them down between now and then, anyways. So, representing the Protestant perspective, no applause, please. Once again, Oscar Dunlap was born and raised in Ypsilanti, Michigan. He currently attends Whitfield Theological Seminary in pursuit of his Master of Divinity degree. He has been wedded to his bride, Teresa, for eight years, and is father to three children. He serves as a deacon at Apologia Church, teaches in various capacities, and participates weekly in evangelistic and apologetic community outreach. Daniel Constantino was born and raised in San Diego. Daniel is currently going to school for his Master of Divinity, attending Whitfield Theological Seminary. He has been married to his wife, Kimberly, for three years. Daniel leads the LDS outreach for Apologia Church, where he also serves as a deacon.

Now, representing the Latter-day Saint perspective, Hayden Carroll was born and raised in Gilbert, Arizona. After serving a full-time mission in the heartland of Mormonism, Salt Lake City, Utah, he obtained a degree in Communication with Southern Utah University. He is currently pursuing a Master's degree in Professional Communication. Hayden serves in various leadership roles within his faith congregation. He enjoys teaching theology, hosting his Faithful Perspective podcast, and spending time with his wife and son. Jacob Hansen is one of eight children, born and raised in a Latter-day Saint family from Sparks, Nevada. Jacob served a two-year mission in Argentina, graduated from BYU's Hawaii campus, always tough to go there, with a degree in Supply Chain and Operations Management. And while running his business and helping his beautiful wife raise four children, he writes and podcasts on matters related to his faith on his website, thoughtfulfaith.com.

Now, Jacob and Hayden want to make it clear that tonight they are not acting as official representatives of their church, and the opinions expressed are their own. So, they want to make sure to make that clear to you. So, also, at the beginning of each of the opening statements, each of these speakers is asked for just a few seconds to give some greetings before the official time begins. I will make it clear when the timer has started, so both sides have exactly the same amount of time. So, once again, thank you for being here this evening. Very, very important subject to address, and so let's get to it. And we had a first time I've ever experienced a digital coin flip. I did not know that you could ask Alexa or Siri or whoever is listening to all of your private conversations, reporting them, reporting them to the proper authorities. Um, you're laughing. You're laughing because you know it's true. That's why you're laughing. I did not know you could ask Siri to do a coin flip for you. It's not nearly as exciting as the real thing, I'll be perfectly honest with you. But, uh, we had a digital coin flip, and our Protestant representatives, I believe, are going first this evening. And so, I will take a seat, and whoever is going to do the opening statement, please feel free to come forward, make your greetings, and then I will let you know when the time begins.

Cool. This is on. All right. So, it's good to see all of you guys here. Really, it means a lot. We want to give a quick, a quick couple of thanks. One, to our elders. As soon as we brought this idea to them, they had our back, and Oscar and I know you can't find that everywhere. So, thank you to Luke, Zach, Jeff, and James for having our support in this. We want to thank our opponents tonight. Oscar and I do evangelism weekly. It is not easy to get people to come and talk to you about their beliefs, especially when you're talking about God. So, the fact that they agreed to come to our church and not only discuss their beliefs but actually have them debated, it means a lot, and we respect these guys as men. So, we hope you guys know that. Shake their hands afterward. Give them a quick thanks. We have a couple of gifts from them. So, for them, this is a book. It's called "The Impossibility of the Contrary." This is for Jacob. This is for you. We have another book called "Canon Revisited" by Michael Kruger. This is for Hayden. So, and lastly, I'd be remiss if we didn't thank our moderator tonight. For those of you guys who know Pastor James, I don't have to say anything. He's the greatest when it comes to this type of thing. The fact that we have him here in this room, it means a lot. Um, he's, he's a hero of mine. I mean, I even wore a bow tie for him. I'm not, I don't think he liked it, but I wore a bow tie. So, thank, thank you, Pastor James, for, for agreeing to do this, and we can get started.

All right. We're excited for tonight's debate, and we're excited because the topic tonight is a very, very important topic, right? This is essential to all of life. We're not here to debate secondary issues like how should we baptize somebody, which city has the best Mexican food, San Diego. The topic that we're talking about is one of the most important subjects there is to talk about, especially between Protestants and Latter-day Saints. So, our topic is, what should be our ultimate authority? That is to ask, what should be the rule or the standard for our lives? We decided upon this topic because we had conversations prior to this debate where we spoke about the person of Christ, the nature of God, the gospel, and salvation. And we quickly agreed that the reason why we disagree so heavily on these other important issues was because of the lens or the foundation that we determine our beliefs from as our final authority. Tonight, we're holding to the scriptures alone, commonly known by the Latin phrase *sola scriptura*. Our opponents will be holding on to what they call the collective witness model, and I'll let them explain what that is. But tonight, you, the audience, are the judges of this debate. And so, what's important to recognize is what's going on. You have two very different foundations being presented to you as your ultimate authority, as your standard for how to live. And so, what you should be asking is, what happens if you take your foundation to its furthest conclusions? Okay? If this is how you decide how you live, what you believe on all the big questions of life, ask yourself, what happens if I'm consistent with this? I urge you tonight, as, as the judges, to watch both sides of the debate. See if anybody's being inconsistent. To be inconsistent is to lie, and surely you don't want a foundation that's built on a lie. Watch out for arbitrariness. If any of us give an answer tonight like, "Because it works for me," or "Because I think so," that's not an adequate answer, especially again when we're talking about the foundation on which we believe everything else. Our prayer tonight is that you walk away from this debate asking yourselves a couple questions. Ask yourself, "Why do I believe my ultimate authority?" Because your mom tells you? Because your dad tells you? Because it's comfortable? It's what you know? Ask yourself, "Why do I believe my ultimate authority?" And then ask yourself, "Is my ultimate authority solid ground since it's what you stand on?"

I'll begin stating and defending our position, the scriptures alone, by reading to you guys two quotes first. "But ye take occasion by this, if ye light upon the text of scriptures by genuinely applying your mind to them, we'll learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said, for they were spoken and written by God through men who spoke for God." End quote. That's Athanasius of the 4th century. Next, "Let us not hear this I say, or this you say, but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord, on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the church, there let us discuss our case." End quote. That's Augustine of Hippo from the 5th century. So, why am I quoting 4th and 5th century Church Fathers? Because the doctrine of Scripture alone is not a new one. It's not one that came from the Reformation. This doctrine has been defended and believed throughout all of church history, and tonight we come to you holding the same convictions as these ancient men.

So, let's, let's define Scripture alone, and let's start off by saying what Scripture alone is not. This is going to be important. If at any point tonight our opponents argue against what we say Scripture alone is not, that should be noted and dismissed. It's to argue against a straw man, a position we don't really hold. Let's, let's go over this list. Scripture alone is not a claim that the Bible has exhaustive knowledge. The scriptures don't claim to reveal everything there is to know. Scripture alone is not a denial that there were times of revelation. We acknowledge and we know that there were unique periods and times of history where revelation was being written. What we're arguing for is what is normative for the church now. What should be your ultimate authority today? Scripture alone is not a claim of unanimity, meaning that because we hold Scripture alone, we're always going to agree on everything. That's not to claim. We see the apostles had disagreements amongst themselves, and what's important to note is the scriptures never make this claim for the church. You never read, for example, "Now that you've been delivered the word of God, you will always agree and have perfect unity." That's not what we're told. But we're actually told to find unity in Christ himself. So, tonight, if we hear, "The reformers held to *sola scriptura* but they disagreed," that should be dismissed. If we hear, "What about different interpretations?" We're not arguing about the interpretation of the text. We're arguing about the authority of the text. It should be dismissed. Scripture alone is not a claim of personal inerrancy, okay? We've actually heard this, that you guys, these guys are saying you're inerrant. No, we're not, okay? The Bible doesn't teach that Daniel and Oscar are inerrant. What the Bible does teach is that God is inerrant. God can reveal himself, and God has revealed certain truths to his creation. So, our basic claim is, we're taking God at his own word. Since God cannot lie, and since there's no one above God, when God speaks, he speaks authoritatively. It's true. You can take it to the bank. Scripture alone is not a claim that there are no other authorities. We're not saying that the scriptures are the only authority in existence. We're saying those are the only infallible authorities. Oscar and I submit ourselves to the elders of Apologia, but why do we do that? Because the New Testament consistently teaches us to do so. In the book of Hebrews, we're told to obey and submit to our elders because they watch over our souls. So, we acknowledge there's other rules, but the ultimate one, the one by which we test those and submit to those by, is the scriptures alone.

So, let's talk about what Scripture alone is. I have a definition: The Bible is the sole infallible and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian church. The scriptures are not in need of any supplement, and their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church, or council. The scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian church looks to the scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith, and the church is always subject to the word and is constantly reformed thereby. A couple of things to note, okay? Again, scriptures are the sole infallible rule. The only thing that the church possesses today that is infallible is the scriptures, and the reason why is because of their nature. They're breathed out by God, by very definition, the revelation from God. This is how God has spoken to his church. Let's look at a couple of biblicals to support this idea. The first one is a common one, a lot of people know about Second Timothy 3:16. And it's important to consider the context of this scripture because it's always thrown out, and I don't think we consider the context enough, okay? Paul, in chapter four of this letter, Timothy acknowledges that he knows he's dying. He says he's being poured out, his time for departure has come, he's run the good race. And he starts off this letter by telling Timothy that he's his son in the faith, he loves him, he's praying for him day and night. So, do you think Paul is going to write something important to his son in the faith, kind of understanding this could be his very last letter to him? I think he would. And in the immediate context of chapter three, we're recording from Paul tells Timothy on men he should avoid. He said these men oppose the truth, these men are imposters, going from evil to worse. And then he goes to verse 14, and he says, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you've learned it from. And how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Listen to this verse: "All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work." What has Paul just said? He said the scriptures are breathed out by God, and that they have a purpose. They're meant to do something. What are they meant to do? To completely equip the man of God. Notice what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say, "Hey, use your own God-given reason." He didn't say, "Hey, your feelings as you as you pray to the Spirit for a testimony, go on that." He's literally telling Timothy on who to avoid, and he tells Timothy, "Remember what you've read since you were little, the scriptures."

Second Peter chapter one is another important verse. Peter has just talked about how they were with the Lord Jesus on the mountain and how they heard the voice of God audibly. But he says, "We have the prophetic word more fully confirmed than us actually hearing the verbal audible voice of God." At verse 20, he says, "Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. No prophecy was ever produced by the will of men, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." So, you have Paul saying the scriptures are breathed out by God, and here you have Peter saying the scriptures never came from men to begin with. This wasn't man's intentions. Men spoke, but they spoke as they were carried by God. That's two people now that say the scriptures are their nature comes from God. What about the Lord Jesus? Well, in Matthew 4, he goes to his temptation in the wilderness, and Satan begins to tempt him. And it's interesting to note, every time he's tempted, what does he do? Does he pray? Does he go for his reason? He goes to the scriptures. And what does Jesus say on the very first temptation? Satan comes to him and he says, "Look, you see this stone, turn it into rock because you see this stone, turn it into bread. You're hungry, right?" And then Jesus says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." He says this as he's quoting scripture. So, what does Jesus think the word of God is? In John 17, as he's in the garden and he's praying for his sheep to the Father, what does he tell the Father? He says, "Sanctify them in truth, your word is truth." So, Jesus believes that the scriptures come from the mouth of God and that they're true. He believed that they're so true that in Matthew 22, he did something very interesting. He's posed with a question about the resurrection, and he tells his audience, he says, "Have you not read what God said to you?" And then he quotes the scriptures written 1400 years earlier. Why does he do that? I mean, he says, "Have you not read what God spoke to you?" Jesus is telling his audience that God spoke to you, and he spoke to you by what was revealed 1400 years earlier. Jesus believed that the scriptures came from God. He believed that they were true. And the question to ask is, when Jesus said, "Sanctify them in truth, your word is truth," what did he mean? Did he think that the word of God was true sometimes, maybe when it's translated properly? Did he think that some parts of it were fallible and some were infallible? No, he believed the word of God was infallible. It was perfect.

Now, our opponents tonight may not want to say this, but they disagree with the Lord Jesus because they don't believe that God can reveal himself to us. And if they don't believe that God can reveal himself to us, then how can God speak to us and tell us things? They don't believe that the scriptures that we hold to in the Bible are true the way Jesus says they're true. In order to win this debate tonight, our opponents are going to have to show us how their ultimate authority, that they admitted to us can be wrong, is actually the authority that can teach us the will of God. Why does this, why does any of this matter? We're not here just for the sake of argument and debate. Again, there's two foundations being posed, and what we're saying is, we're taking God at his word. When God gives revelation, he means it. And so, when we read things in, in the scriptures, for example, "Jesus takes our record of debt and he nails it to the cross" in Colossians chapter 2, or that the, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Romans 1. We, we believe those things are, are true because God said them. And if you can't clearly define the gospel, if you have to look at the scriptures and say, "This is not true, it's, it's fallible," then you don't have a gospel to point to. You don't have a gospel to save you. This is not just for argument. Again, we respect our opponents tonight, but our urge to you is to not build your foundation on the words of mere men, that includes us as well. Build your foundation upon the word of Christ. This is what he says in Matthew 7. He says, "Those who hear my words and do them are like the wise men who built his house on solid ground. But to the ones who hear his word and don't do them, they're like the fool who built their house on sand." Don't be the fool tonight. Thank you.

Before we start our time, Jacob and I would like to give our thanks to Apologia Church, to Dr. James White, to Oscar and Daniel, and to those of you who've shown up today because you guys really make the debate. So, thank you for being here. Now, just want to just quickly say and kind of echo what Daniel's already told you, we have become really good friends by discussing gospel topics with each other. We've had over six hours of a recorded, um, well, distributed to three episodes, but over six hours of conversations on different topics, including this one. And I know Daniel and I have had probably hours worth worth of messages sent back and forth to each other. So, we just want to say how much we respect them and we want to thank you guys for having us tonight. Before we begin, we'd like to point out that our opponents have one great advantage over us. As Calvinists who believe in predestination, or the idea that God has determined every single event in the history of the earth, if we end up winning the debate tonight, at least they can rest assured knowing that it was God who decreed it to be so before the debate even began. The question tonight is, on what authority should we believe? It's important for you to understand that our opponents have taken the more difficult position in their response to tonight's question. It's a position that you will observe to be impossible to defend. We'd like to begin with an analogy that we hope you'll pay close attention to. Imagine that all of us here tonight walk into a room which has two books on a table. Let's say Book A and Book B. Both of these books claim to be the word of God. Suddenly, our debate opponents grab Book A, hold it in the air, and proudly proclaim, "This is it! This Book A is the infallible word of God." That's great. How do you guys know that Book A is the word of God rather than Book B? "Book A is the infallible word of God because it says it is. It's self-authenticated." So, Book A is true because Book A says it's true? Yes. It's the standard of all truth. Hold on. What about Book B? Book B also claims to be from God. Well, it can't be true because it contradicts our understanding of what Book A teaches. You see, God has given us the gift of faith, which causes us, his elect, to recognize and acknowledge that Book A is His word. So, God gifted you with the ability to see truth, and not us? How is that possible? Doesn't He want to save all of us? Oh, no, no. God actually, if God actually wanted to save everyone, He would have given everyone the gift of faith. So, you too, if you had the gift of faith, would recognize that it's His infallible word. You see, God actually created some people for dishonorable use, and therefore, it is actually His will that some people, uh, are left in their blind state and are eventually to suffer in eternal torment in hell. It's part of His plan. You actually believe that? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Because Book A says so. Some of us have read Book A and we do not agree with that interpretation of what it teaches. Well, that's to be expected. You guys are suppressing the perfectly clear message. You obviously have not been given the gift of faith that we, the elect, have. Perhaps one day He'll give you the gift of faith, which will cause you to agree with our interpretations. This sounds a little weird. How did you arrive at the conclusion that you are the elect who can see this perfectly clear message of scripture that you're referencing? Because Book A says that people who understand Book A are the elect. Why, again, do you believe that Book A, what Book A says, over Book B? They both claim to be from God. We presuppose the truth of our interpretation of Book A. That's our starting point. That seems like a poor starting point. Why do you presuppose the truth of Book A over Book B? Because without Book A, we wouldn't be able to make sense of the world. The rest of us don't really feel comfortable just assuming that Book A is true or that you guys are interpreting it correctly. If you, if we aren't sure if Book A or B is from God, why don't we just ask Him? No, no, don't do that. That would be subjective and leaning to your own understanding. He's already chosen who will believe it and who won't. You need to go with our presuppositions and our interpretation of Book A. He chose us. Interesting. The rest of us believe that God is the ultimate authority, not you. We're going to place our faith in His ability to reveal which of these books are His and which interpretation of them is correct. Doesn't this seem more reasonable? No, you're obviously suppressing the truth.

Now, let's bring us out of this analogy. I'm sure that our opponents will say that this is a straw man way to present their arguments, but listen carefully to what they say tonight, and you'll see that this analogy is essentially what they will be advocating for, only using fancier words. Our opponents embrace the false doctrine of *sola scriptura*. This is the presupposition that every word in the 66 books they chose for their authority and their way of understanding those words constitutes the perfect, inerrant word of God. It's the idea that every single word in the books they chose were placed there intentionally by the greatest conceivable communicator, and thus is perfectly clear. It's as if God wrote the Bible with His own hand. This is what they mean when they use the term "God-breathed scripture." Any objective scholar of religious history knows that *sola scriptura* was not the doctrine of historical Christians, but rather was invented in the 1500s by Protestants so they could reject the authority of the Catholic Church. But Catholic clergy would simply look at those reformers and say, "Who are you to challenge the authority of God's church? What authority do you have?" And with the release of the Bible via the printing press, Christians were finally able to hold up their Bibles and say, "This is my authority, and it's a greater authority than you have. It's the word of God." And those reformers were right. The Bible does contain the word of God. It is an authority. But their zeal went too far and turned their interpretation of these 66 books into a seemingly infallible idol known as the doctrine of *sola scriptura*.

Tonight, we will focus on three main problems with *sola scriptura*. Any one of these, even alone, will be devastating to our opponent's position. These are the problem of interpretation, the logical problem, and the problem of canon. Starting off with the problem of interpretation. When our opponents say, "The Bible says," what they should be saying is, "Our interpretation of the Bible says." However, our opponents will do all they can to avoid this by taking themselves out of the equation. So, instead, they will say, "God is working in them to make them understand and believe these 66 books, and God can't be wrong." Do you see this little trick they're playing? Are we really going to pretend that the rest of us are interpreting the Bible, but they are not? They will say they merely acknowledge what the Bible says, and they are not interpreting it, but what they really acknowledge is what they think it says. They seem to presuppose that they are the elect who can see this perfectly clear message of scripture because God is working in them. They presuppose that everyone else is suppressing the real truth, but not them. Thus, the 66 books they chose and their particular interpretation of them is the, is the final word for what is true. It's their answer. This is their answer to tonight's debate question. It doesn't matter what reason says, what your experience says, what your heart says, what your conscience says, what history says, what science says, what the Spirit says, or anything else. It's the ultimate trump card. It's true because we say it is. Our opponents believe that the Bible's pro, the Bible's message is perfectly clear to any person who give, who God gives the gift of faith to, but that He doesn't give that gift of faith to all of us, even though He could. He doesn't want to. They say the Bible is perfectly clear that we are not all children of God, and that He doesn't hope for everyone to be saved. In their mind, God has created some people, like Anne Frank, for example, for dishonorable use. In other words, they think the Bible is clear that God intentionally denied little Anne Frank, the gift of faith, as a Jewish girl, so that she would not only suffer in this life, but when she finally starved to death in a concentration camp, God was waiting on the other side to say, "And you should know that I planned for your life to be as it was. I made sure that you'd be sent to the camps along with all those there with you, and now I'm sending you to hell so that I might be glorified in your suffering." It's nothing, it's nothing personal, though. Remember, you had no choice in this, but it doesn't mean that you aren't innocent. You never were. You can blame Adam for that one. Some people call that original sin. My nature and my will requires that you burn in hell forever, and you were damned before you were even born. Our opponents believe the only reason you disagree with them about this is because you are suppressing the perfectly clear message of the Bible, but that God is making them believe and understand the Bible because of this. They believe they cannot be wrong about the infallibility of those 66 books.

Next is the logical problem. This is when our opponents say that the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true. But what they are really saying is that the 66 books we chose and our interpretation of them constitutes the infallible word of God because we think we are the elect and believe that God is working in us. We can see the truth that everyone else is missing because God chose us. Every time our opponents open the Bible to make their case, which they've already done, they are trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible. But a debate about whether or not the Bible is, is the ultimate authority cannot be settled by appealing to the Bible. So, what's their answer to this? They would say that they simply presuppose the Bible is infallible. It's the same as saying, "Book A is true because Book A says it's true," and simply ignoring other books and other people who make the same claim. This circular reasoning is the incoherent foundation upon which they are trying to build. It's really a Catch-22. On one hand, if they try to use the Bible to prove that the Bible is infallible, they've fallen into their own self-dug trap of circular reasoning, which is destructive to their case. On the other hand, if they, if they even once point to an authority outside of the Bible, they've defeated their own premise, and it's likely that they'll do both tonight.

The final problem is that of closed canon. This is when our opponents say that God's revelation regarding salvation is complete, and that God can't, or at least won't, give us any more truth. Not only is this not taught in the Bible, it's logically impossible for the 66 books to teach it. Just think about it. If a certain book in the Bible actually taught closed canon, what would happen? We would have to reject all revelations after that book was written. Do you see the issue here? Shockingly, we have our moderator tonight, Dr. James White, a prominent member of our opponent's reform community, who at least at one time agreed with us. He wrote an article, which is still published today on his website, saying, "Protestants do not assert that *sola scriptura* is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being?" In other words, those who wrote the Bible couldn't teach closed canon because the canon was open. So, where does the idea of closed canon come from? Not the Bible, which is funny, because *sola scriptura* teaches that all truths regarding salvation must come from the Bible, which itself doesn't. *Sola scriptura* is self-defeating. The idea that the canon is closed is, and must be, an idea that came from outside of the Bible, or at least after the Bible we have today was compiled. Our opponents will argue that the concept of closed canon is taught within the pages of the Bible. We agree with Dr. White. *Sola scriptura*, or the idea that the Bible is the only authority of God on the earth, was not taught in biblical times, and therefore was not taught in the Bible. Do you hear that? Our opponents are teaching things that are not biblical. Remember, Catch-22.

So, what do we think is the ultimate authority? Our answer is this: God. God is the ultimate authority, and He can reveal truth to us directly. The Bible even teaches this. He has not constrained Himself to any amount of books on the earth today. He can and continues to speak. Why would He stop now? I can hear our opponents ready to jump up and say, "But can God tell you something that contradicts the Bible?" But what they are really asking is, "If God can tell us something that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible?" So, our answer is, yes. We do believe that God can reveal that your interpretation is wrong. We don't place those kind of limits on God and on His word. We let Him speak, and it's up to us to listen. Who are they to say that God Himself can't or won't reveal truth to you? What if what God teaches is truth, and their interpretation of the Bible contradicts the truth? Then why should we accept their interpretation? You see, this is not just a matter of feeling, of knowing God's will by the way of feelings. He's given us our bodies that we must use to interpret and compute everything around us, including His word. He has given us reason that we can detect things like the faulty logic of our opponents. He has given us hearts that scream inside when we are told that God intentionally sends His children to hell. He gives us our very being, through which God reveals truth in our life experiences. He gives us the Holy Spirit, which teaches and testifies of truth to our spirits. And of course, God gives us prophets and apostles to declare God's general mind and will concerning the world. Just think for a second about how extreme the presuppositions of our opponents are. God Himself could come down into this room and tell them that they were wrong, and they would deny that it was God who told them because their interpretation of the Bible tells them that God cannot contradict their interpretation. Do you see who is actually in charge here? If God Himself cannot convince our opponents that their interpretation is incr, is incorrect, you know that this is idolatry. The, our opponent's particular interpretation of the 66 books they chose has become the, our gods are the opponents, sorry. Our opponent's particular interpretation of the 66 books they've chosen has become their god. Excuse me. We believe the bi, we love the Bible. It is an authority of God. We study it often. But when you presuppose that fallen humans long ago could write infallibly as they did their best to dictate revelations from God, and that modern humans could interpret these writings infallibly, you end up placing mortal men on the throne of God. The truth is from Him. Our invitation is to seek it wherever it is, and with all of the tools God gave you. He loves you. He loves all of His children, every single person here tonight. He has not predestined anyone in this room to a life of deliberate ignorance of His word and eventual damnation in hell. Know that He is calling you, but you must be willing to open your heart and your mind by the power of His grace. And with that, I yield my time.

All right. We will now have seven-minute rebuttals from each side.

All right. Unfortunately, uh, what you just heard was a rebuttal and not an opening statement. Much of what was presented to you all was a rebuttal against Calvinism, and the debate is about the ultimate authority of scripture. So, that's odd. That said, I'm going to begin on discussing their worldview, which, just for a snippet there at the end, they actually, uh, care to discuss part and parcel of their methodology of arriving at truth is the caveat that you can never be sure it's true. This is a self-defeating and therefore irrational theory of knowledge that should be utterly rejected. According to their worldview, there exists no infallible or transcendental standard of truth that humans are capable of knowing. And of course, when making an absolute statement such as that, you're defeating your own position. Once again, it therefore follows that being bereft of a definite epistemic foundation, by definition, the tools that they, uh, presented to you are inadequate to arrive at truth. It is like arbitrarily electing three tools to help you reach a specific destination whose location you are unaware of. No matter how high quality or useful you think these tools to be, if you don't know for certain the location of your desired destination, it would be illogical or irresponsible to have any hope of arriving there. That's what our opponents are here telling you tonight. They're saying, "We cannot know infallible truth. We cannot know transcendental truth. But these tools here, which we acknowledge are also fallible, are going to help us find that truth." You talked about illogical. That is illogical. So is this epistemology of our opponents here tonight. They tell us, "Here is the means by which we arrive at the true faith." Yet, by their own admission, they can't be certain as to what the true faith actually is. Jacob, in your YouTube video, "The Collective Witness Model," you said, "Because humans are fallible, we always must recognize that we could be wrong." However, this method allows us to be more or less certain about the mind and will of God on any given matter. My question is, how, when the, when the tools, when the tools you chose cannot arrive, I mean, the truth that they arrive at are doubtful because of their fallibility, the conclusion of their utilization is also inescapably doubtful. Again, we're going to arrive at truth with tools that are fallible, and that's going to help us find truth. That doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. How do you know that the prophets are right? They say, "We don't. We test them by the teachings of the other prophets, by the Spirit, and by reason." Well, how do you know your reasoning is proper? They say, "We don't. We test it by reason and the prophets, or by the Spirit and the prophets." I say, "Okay, then you must be certain of your ability to receive revelation from the Spirit, as, as it sounds like they were certain, right? And build your epistemology upon that?" Correct? Wrong. Because of the, of the fallibility of man, according to their worldview, we can never be sure of the truthfulness of the revelation received from that Spirit either. We are to test it by the voice of the prophetic teachings and by reason, which they have acknowledged could be wrong. You see the problem? The problem with this model is, although we have three witnesses, we have no reason to believe any of them to be trustworthy. Why not? Because each of their testimonies are dependent upon the validity of one another, and all of them are fallible. Therefore, it's impossible to prove any of them as useful in this discussion. If all three were lying witnesses, without an objective standard, there would be no way for you to know. We don't reject the theory of knowledge or LDS theology because it's circular in reasoning. They say, "Oh, you guys have circular reasoning." So do we. We don't reject it because it's circular. We believe all epistemology is circular by necessity. We reject it because it's insufficient to infallibly define truth, and therefore, it follows that it's logically unable to discern it. In their worldview, absolute truth cannot be ascertained because their God lacks the power to reveal through fallible man. That's the truth. And it is here that we come to the very root of the issue. Their worldview of truth pertaining to faith and practice is inevitably bound to their perception of God. If God attained Godhood by obedience, if He, if He's obligated to law external Himself as we are, if He exists within time and space with a body of flesh and blood as we do, then He can give no more assurance of the truth than we can give one another, for He too could be wrong, being nothing more than a man himself. If their God and His word is, is the very or is not the very origin of all truth, but rather truth exists apart from Him, then He can give us nothing more than an opinion when it comes to the truth of faith. And if you ask me, we have enough opinions on the matter. We need absolutes. We need a God that knows. In Jesus' high priestly prayer, He asks God to sanctify His people in the truth, that is His word. And another place, He proclaims without condition or caveat that He is the way, the truth, and the life. I encourage you all, and all that will hear this, build your life on that truth, for it is an immovable rock that shall not be shaken. It is a sure foundation that shall not be moved. In their opening statement, you heard a rebuttal to that which wasn't even presented. Did we come here presenting Calvinism, or did we come here presenting scripture as the ultimate authority? There, there are plenty of Christians who don't hold to Calvinism that recognize scripture is the ultimate authority. Do we have differences or disagreements with them? Sure. But can we all as evangelical Christians acknowledge that God has breathed out a word, and that word has imposed itself on the church throughout history? It's been acknowledged and interacted with from as early as the second century. We just heard that, that *sola scriptura* is a doctrine that came from the Reformation. When my brother Daniel just read you a quote from the fourth century, what was that? When was the Reformation? 16th century. We're talking about years, centuries and centuries beforehand, that the church recognized this truth. We heard an attack on Calvinism. We had.

An attack on our on us presupposing the validity of scripture. Well, how else do you come to truth? If, if your theory of truth does not start with truth, it will never arrive at truth. Truth must always be the reference point for the pursuer of more truth. Otherwise, you're starting with doubtful terms and you're going to end in a doubtful place.

And the last, before we end, there was a, a conversation of closed canon. Canon is inherently closed because it only involves God-breathed scripture. So when we say that the canon has been closed, we say the books from which the apostles presented to us throughout their time, uh, walking the earth, when they passed away, the books pass with them. Those are the men who were presented to us by Christ to speak authoritatively on his behalf. With that, all in my time. All right. Well, this has been great, and thank you all for coming.

So, uh, my, our opponents just were talking about this idea of closed canon and that, you know, there's no more God-breathed scripture. Did God stop breathing? Is God dead? Is that what we're going to assume here? I'm not. I'm going to assume that God actually still lives and that God is the ultimate authority and that He can speak to you. He can talk to you. See, truth must be the starting point. And they're right, truth must be the starting point. And for them, the truth is what they say the Bible says, right? But we run into an impasse here because there's a lot of different interpretations of the Bible out there. And our opponents have already admitted that their interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily correct. They could be wrong. So we have fallible people over here interpreting the Bible. We have fallible people over here interpreting the Bible. Even if the Bible is the infallible word of God, it is human beings who are interpreting it. And so we run into a problem. How do we adjudicate the question? Well, we could actually look at the Bible, which says in James 1:5, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God." Why would God say that? He wants us to go to Him to seek the truth, and He can reveal the truth to you through His Spirit. Now, make no mistake tonight, the Bible is an authority, ladies and gentlemen. We do not reject the Bible. We love the Bible. Okay? But our opponents say, you know, our opponents are out there saying that, you know, God spoke to the writers of the Bible. Yes, absolutely. We agree. But we also say that God can speak to you. See, what's interesting is this. Why do they even believe in the scriptures in the first place? Well, we could go right to the Westminster Confession, uh, Westminster and London Baptist Confessions of Faith, which say, "The full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof," referring to the Bible, "is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." So the confession of faith is saying that the reason that you believe in the Bible is from the witness of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the thing that is the only reason you believe in the Bible in the first place is because God told you it was true. In the analogy in the beginning, where you have book A and book B, and you're not sure, well, it's God that will reveal to you that that is the truth. And then once you have it, He will help work in you to understand its message and the proper interpretation. The question tonight is, what is the ultimate authority? They're close, they're real close with the Bible, but they're not taking that extra step to say, "Why do I believe in the Bible in the first place?" They just say, "Well, the Bible's true because I say this is true." It's like, no, it's not. It's true because God told you it's true. And the only way you can get around that is if you say, "Well, I'm out of the equation. It is God who makes me believe," thus presupposing a particular interpretation of predestination. See the problem?

So also, they brought up quotes from church fathers. Okay, let me tell you guys something. They don't want you to go and look deeply into the quotes from church fathers on the record of Sola Scriptura. Because I can tell you guys right now, no serious historian thinks that Sola Scriptura has been taught all throughout the the history. I mean, even Athanasius, who they brought up themselves, Athanasius said of the Council of Nicaea, he said, "The confession arrived at Nicaea, this is him, we say, more sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the church." So, in other words, he wasn't pointing to scripture alone. Athanasius was pointing to the creeds as well. You can also go and look at Saint Basil. Didn't mention him? Well, let's see what he said. He said, "Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the church, some we possess from written teaching, and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles handed down to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force." So we can quote mine all day and find the quotes that support us. But I'm telling you guys right now, go out and Google about the early church fathers on Sola Scriptura, and you're going to find a list of quotes from the early church fathers that debunk the idea that they all believed in Sola Scriptura. Okay? It arrived in the Reformation. And it's very clear why it was the way that Protestants could challenge the authority of the church because all of a sudden the Bible was all over. And they're right, the Catholic Church, by the way, we're on your team. The Catholic Church was really corrupt. And they, and the Bible was a higher authority than the corrupt doctrines. You can use that authority to challenge, uh, false teachings. So they, and now they're, and they've attacked us in saying like that our, our perspective is arbitrary and subjective. Okay. Um, really, their interpretation of scripture is the objective truth. But our use of reason and the witness of God directly, that's all subjective. So the reality is, is that our opponents are trying to force us into limiting what we can accept to their subjective interpretation of the Bible. For them, if they interpret the Bible to say two plus two equals five, they're acting like we are obligated to accept that, despite what our minds say, what our hearts say, what our experience says, or if what God himself says. I want to reiterate, if God himself came into this room and told our opponents, "You guys got it wrong," they would say, "That could not have been God because our interpretation is that..." You see how they've replaced God himself with their interpretation of scripture, their admitted fallible interpretation of scripture? So when they want to say that we don't have an infallible source, well, I'm sorry, but our opponents are not an infallible source. And with that, I yield my time.

All right, we are now going to have a period of cross-examination. There will be 10 minutes for each side to cross-examine the other. Cross-examination requires you to ask questions, not to make speeches, not to catch up with the points you didn't get to in your opening, and not to argue points by responding to what someone says with your own arguments. After that, it is one side asking questions, the other providing concise answers that do not begin to filibuster the time. Basically, what we're looking for. We'll try to keep that controlled and keep it going in the right direction. It doesn't always work. Okay. So, um, since, uh, we're going this side first, that side second, we might as well keep that going through the course of the debate. And so we'll have you asking your questions first, and then that'll be 10 minutes, and then 10 minutes for you all to do the same thing. And so the time will begin now.

All right, first question for you guys is, God omnipotent? And if so, can you explain what you mean by that?

God omnipotent? Omnipotent? Omnipotence? Okay. Uh, yes, God is omnipotent in that God can do all things that are possible.

And what do you make of Psalm 115 and 3? "Could our God, 115:3, our God is in the heavens, and He does all that He pleases." That God does all that He pleases, right? So He's, so He's, He has sufficient power to do all that He pleases? Yes.

Okay. Would you agree then, would you agree that the conception of the God of Mormonism is ontologically and potentially speaking inferior to the conception of God of Judaism?

I'm not sure what that has to do with the debate.

What has to do with the debate is that this is a theological topic. You just told me that God is able to do all that He pleases. You're disputing, you're disputing that God is able to sufficiently reveal Himself in scripture. So that's why I preface the first question: Is He able to do all that He pleases? Is He able to communicate with perpetuity to people through scripture?

Yes, God is able to. He's able to communicate, but that doesn't mean we're able to receive that infallibly, or we may reject the message that He's trying to send us. So God's infallibility is hindered by our fallibility?

No, it's hindered by our free will. So He cannot do all that He pleases. He can do all things that are possible, and it is not possible for God to violate the free will that He gives us, because He gives us free will so that we can freely choose to enter into a relationship with Him. Because if we did not choose to enter into a relationship with God, it would not be a relationship. It would be bondage.

Bondage. I heard from your opening statement. I'm questioning regarding that. Uh, you, you said that even if the scriptures were infallible, right, because of our fallibility, we cannot properly interpret them, or that would hinder His fallibility? Correct. That would, I'm sorry, that would hinder His fallibility in, uh, revealing Himself in scripture. God's fallibility? God's infallibility. Okay. So our fallibility hinders God's infallibility?

No, it's, it's that God has given us a gift of agency so that we can choose to enter into relationship with Him, because that is part of His purpose. Okay. If you're asking if God can force us to believe, the answer is no.

That's not what I'm asking. Okay. I'll move on. What do you interpret "God-breathed" or "theopneustos" to mean? That God has spoken through scripture clearly? Has He spoken clearly, with purpose, security, defined clearly? Has He spoken in a way that we are able to understand and receive?

We're able, yes. Yes. But because of our own fallibility, we will, we will suppress the truth at times. So we are not able to understand? We are able to, but it doesn't mean we're going to get it right every single time. It doesn't mean that we're going to choose to.

So let me get this straight. Is, is the word, are you claiming that the word is infallible, but it's because of our interpretation that it can't be deemed that?

So what I'm saying is, even if the word of God were infallible, I am fallible, meaning I can be mistaken. I can choose to reject what God is trying to communicate through scripture. I can misunderstand what He's trying to communicate through scripture. So it isn't God that has the problem. It's me.

I agree. So I'm going to ask you plainly then, is the word of God infallible?

Are you talking about the Bible? The 66?

Yes.

No.

Why not?

Because it was, because it was written by man. Okay. God worked, God worked through those men. We do believe that. We believe the scriptures are inspired by God. And we do believe that we don't hold the same interpretation of "God-breathed" that you do. But we do believe that because God was working through those individuals to create those books. But there's a lot of interpretation as to what exactly does that mean, and if it is indeed perfect, infallible in every single letter.

So God is unable to infallibly communicate to man through scripture?

He can communicate perfectly. We cannot receive it perfectly.

God could communicate perfectly to me, and I could muffle up the message because you have two, you have two fallible people involved here. You have the person who wrote the scripture receiving the revelation from God, who's fallible, and then you have the person who's interpreting what that person wrote. And so anytime you interject human beings into the equation, you have inserted fallibility into the equation.

Gotcha. Does the Bible, in your opinion, teach or imply its own fallibility?

Yes, in the sense that it teaches that man is fallible. So in that way, it teaches its own fallibility. Once you know that men are involved in the creation, transcription, selection of which books are involved in the Bible, and the interpretation thereof, it's just a logical conclusion. If God speaks, He can speak perfectly to me right now, and I could, because of my own brokenness, I could get the message from Him and miscommunicate it to these people, and then they could then misinterpret what was said. So you see nothing from the authors of scripture that implies that you take from the fallibility of man and impose that upon scripture?

No, I would say that it is the, the fact that the scriptures teach that human beings are fallible, and then you find out that human beings are both involved in the creation of scripture and the interpretation of scripture. Like, I'm sorry, fallibility has been introduced into the equation by logical necessity based on what scripture actually says about the nature of man.

So you're saying it's implied, but you don't see it taught in scripture?

What is implied? It's implied that the Bible is fallible, but it's not taught in the Bible.

Yes, I would say that it is, it is an implication of the fact that human beings are involved in that process, both in the creation of scripture and the interpretation of it, that that process, it isn't that God is fallible, it is that we are. And therefore, you're not going to get a perfect, um, you're not going to be able to like, it isn't going to be 100% certain. We can be very, very confident in what the scriptures say, don't get me wrong. Like, you don't have to have a, like a confidence level of, it's not zero or a hundred.

Right. If, if we didn't believe that we had free will or that God was making us believe or making those people write the Bible, we may believe that. But we do not.

Gotcha. Can you see from a plain reading of the text that, can you understand why someone would believe the infallibility of scripture?

As I read the Bible and interpret it within all the contexts and things like that, not you. I'm saying, could you understand how people come to that conclusion? Based on? I don't think people who come to that conclusion are mentally deranged or something like that. I think there's a lot of ideas out there that may be plausible, but I don't think that that one ultimately wins out.

Do you see that? Do you see the scripture teaching that it is fallible? I mean, that it is infallible? I'm sorry.

Do I see that the scripture is teaching that it's infallible? Yes. No.

Okay. Does the, well, I'll say this. I see scripture teaching that that God's word is infallible. But in the transcription process, like I said, even if God had a book that was written by Him, there's no guarantee that we're all going to understand it properly because we're flawed.

Well, that's good. So you said you see that scripture teaches that God's word is infallible. Yes. But God's word, you have a very particular interpretation of what that means. And I would say that God's word is truth. That which is true is infallible by definition. So scripture teaches that God's word is infallible.

Do you see that scripture teaching that the Bible is the word of God?

We would differentiate between the word of God and God's words. We would say that if God was to speak to us, that would be infallible in its sending to us, in His communication to us. Like, if He came down right now and He talked to us, we would say that that is infallible.

I understand. I'm saying, do you see in scripture that the teaching that the Bible is the word of God, that the actual written books of the Bible are the word of God?

Yes, it does use that phrase. And I do believe that God, God does inspire scripture. And I believe that it's highly reliable. And I, but I don't think that it is infallible. That's just another jump.

So just one more before we end. You said that you see that scripture teaches that the word of God is infallible, and you also see that scripture teaches that the Bible is the word of God, correct?

I'm sorry, one more time. You see that scripture teaches that the word of God is infallible, and you see that scripture teaches that the Bible is the word of God?

Can we differentiate between God's? We do not believe that the Bible contains the infallible word of God.

I understand what you're saying. I asked you two questions, and I wanted the answer to those questions. But it looks like that's our time. Thank you.

All right, now the other side has 10 minutes to ask questions, and your time begins now.

Alrighty. Why do you believe that the Bible is true?

Because, because the Bible says it's true. It's the word of God, and God is creator, has authoritative power to speak that way. So you believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true?

Because it's God's revelation, and God has, again, the power as the creator to tell us what is true and what is not true.

So do you presuppose the truth of the Bible?

You do. Okay. So if you walk into a room and there are two books on a table, and both claim to be the word of God, would it make any sense for me to presuppose that book A was true and that book B was false and just presuppose that?

I mean, you would have to give us the context of the, the content inside the book. For example, if you give me the Quran, if you give me the Bible, I can show you why the Quran is wrong, if you want to spend all night. And we can go through every religion. I'd love to do that. But you have to give me the content of the Bible, the content of book A and the book B. When we look at the content of book A, that you guys keep asserting, we see that it is the Triune God that has revealed Himself. And everything the book we gave you is the impossibility of the contrary. So when you project this revelation, any standpoint you take now outside of God's revelation is reduced to foolish, foolish thinking and absurdity. Okay. So you have to see the content of the books to decide if they're true, which one is is the true one?

So it's, it's the content of the book itself and how that maps onto reality that determines its truth, not just the fact that it said it?

It's not simply the content. If you're, if you're using this analogy to apply to scripture, scripture is not simply self-attesting. As he mentioned, the Quran is also self-attesting. But we see the books of the Bible, right, agreed upon throughout history and formally agreed upon and interacted with throughout church history, long before any council declared it, right? Long before the Council of Trent in the 16th century. In the, uh, second century, I believe you have 22 books of the New Testament already being interacted with, right? We have the apostles, and we have the books that they handed down. So it's not simply that it's self-attesting. It starts there, but it's also supplemented with the fact that the church is interacting and acknowledging the books, as well as the apostles have sent these books down to the church.

So, so you don't believe that the Bible is true just because it says it's true? There are these other things you're talking about that attest to its truth, and that's why you believe it?

God will put His, His fingerprints upon His word. When God tells us what His word is meant to accomplish, what its purpose is, we see that played out in history. Uh, if you're asking me to, just the way you presented book A, book B, is as if I walk in and I don't know what they say. I do know what the Bible says. And God says that His word has a specific intention and purpose.

Again, God defends. What, what does that, what does that have to do with the truthfulness of the book? Isn't isn't the Bible true because the Bible says it's true? And yeah, there's no other thing outside of that that we have to, we don't need the evidence. But it's again, it's God's fingerprint. It's, it's almost like putting icing on the cake. We didn't need it, but the fact that we see it is a testimony that God is not a liar.

Okay, so, so you receive it. So it's, what's the relevance of that testimony then, if, if the Bible is true?

We believe, we believe that the Bible self-authenticates, self-authenticates itself. And if it's true, it will impose itself upon the church. We will see the church interacting with it and acknowledging it, right? Old Testament, Old Testament revelation prophesies of New Testament revelation. So if the Bible is true, we would expect new revelation, we would expect apostolic works. That's exactly what we see. So we see that the Bible is self-authenticating, and then we see the outworking of its content manifested in time in history. So when you actually see things happening in time in history, that's validating that the Bible is true. That's showing that what the Bible already claimed to be truth, it's manifesting. For example, um, there's no, I think, big evidence that Peter had the book of Revelation. Right? He didn't need that book to know that the scriptures were the word of God. What we're arguing is the scriptures have a certain nature. Every book in the 66 books of the canon of the Bible, they have a distinct nature that intrinsically makes them God-breathed revelation. So whether you're, whether you're in the first century church and maybe you just received Paul's letter to the Romans, right, and you don't have the rest of the epistles, you don't need the rest of the epistles to look at those and know that there's a word of God.

So are you saying that you can test the Bible? The only way you test the Bible is by itself?

You test the Bible with the Bible. Self-interpreting, self-attesting, self-authenticating. When God tells us He cannot lie, when God makes revelation, if we receive something that contradicts what God already said, we can know it's not revelation of God, because God cannot lie.

Okay, so let's go into something else real quick. Um, [Music] uh, is God the greatest conceivable communicator?

Is what? God the greatest conceivable communicator? What is? I don't even. If God is, God can communicate. Yes. Clearly? Yes. So, so can anyone communicate better than, than God?

No.

Okay. Know. Okay. Could He have made the Bible any more clear?

Uh, we don't really think that matters. God chose how He was to reveal His word, and we don't think that us as the creatures get to tell God how He should reveal His word.

So I would assume that, okay. Um, so is the Bible perfectly clear in the, in the means, in the matters concerning salvation and the will of God for men?

Yes. And it's perfectly clear. Jesus thought it was perfectly clear in Matthew 22, when He quotes from scripture written 1400 years earlier, and His audience didn't respond with what you guys are saying. They didn't say, "Jesus, well, what interpretation?" He held them accountable because He believed that God could speak and that God spoke clearly, or else you would have to say the Lord Jesus is wrong for holding them accountable for what He said. So it was in scripture.

So is the Bible perfectly clear on how long the creation process took?

I, I said the Bible is perfectly clear in what it intends to convey, right? For the means of salvation. Is the Bible intending to convey clarity on every specific topic mentioned in scripture? Of course not.

So why would God put things that are unclear in His book?

Well, we're talking about the intention of scripture. God intended scripture to say a certain thing. We see that in, in, uh, in scripture mentioned, 2 Timothy 3:16, "make us wise unto salvation." We see in Romans chapter 3 that the law was given that every mouth may be stopped before God, that everybody may be made guilty before God. There are intentions in scripture.

So I guess I'm just wondering like, God, why would God include all this extra stuff that seems unclear and seems to cause all this confusion if He's the greatest conceivable communicator?

Scripture tells us in Deuteronomy 29 that "the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever." What do you mean by that?

Okay, there are things that God does not choose to reveal to us that we can know perfectly. There are things He does reveal to us that we have in scripture, and we can say, "Hey, this is a consistent testimony of what God has said." So when God reveals something, we can know that clearly. When you look at 2 Peter, he talks about people who distort the word. What does he say about them? He says they are unstable and they are ignorant. So someone who comes to the scriptures and is ignorant of what they teach or is unstable is probably going to abuse them. That's what Peter says.

Okay, so what is, according to the Bible, what is necessary for salvation?

Faith. Faith alone in Christ.

So why doesn't the Bible just be like a one-page document that just says that? And then why would the greatest conceivable communicator put all of this stuff in there that's causing all of this schism and problems?

You're questioning God, and I'm not God, so I can't give you the answer to that. I'm questioning your guys' interpretation of scripture and the way that you approach it. And the, and the scripture itself attests. I'm sorry. I'll, I'll go back to the questions.

Is it perfectly clear on the issue of infant baptism?

Uh, there's much dispute about that. So we wouldn't say, again, we wouldn't say that that's a salvific issue. That's not an essential issue.

That's what you said. So you guys would say it's a solid fake issue?

But do other people think that it's a salvific issue? Certainly. But the people that think that are contradicting what scripture says. Faith alone is the means by which we are saved, not baptism.

Um, I have something here real quick. Um, this one to look at. It says, it's, it's in our common language. It says, "I never said you stole money." Um, is this perfectly clear? The statement? I mean, there's no context to it.

Sure. I, I guess the statement is clear, but if there's context behind it that you're leaving out there.

So, so text alone without all the context is not perfectly clear?

No. God gives us the context to each text that we need to understand what He wants us to do. So we could go to God, and or we could go to the person who wrote this and ask them, "What did you mean by this?" Or we could go to the other things that they wrote, and we could parallel those things to come to a better understanding of what they wrote.

So you could, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but are you saying that we go and interpret other things they say, and we interpret other things they say, we interpret scripture A, we interpret scripture B, and then use those to help us interpret scripture C?

We're saying the things that are clear, the things that are clear, is we use those as a means of understanding the things that are less clear.

Who determines what's clear in the Bible?

Who determines? God. God breathed out the scripture. So ultimately, He would determine that. So He could reveal to us the things that are clear and that are not.

I, I think, I think your question is assuming that the scriptures aren't clear, and I would disagree with that. I would say the scriptures are clear. Perfectly clear. Perfectly clear. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 22, when He held people accountable for the word of God.

So is it perfectly clear about the time that creation took?

I would say yes.

Seven days?

Yes, that's what it says. Six days.

And so if anyone thinks six days, last day, exactly. It's not perfect. If someone said otherwise, they would be misinterpreting scripture?

Yes, 1,000%.

That's the time. All right, thank you very much for that. Now, here's what we need to do. I have not seen. You may have snuck up back there, but I have not seen anyone. Could someone hold up the, uh, where are the baskets back there? Okay, they're right there in the middle. Matt's holding them up. Are they marked as to which one is for which? Okay. I have not seen anyone going back there with your questions. So now is the time to do that. Or I get to ask all the questions. One side's really hoping you'll have some questions. Let's just put it that way. Now's the time to get your questions back there. And I'll tell you what we'll do. I'll tell you what we'll do. Listen up. Uh, we have two five-minute rebuttals now. That's 10 minutes. So if you've been sitting there going, "Oh, I've just been watching too carefully. I've been listening too closely. I still want to write a question down or something." Uh, we'll give you this next 10 minutes. Go ahead and stand up and walk back there. But at the end of the next 10 minutes, then those baskets need to be brought to me. And where's your friend by the way? Oh, Andrew. He's in the back. Stand up. Okay. So, uh, the, the questions will be asked. This side, Andrew will be working through. I'll be working through the others. I'll be multitasking. Um, and we'll have enough time to be able to do that before the Q&A starts with the closing statements and cross-examinations, stuff like that. But if you've got questions, now is the time to get them written down and get them into those, uh, those boxes back there. Okay. So next up, next up, we have two five-minute rebuttals. That will be followed by another segment of cross-examination, and then we will finish with closing statements of 10 minutes on each side. I can assure you, I've done a few debates, and when the other side is speaking, your, your timer is going very slowly. And then you get up to speak, and it goes really fast. So that's just how it works. You want to get all your information in. So we've got, uh, that amount of time left in the debate. Want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to get their questions in. So next, we'll have the five-minute rebuttals, uh, starting with the Protestant side, then the LDS side. Five instead of seven minutes last time. It's five minutes this time. All right. Start. Yes. All right. So, I'm sorry, I lied to you guys. I told you, I told you you would hear two different foundations. Unfortunately, you've only heard one. Um, we asked our opponents to send us material on how we can properly represent them. What would they be saying? They gave us, uh, one YouTube video, and that was great. But they haven't said much of what was said in that video. They haven't said much of what was said during our conversations that are recorded and posted on YouTube. A couple of things they've said, and these are quotes from them, you can go check this myself: "We can be wrong about anything because we're human beings, we're fallible. We don't possess any infallible truth." Okay. They say this while making truth statements the whole time. It's, it's self-defeating. Okay. This debate is not just on Sola Scriptura. There's a side they have to present that we haven't even heard yet. If you guys walked out of this room, could you tell me what the collective witness model is? Could you tell me what tools you have to use to use the collective witness model? I understand there is a tendency to attack Sola Scriptura, and we're ready to defend that. But this is a debate where we're supposed to both be presenting our foundations, and they haven't engaged with that yet. This is not a debate about Calvinism, although we are proud Calvinists, let me say that. This is not a debate about Anne Frank. So when they say things like that and try to tug at your heart and and make you feel like, "Oh, look at this evil Calvinistic God," what does that have to do with your ultimate authority? What is, what is their position? We still don't know. The question is, can God speak clearly? They keep asking us, "What about interpretation? And is this clear? How do you know your interpretation is right? A fallible man wrote this book, and now you have fallible interpretation." What they're assuming without saying it is God can't speak clearly. And I told you in my opening, they're not disagreeing with us. They're disagreeing with the Lord Jesus. Now, of course, they won't get up here and say, "I disagree with the Lord Jesus." Maybe they will. I don't know. But when Jesus says in Matthew 22, "Have you not read what God spoke to you, saying..." and then He quotes from the scriptures, what is He saying? How often does Jesus, in His ministry, quote from the scriptures? And you never hear from His people, "Well, what's the canon, Jesus?" It's almost like the canon was understood by the people at that time. So why these, uh, why do they have these objections that the people Jesus spoke to didn't give? It's because they're assuming something that Jesus didn't assume. They're assuming God can't speak clearly. They'll say, "No, He can. We just can't receive it." If God cannot communicate to you something through scripture, He can't communicate clearly. They talked about circular reasoning. "Book A says it's true because Book A says it's true." Guys, what's the debate about tonight? Your ultimate authority. By definition, it has to be circular reasoning. If I tell you I have this as my ultimate authority, and you ask me, "Daniel, how do you know that's true?" and I point to you somewhere else, then the something else becomes my ultimate authority. Yet they want to try to convince you guys, "Oh, look at these. It's it's illogical to use that. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible." This is a debate about your ultimate authority. If you guys knew what theirs was, I would ask them, "Does your ultimate authority attest to your ultimate, to your own standard?" Unfortunately, we don't even know what it is yet. So hopefully, they present it at some point in this debate. Without the highest view of scripture, we can't claim to know what God has said. We can only give you our opinions. Tonight, we hold the view of scripture that the Lord Jesus held. They, they claim that in our sinfulness and in our fallen state, that we can actually thwart God's inspiration of the scriptures. That God wants to save all His children, but God clearly doesn't want to communicate. Because if He wanted to, I think He would have embedded it into each of our foundations, which I hope they present. Theirs is the God of each foundation, and the God of our foundation is the God in Psalm 115, who sits in the heavens and does as He pleases. He's the God in the book of Daniel, where you have a pagan king saying, "Who, who can stop this God? Who, who can stop His hand?" No one can thwart Him. He's the God who saves the rebel sinners and saves them perfectly. But the God embedded in their foundation is the God that Joseph Smith imagined and supposed was just like him, a God who is just a man. So it makes sense that from their perspective, God can't communicate clearly. But it also follows that if He can't communicate clearly, He can't save perfectly.

Just a reminder, five minutes left for the last questions to be put into the boxes, or the, so we can start looking at them. Please. Thank you.

So, just to respond to McDaniel, just said, I know it's really stressful to be up here on the stage, but if you were listening, we did give our position, and it was at the end of the opening. Over here, again, you see, this is not just a matter of God knowing God's will by way of feelings. He's given us our bodies, reason, our hearts, our beings, the Holy Spirit, prophets, and apostles, the collective, the collective witness of all of the ways that God chooses to speak to us. They would also say that we disagree with Christ. No, we disagree with your interpretation of what Christ has said. Another point, they're saying that we have not presented an argument. Why didn't they ask us anything about our argument in the cross-examination? They didn't ask us a single thing about what we believed in regards to the collective witness model, which they know we believe. We've talked about it at length. That being said, I'd like to, uh, share one little thing here on something that they've touched tonight. Our opponents have accused us of not, if not being able to know, uh, to know anything for sure, or that our understanding of God's mind and will is subjective and therefore wrong, and that we can't justify morality because we can't say we know. We can't say we know. We can't be wrong, as they would. The trick here is that they are leaving the definition of the word "know" open to interpretation. It seems that we don't share the same exact definition of what it means to know something. We do believe we can know things. There's a, but there's a difference between knowing something rationally and being able to explain it rationally, and knowing something spiritually. We would say that we do believe that by the power of the Holy Ghost, we may know the truth of all things. They would say they know things because the Bible says it. In a debate with Michael Brown in 2013, Dr. James White, when asked if he was sure of his election and if it was ever possible for him to fall away from the from the faith, he stated, quote, "Well, this is verbatim, by the way. Well, you're confusing, I think, creaturely categories of knowledge, rational and divine categories of knowledge. I would take infallible knowledge as a divine category. So in the sense that the Holy Spirit testifies to me of my sonship, as certain as a person can be at that given point, our human, given our human limitations, yes." Unquote. When asked again if he's not 100% sure of his salvation, James says, quote, "I'm not divine. So I have to recognize that as far as the Holy Spirit testifies to my heart, yes." Unquote. To say it simply, we are as sure of our knowledge from God as James is of his election. And I'm sure our opponents, as well, we are not divine, but the Spirit has testified truth to us, just as James believes the Spirit has testified to his heart of his election. Our opponents have accused of, uh, accused us of not believing in absolute truth, they're not being able to justify it. We do believe that absolute truth exists. One of our current church leaders recently said, quote, "Absolute truth does exist. In a world of increasing disdain and that dismisses absolutes, moral relativism is the view that ethical or moral truths are relative, that they depend on the attitudes and the feelings of those who hold them, and that no one can judge the validity of someone else's truth. You hear a lot of talk these days about 'my truth' or 'his truth' or 'her truth.' You, moral relativism just doesn't work if there's to be order and justice in society. Can murder be wrong for some, for most, but right for some? There are, in fact, moral absolutes. Truth and moral concepts exist apart from personal whim or preference. The only question really is what they are and how far they extend. Our calling is to teach the truth of moral concepts. We prize the truth on any subject from any source, but eternal truth, especially as it bears on the meaning and the purpose and the conduct of life, we must obtain from God. Moral relativists generally see no role, irrelevance, in God in this discussion and typically doubt that He even exists. It would be most inconvenient for them if He does exist, and even more so if He speaks to man. Only one can only think about truth as relative if God is not around. That being said, remember that our debate tonight is not about whether or not absolute truth exists, but rather how are we come to know? How do we come to know what the truth is? When we see another human being, another human beating a child, our opponents would say we should point to the Bible to say that beating is wrong. And we would, but we would also point to God, because His witness, the witness He gave us, is the only reason we believe the Bible to be true in the first place. Therefore, making His witness to us most fundamental and the ultimate authority. We are just as sure of that, more wrong, as they are. We know because God has told us. God has spoken truth to us. He has written it on our hearts. A point that I think our opponents would agree. And with that, I hold my time.

All right, now that, uh, means, uh, it'd probably be a good idea if we got the, uh, questions at least the ones that I'll be looking at, up to me before we start the next section here real quick, or someone's gonna have to just sort of look like they're sneaking up here, but they're not really sneaking up here because everyone's looking at them anyways. So, uh, if we could get the, the baskets and then get ready for cross-examination. So which one's mine? I'm picking the questions for LDS, and they're picking the questions for the Protestants. Okay. Okay. Okay. So we have 10 minutes. Okay. Uh, do we want to keep the order going the same direction? You want to? Yeah. Okay. Okay. So gentlemen, all right, your time begins.

So I'm going to read you guys a quick, couple quotations from our podcast interviews that we did with you guys. Jacob, you said, "Because humans are fallible, we must always recognize that we can be wrong. However, this method allows us to be more or less certain using these tools." And again, later, you said, "I could be wrong about anything." Do you still agree with that statement?

So if you watched in the interview itself, that we talked about later in the conversation, we actually made the distinction between spiritual knowledge, those categories of knowledge, as Dr. White had talked about, and then rational knowledge. When I talk about rational knowledge, that's what I'm talking about. Somewhere you can't be certain. But you can, through spiritual witness, is perfect certainty because it comes from God.

Okay. So there's things that you know infallibly?

No, no.

So next question. There's things that you don't. You just admitted that there's things you don't know about.

Can I explain? Can I respond to the question?

Go ahead.

So there are, so are there things that I can know infallibly? No, because I'm always fallible. But there are things that God can witness to me, and when God witnesses to you, that is true, regardless of what I think about it, because it came from God.

But it's not infallible?

No, it is infallible.

So there are things that you can know that aren't infallible?

There are things that can be communicated to me by an infallible source that are infallible. Those things that are communicated by God.

Yeah. Yeah. So, okay. So what has God communicated to you infallibly?

Like, I would say for instance, I would use this analogy. If someone pours a pot of boiling water on a baby, I truly, like, God has witnessed to me that that is wrong. And on a spiritual level, I would say I know that is wrong spiritually.

So how did God reveal to you that pouring hot water on a baby is wrong?

Through the Spirit that's within me and the revulsion that I feel. The Spirit.

So someone who says, "God told me through the Spirit that putting hot water on this baby is right." How do you know which one's right?

I would look at them and simply say, "God told me." In my, yeah.

And they would say, "Hey, Jacob, God told me that burning this baby is really good." Yeah. They're wrong. How do you know which one's right?

How do I know? Yeah. Be kind of subjective because God told you and God told them that it's okay. So how do you know?

I, I can only say what God told me. They, I think that they are lying in that case.

Say it again.

Or deceived. Lying or deceived.

They're either lying or they're deceived. And you know for sure that they're...

Lying that they're on a spiritual level. Yes, okay, spiritual level. Yes. And you know that because God told you spiritually? Yes. God revealed it to us by His Spirit. He wrote it on our hearts. Okay. So then you would take back the statement when you said, we would have, you said in our interview, and they can go check this themselves, that we can be more or less certain about things rationally? Yeah. Okay, let's move on. Your model, what are the three, or what are the tools to your model, your collective witness? So essentially, is this anything that helps us to understand the truth? I can use mathematics to learn the truth about things. Okay, that is a, you know, and which essentially is just mental reasoning. That's what mathematics is. God gave me a mind to help discover truth. He also gave me a heart so that I can watch someone pouring on a baby, and He can reveal truth through that. He can reveal truth through the word of His scriptures.

How can I even, is it possible you're deceived and it's actually Satan who's telling you these things? Yeah, of course it's possible. It's possible. It's possible. Okay. Is it possible tonight that Joseph Smith is a false prophet? Sure, it is. Okay. Is it impossible, or do we believe, is it, is it possible? Oh, sure. Okay. Is it possible that when a mother takes her child when she's pregnant to be killed via abortion, that it's a good thing? Is that possible? No, it's not possible. It's not. Well, why would I say that it's not possible? Because of the witnesses that I have. I can only speak this truth. I have received it. So it's subjective. It's not, it's not, it's not anything outside of yourself. It's been revealed to me by an outside source. Okay. Is it possible tonight that as you guys sit there, you guys are actually women and not men? Is it possible? Yeah. No, no, it's not possible. No. Okay. So, okay, so then there are things you guys know for certain. It is a definitional thing here. If you say you know, can you know that you're not a married bachelor? It's like, you just said something that makes absolutely no sense. So I just want to be clear then, the way you guys do know things infallibly is because the Spirit told you? We have received what we would call spiritual witness. Okay. Do you see the problem that I had? No, hold on, real quick. When I've had an experience with God, like, I can't deny that I had that experience. The experience is real. But it could be Satan. It's possible. It is possible. Okay. Um, again, I'm asking one more time, what models, what, what are the tools in your model? Do you have a certain amount, or is there any, because, well, I, I, in your YouTube video, you gave us three to consider. Can I have the time to give the, because there's five of them that I personally had, and I need a little bit of time to actually give them? Can I have that? Uh, try to make it as quick as possible. I'll try. I just want another five. That's it.

So, one is going to be, obviously, like my heart, my intuition. Someone forced them on a baby. I don't need the Bible to tell me that that was wrong. Okay. God can witness to me directly. That's one. Number two, I would say, um, is my empirical experience. Like, I can see you right now. My eyes are revealing the truth about who's in this room right now. I don't, I don't doubt. I don't need the Bible to tell me who's in this room. So it witnesses the truth, and the truth is reality and God's word. Number three, the third one, I would say, is reason. Okay. Two plus two equals four. Like, I don't need the Bible to tell me that. I can discover that truth through the rational process. God gave me a brain for a reason. Uh, number four, I would say, is what Jesus talked about as the fruits. He said that you can know a prophet is true by the fruits that come from them, in other words, the experiential things that come out of it, right? If my marriage gets way, way better because I'm living in certain principles, those principles are morally true. It witnesses to me that it is. And number five, to make the last one, is the witness of God's apostles and prophets. That they also act as a witness to reveal truth to the world. And so, I, I don't limit the truth that I take to a particular creed or interpretation of the Bible. I use all of the tools that God has given me. Okay. Is there a reference point that you can point to that tells you you should use these? Or is there arbitrary? God, God told you. Yeah. Okay.

Um, you guys reject Adam-God theory? The theory that Adam was God? Depends what you mean by that. There are so many interpretations that. Okay. Do you believe Adam was God? No. It depends what you mean. The way, the way Brigham Young taught it? No. Okay. Yeah, you don't. Okay. And in your video, you said the reason you reject it is because it's theologically inconsistent with the past prophets. Do you hold that statement still? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, given that Joseph Smith comes along thousands of years later after the prophets, and he's inconsistent with them, why do you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet? Because I don't believe that he's inconsistent. And I think that the, you don't believe he's inconsistent with what was talking about. He's talking about Brigham Young. Joseph Smith, right now. Right now. I'm talking about Joseph Smith. You don't believe that Joseph Smith was inconsistent with the test in Deuteronomy in terms of not giving a false prophecy or not leading people after different gods? No, because Joseph Smith never had a false prophecy. We don't. Next question. We next question. Next question. It's impossible. [Music] We don't believe that because we do not believe that humans are infallible. We don't believe the Bible teaches that prophets are infallible. Okay, cool. So, uh, you also said it's impossible to prove sola scriptura using the text of scripture. You still hold to that statement? So what is that? It's impossible to prove sola scriptura using the text of scripture. To pray. We can't prove closed canon using the text of scripture. Okay. Can we prove sola scriptura by using the text of scripture? It depends. If closed canon is part of sola scriptura, yes, it is. Okay. So, so, no, no. Okay. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where we're told to obey any teachings taught outside of the scriptures? The Bible doesn't define what scriptures are. No, that's not my question. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where we are taught to obey teachings taught outside of scripture? You're, but in your question, it presupposes that we know what constitutes the scripture, the 66 books. Okay. If we just do the 66 books, do the 66 books tell us to obey anything outside of them? We don't presuppose that those 66 books are the only books that that God has revealed to the world. Let's move on. Um, you guys said, do you believe that, um, God can communicate to us, but as soon as we essentially touch it, it's tampered because we're fallible? Is that correct? Yes. We don't believe in infallibility of human beings, and we believe that we ultimately always walk by faith. And I can't help but feel like this desire for something that is perfectly, like, infallible, that you have, because if you have that, then you're no longer walking by faith. You're walking by perfect certainty. And we always walk by faith. So, when, when missionaries get ready to leave their house on a trip, and they go and they're spending a couple years in a different city, and they knock on a house with the Book of Mormon, do you tell them before they go that that book is fallible? Yes. The book says it's fallible. You tell them that? The book doesn't say. Okay. It's in the, in the title page. It says, if there are errors, they are the mistakes of men, and to do not to not deny the things of God because of the mistakes of men, essentially. Okay. One, let's try to get one more in. Augustine says, "What more shall I teach you than what is in script? Than what we read in the apostles? Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we be wiser than we are." What do you think he meant by that? That is Augustine of the fifth century. Read the quote one more time. "What more shall I teach you than what we read from the apostles? For the holy scriptures fix the rule of our doctrine." That's okay. You can finish reading it. He can answer. Yeah. Okay. So, I'm going to read it one more time. Yeah, go ahead. "What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we are." That's Augustine of the fifth century. What do you think he meant by that? That is Augustine saying that the scripture is a reliable authority that we can follow because if you read the early church fathers, you're going to find a bunch of them who, like I already quoted earlier tonight, who point to sources outside of scripture. The early church fathers did not hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura, and people could just Google online and find all the quotes. Thank you. All right, ten minutes going the other direction. Ready? Yes. Here we go.

Do you believe that you interpret the Bible? Do I believe that I interpret the Bible? Yes. I believe God speaks and I receive His revelation. Do you believe you interpret the Bible? Do we believe we interpret? Yeah, yeah. Do you believe you interpret the Bible? You would have to. You have to define interpret. Because when my wife, when, when my wife sends me a text saying she loves me, I don't interpret that. I know what it means and I clearly receive it. Okay. So, do you interpret the Bible at all? I read the Bible, and God communicates to us through the Bible. You don't interpret it the way Jesus says? No. God speaks to us through the Bible, and the way Jesus says in Matthew 22, we would agree with that. So you would agree that you don't interpret the Bible? I would say the interpretation is, is to understand clearly what the scripture is reading. So if you just read a text at face value without context, right, then you would be wrongly interpreting it, right? So we interpret the scripture according to. So you do interpret the Bible? Yes. Sure. And you are a fallible human being. Say it again. And you are a fallible human being. Do you believe you can be wrong about your interpretation of the Bible? There are things that God reveals, and it is the Almighty God who reveals these things to His creation. He communicates them clearly. So, like I said in our opening statement, we take God at His own word. So whatever God says, we can't be wrong about. We could be wrong about things that are not essential. The things that God has, uh, uh, revealed to us plainly concerning His will, concerning salvation, those things are, are, are plain in text, and that's what we see Christ, uh, holding people accountable to. You all can interpret. What do you mean when you say God reveals it to you? God reveals to me. Yeah. You said, well, no. God, God speaks in His scriptures. And so this is what the church has. Okay. So you're saying He's sending a message to you, and He's not sending a message? He speaks to us again in Matthew 22. Jesus says, "Have you not read what was spoken to you by God?" Saying, "This is what God said." Okay. Do you believe that God makes you believe the Bible? God makes me believe the Bible. God makes me believe Him. And by that, maybe you could follow that conclusion. Do you have a choice in your belief in the Bible? Can you reject the Bible? Uh, the scripture says that we are dead in trespasses and sins, right? And it says that the natural man can't understand the things of God. He cannot discern the things of God. He cannot submit to the law of God. So, yes, we believe that God must endow us with the faith that we have. We believe in. Can you reject your belief of the Bible? Can I read you? Do you have a choice? Do you have a choice to reject it? Jesus says, "My sheep hear my voice." If you're His sheep, you're going to hear His voice. You can hear it, but can you reject it? Jesus says that all those that the Father has given to me will come to me. Yeah. So, so, can you reject it? Or, yes, if we were given to Jesus, I mean, we were given to the Father, I mean, we were given to Jesus by the Father. No, we cannot reject. So you cannot reject. Okay. Um, would you agree that you have to be chosen by God to believe in the Bible message, the Bible, to believe in it, in terms of bringing about saving faith? Of course, yes. Okay. Does, does Reformed theology teach that we can and do know who is and is not elect? Say it again. No. Does Reformed theology teach that we can know who is and who isn't elect in the room? Okay. Would you say that you know that you are one of God's elect and are regenerated? Well, in First John, it tells us that He has written these things so that we may know that we have eternal life. But you just have, you just said no. Yeah, you're talking about, we're talking about other people. We can't look out into a crowd and say, you're elect, you're not. But you can know for yourself? Yes. Okay. Um, because you, uh, so because you are regenerated and His elect, you believe the Bible's message? Is this correct? Am I understanding that correctly? You said it again. Because you are regenerated and elect, you believe the Bible's message? Is that correct? I would say, yes, that's correct. But that does it. Okay. That doesn't determine whether or not the Bible was correct. Whether or not we believed it would be correct. So you are, you think that you are the elect? Correct. If you were not the elect and were void of the gift of faith, would you be able to understand and believe in Jesus Christ, His gospel, and His word? We wouldn't want to. It's not, it's not if we're able to. It's we wouldn't want to. And not socially. Okay. Have you ever known someone who was assured of their election, just as sure as you are of yours right now, but who has since fallen away? I've never heard him, uh, put it that way where they say, "I'm a sure of my election." But I've heard people say, "Yeah, I'm a Christian. I'm going to heaven when I die," and then walk away from the show. What about, what about Calvinists? Have you known Calvinists who thought? Okay, what makes your assurance different? Your assurance of election different from someone who was also sure of theirs but later fell away? They didn't have saving faith, John. They thought they did, right? Yeah, they thought they did, but they didn't. Because, John. So what makes yours different? That doesn't determine. I would actually have saving faith. That doesn't. Has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Okay. Yeah. Oh, absolutely does. How does it have? I'll go ahead. I'm just here to ask questions. Can I, can I respond to that? No. Judge and ask questions. Questions, please. Uh, let's see here. Is it possible? Is it even possible that you are not one of God's elect? Is it possible that I'm not one of God's elect? Given what I read in the scriptures, I would say no. It's not, it's not even possible. No. God would have to lie since I believe, uh, upon the Lord Jesus with saving faith. If I were able to believe on Him that way and me not be elect, God would be lying. And so since I do believe in Him. So you can't be wrong about that? No, we can't be wrong about what God revealed. Can you be wrong about your election? We're saying we can't. God can't be wrong. We're saying we receive that. But you have to make the decision on whether or not you believe you are taking God at His own word. That's what we're doing. God speaks, we believe Him. But you know other people who believe that and then fell away later. So what makes sense? What makes you different from them? Let's say I'm an answer. That doesn't determine the veracity of that statement. We, just because a person believes it, that doesn't mean that that's what it is. First John 2:19 tells us that those that were a part of the body of Christ, they were apart. It says they went out from us to show that they were never really of us. So, just because they claimed faith, that doesn't mean they were actually of the faith. So you are 100% sure without a doubt that you are God's elect? I would say, based on what God revealed, yes. And you can't be wrong about that? God would have to lie if anybody could believe upon the Lord Jesus with saving faith and not be saved. He would have told me. And that's not just your opinion or something that you feel. It's just, it is this with the gospel. We can open up the Bible and read that if you'd like. So you would agree that there have been people who have genuinely, in their own minds, had a sure election as you have, but who were not actually elected? No, no. They, they claimed. They claimed. Well, in their own minds, I mean, they did not. No, listen. They claimed that when they died, they thought they were going to be the Lord. But you're saying they didn't actually. If they, if they reject Him and they're not God's elect, that's not true. So I would say they never really believed on the Lord Jesus with saving faith the way we do. Okay. The scriptures teach that's impossible. Okay.

Do you believe the Bible is, uh, do you believe the Bible infallibly teaches that we are not all children of God? Yes. Do you believe the Bible is infallible? Yes. We are not all the children. What was that question? So you do not believe that, that we all are children of God? We don't believe that. The Bible says. Okay, just making sure that was clear. Sorry, I'll slow down. Do you believe the Bible infallibly teaches that God does not want to save everyone? Correct. Do you believe, wait, hold on, hold on. So you're saying again, you don't believe that God wants to save everyone? Yes. We're saying that if God wanted to save everybody, that God, that sits in the heaven, does all that He pleases. He would. So He has intentionally, like, "I want some people in this room to go to hell." God is omnipotent. God is sovereign. If God wanted all people to be saved, they would. You're also assuming that people don't want to go to hell. The people that reject God, they don't want God. They don't want to go to heaven. They actually. How do you know them? Because God tells us that. That can't be wrong. Okay. Okay. God is not. God tells you that. God, scripture. In scripture, not, not by the Spirit. In scripture. Your interpretation of scripture. Ephesians, what He said in scripture. Ephesians chapter 2 says that we are dead in trespasses and sin. Psalm chapter 14 tells us that no person seeks after God. Isaiah 53, all of, like, all like sheep have gone astray. The Bible speaks clearly of man's denial of God apart from saving faith, apart from the Spirit of God. Two minutes.

Do you believe the Bible infallibly teaches that even little babies who die will go to hell if God doesn't choose them? Say it again. Do you believe the Bible infallibly teaches that even little babies who die will go to hell if God doesn't choose them? The problem with your question is, is you're assuming that the scriptures give us the prerogatives to make that decision or to know that. The scriptures don't teach that. Does God have to choose every baby? God, God has to choose whoever is elect. God has chosen every baby who has ever died to go to heaven. God doesn't reveal to us who He has and hasn't chose, but He's free to save, uh, babies the same way He's free to save everybody else. Do you believe He 100% says has saved all of them who have died in infancy? Do I believe? No, I don't believe I'm given the. Okay. I would have a problem with that, by the way, just so you know. Let me, let me, let me answer that in another way. Um, uh, in, in, when, when David is grieving over his child and his child dies, right? He says, "He shall not come to me, but I will go to him." Now, scripture gives us hints regarding certain things, but it does not speak clearly on this thing. So we would not presuppose or presume upon scripture to say that which it does not say. Okay. So, so, so what you're saying is, is scripture, does scripture say that you have to have faith in Jesus Christ and to, in order to be saved? Yes. But faith in Christ is not something that we create in ourselves. So God gives faith to little babies? I didn't say that. I said we don't. But if you didn't give faith to little babies, then that would mean that they're, that's the only way a little baby would be saved if it's God giving them His saving grace and saving mercy, the same way it is for all of us here tonight. Do you believe the Bible infallibly teaches that when God chooses to elect someone and work in them, that they cannot reject this election? Yes. Yes. It says, "We work out what He worked in us." Do you believe, do you believe the Bible infallibly teaches that God decided before we were born who will, who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, and that we have no real choice in the outcome of our salvation? We wouldn't say that we have no real choice. We say that those who are slaves, or those who sin, are slaves to sin. They choose sin each and every day. Now, does the scripture say that God has ordained from all eternity all those who He would choose to elect and place in Christ and adopt? Yes. So He has decided. Okay, we're done. Time's up. All right, cross-examination is over. We have closing statements from both sides, and then the questions. It looks like my counterpart is ready to go down there. I'm ready to go here as well. Uh, there will only be 20 minutes of questions, so we have to keep them succinct and work through them as quickly as we can. 10-minute closing statement, and let's go ahead and get started. So, let me start off by thanking our opponents for taking the time to partake in this debate and thanking you all for arriving. Uh, we hope that it has been fruitful in highlighting the differences in our worldview. We hope that it has been, uh, also fruitful in showing the necessity of an absolute standard for proper orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Every discussion about epistemology is, ultimately, truth. Uh, is a discussion about one's view of God. These are matters of theology first and foremost that must inevitably start with the nature of God. Our opponents here tonight have openly admitted to worshiping a deity lower ontologically and potentially than that of Judaism, uh, the religion from which Christianity is birthed. This God of the Old Covenant and also the New, the God whom we evangelicals serve by the word of His power called all things into being from nothing. They don't believe that their God organized matter that pre-existed from all eternity. Our God sustains all things in heaven and earth, Colossians 1 and 17. They also don't believe that God cannot do all that He pleases, right? God is subjected to our free will, and He works. Our God works all things according to His the council of His will, according to Ephesians 11. And again, they don't believe that because they say all people, God wants all people to be saved. And my question is, well, why are not all people saved? If you believe that God wants all people to be saved, you should be a universalist. And, uh, they deny that. And God we move and live and have our being in His light. Do we see light by His testimonies? Are fools made wise? And by His word are the dead brought to life? I encourage you all, and our opponents alike, build your life upon this word, upon the Word made flesh, and His testimony recorded in scripture. For there alone are the words of eternal life, and in scripture, the very mind of God is revealed to us, and in it, we find the eternal and infallible truth of all things concerning faith and conduct. As His servants, truth is not fluid. Truth is not plural. Truth is not subjective. And our opponents here, they made that same statement. Generally speaking, they said truth is not pluralistic. And then we say, how do you know what you know? They said, well, the Spirit testifies to me. Well, what about the Spirit testifying to someone else something totally different from you? That is the definition of subjective. We, as evangelical Christians, make no claims whimsically, but we have the self-attesting standard of the truth of God's God-breathed word, which have authoritatively been recorded by the prophets and apostles and acknowledged uniformly by the church, by the people of God throughout redemptive history. We serve not a God of confusion, but according to Hebrews 1, a God who has spoken with perpetuity in past times, and when He waves by the prophet in these last days by His Son. There is only one uncompromising and absolute transcendental source of transcendent choice, source of truth that undergirds all of reality, and this truth is available to you in the person and in the work of the Lord Jesus. It is not a matter of autonomously choosing this truth, for according to Romans 1, the true and living God has endowed creation with His revelation. So how do we know? We know. We're not saying that without the Bible, you cannot know anything. We're not saying without the Bible, you cannot know pouring scalding hot water on a baby is wrong. We're saying that God has revealed Himself in the nature, and God has revealed Himself in scripture. Romans chapter 2 says the works of the law are written on our hearts, and they're there to convict us of the truth. So it's not a claim that, as my brother Daniel mentioned earlier, it's not a claim of exhaustive knowledge by scripture and that we can know nothing apart from it. It's saying all things are known by God's revelation, but man, in his sin, man, in his sin, has had his heart darkened and his thinking rendered foolish. Therefore, Christ was sent into His own creation to be the light of man, and by Him, God's nature and will for man was more clearly exposited. It is for this reason that epistemology is ultimately a matter of authority. Either we come to know what we know through the submission to divine revelation, or we come to know what we know through our own autonomous reasoning apart from God's word, and we remain fools. Church Father Hippolytus of Rome puts it this way in his Refutation of All Heresies: "There is, brother, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the holy scriptures and from no other source. For just as a man, if a man wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of the world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so also all who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn his practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the holy scriptures declare, at these let us look, and whatsoever things they teach us, let us learn." What our opponents presented to you was pragmatism. They said, "Oh, we will be known by our fruits. Our prophets are known by our fruits." Right? The, and so what they're claiming is that based on their lives and what we can observe from them, that's how we know whether or not they're right. That's a poor standard. Scripture gives us a clear standard. If a prophet prophesies something that is wrong, he's a false prophet. If he leads you after another God, he's a false prophet. If he denies Christ coming in the flesh, he's a false prophet. That is an absolute standard, right? That is not a standard based on how well the person interacts with you. That's not a standard based on your experience with an individual. That's a standard based on the unchangeable word of God, the irrefutable word of God. Mormon, the, God of Mormonism is not the thrice-holy God. Instead, He is a man. He's a man himself, simply higher up the ladder of exaltation than His spirit children. And in Mormonism, God is not the fountainhead and standard of all goodness. Instead, God is only God in as far as He obeys eternal law and continues doing good. The God of Mormonism cannot be further from the God of scripture when juxtaposed to one another. They are categorically different in every way that is revelationally, ontologically, theologically, and relationally. When a fallible God is the ultimate reference point of your claims of knowledge, you can know nothing for certain. They will say, "Our God is infallible. Our God is infallible." Yet, if you ask them, "Can your God, can your God disobey eternal law?" If you go and watch our videos, you will see they say yes, and they say if he does that, he will cease to be God. Those are not my words. Those are their words. That is a fallible God, and that fallible God cannot give you infallible truth. If your theory of knowledge does not start with absolute truth, there is no way it can end with truth. Absolute truth must always be the reference point. Therefore, we conclude the worldview presented by our opponents tonight to be bankrupt, for one is not able to deposit from it that which is necessary to have knowledge of saving faith and the Christian life in light of God's revelation. We spent six hours, six hours on all these matters with these guys, and they almost disagreed with each other as much as they disagree with us. And that's what you would expect from a fallible standard. That's what you would expect, right? Even amongst the adherents of this worldview, disagreements all over the place. And they say, "Oh, oh, the nature of God is not an essential issue." How, how is that the case? Right? Our faith is only as good as the one we put our faith in, right? So one of them says, "God was God for all eternity. He's the head of, of the council of many gods." Another one says, "No, God was a man. He lived on another planet. He possibly sinned." Right? That is chaos. That is chaos. That is not, that is sand. You cannot build a worldview on that. We believe in a God that is true, a God that has been God from all eternity, and our standard is Him. Our standard is the Logos. Our standard is the Lord Jesus Christ, and He undergirds all of reality. Truth is truth based on it being, uh, being shown and shown to be true by, by the word of God. Therefore, whether it be the words of their, uh, considered prophets, or the promptings of the spirits, or your own reasoning, I urge you, do not lean on your own understanding in your evaluation of these things, but rather test them by the ultimacy of God's written word. As we have told in First John 4:1, "Beloved, I do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets go into the world." The scripture warns us of false prophets, right? Even Brigham Young, he tells us, "Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand." We're to tell you unequivocally, it fails. It does not stand the test. The scripture also warns of the influence of spirits, not the Holy Spirit. Well, how do we discern if it's the Spirit of God or another spirit? Well, the Spirit of God, in First Peter, is, is told us, we're told that the Spirit of God is the Spirit that authored the scriptures. Numbers 23 tells us that God is not a man that He will lie. Therefore, we can be sure that that which the Spirit gives knowledge of, that's what the Spirit reveals, shall not contradict what is written in the word of God. And what about man's autonomous reasoning ability? The heart is said to be deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. The man who trusts in his own mind is a fool, yet it is he who has made the Lord his confidence that is blessed. Psalm 40 and 4. Ultimately, LDS faith seems to be predicated upon the presupposition of the validity of personal, uh, personal revelation from God. Our friends, the dependability of their ultimate standard, as we do. The problem is, your ultimate standard is doubtful, as they admit. It is the conclusions you reach, therefore, are also doubtful. What can the Mormon say to the Jehovah's Witness, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, all those who make personal claims as to this has been revealed to them, and they know it to be true? All they can say is, "Well, God told me so." What God told you, obviously, is wrong. We have an objective standard that we can point to and absolutely say, "This is the word of God," and we rest our case on that. Thank you. And ten-minute closing statement. Sorry about that. Ten-minute closing statement. All right, so I'm Hayden, and occasionally I have a few little differences in doctrine that we'll discuss sometimes, and I am glad to hear that within Protestantism, that there isn't any disagreement ever. Now, the question we are debating tonight is about the ultimate authority for determining the mind and will of God for believers. Now, for us, the answer is really simple. God is the ultimate authority, and He can speak to you. In fact, it is the witness of God's Holy Spirit that is the only reason that we believe in the scripture in the first place, and therefore, the Spirit of God witnessing to us is the most fundamental. On the other hand, our opponents' starting point is that the 66 books that they chose, and their particular interpretation of them, constitutes the ultimate authority on all matters. And this is, uh, and ultimately, this is because they believe that they're the elect, they're the chosen ones who can see what everyone else can't see. I actually felt bad for our opponents, trying to have to argue this position. It's a trap, because if they say that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true, they engage in circular reasoning. And if they point to anything outside the Bible, like God Himself speaking to you, then that thing would be a higher authority, and therefore they would lose the debate. Our opponents have failed tonight because they have failed to address the three problems that we began with. First, the logical problem. They say the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. It's like finding two books on a table that are on a table. They both claim to be the word of God, and then someone grabs one and says, "This is the infallible word of God." And when you ask why, they look at you and say, "Because it says so." And they quote all sorts of verses in there to validate that. It's absurd. So, number two, is the closed canon problem. Okay, they, they claim that the 66 books that they chose, that that's it. They can't be anything else. Not only is that impossible, as we pointed out, but they ignore the fact that those 66 books talk about books like Nathan the Prophet, the missing epistles of Paul, uh, how about the writings of the Prophet Enoch? If we found those, would the canon still be closed? The third is the interpretation problem. See, even if we have the infallible word of God, we are under no obligation to think that they are better at interpreting it than any other fallible and human being. They can say they're, they're elect all they want, and what they think the Bible really says is that we are not all God's children, and that God does not want to save us all. Their interpretation says that the little Jewish girl Anne Frank was created for dishonorable use, and this is the idea that God wanted her to starve to death and then for her to, and endlessly be tortured in hell afterwards. Now, you can believe that interpretation, which they say isn't their interpretation, that's what God is saying, or you can listen to God witnessing in your heart that their interpretation is wrong. But they will tell you to ignore that witness from God and to go with their interpretation. They will say it is you who is suppressing the truth, not them. They're the chosen ones, the elect, and God has given them the ability to properly understand scripture. We say something different. We are pointing out the obvious. It's God's ability to speak to us that is the very reason we believe in the Bible in the first place, and thus it is more fundamental. Does this mean that we believe feelings alone determine the truth? No. Let's be very clear. We recognize that we are fallible, and the notion of feelings alone is just as false as the idea of scripture alone. God's word is truth, and His Spirit works to manifest the truth through the witness of our hearts, the witness of our minds, the witness of our experiences, the witnesses of our eyes, and of course, through the witnesses of His prophets and apostles. Could we even understand the Bible without eyes that see, without a mind that reasons, without a heart that feels, without life experiences that manifest the truth of scripture in our lives? It is this collection of witnesses from God through the endowments that He has given you that gives us our basis for confidence that something is true. It's how God speaks to us. But you have the ability to say, "No, God, I don't want to," because you're a fallible human being, and He gave you the gift of agency. But our opponents, they say the measure of all truth is their interpretation of the 66 books they chose, because some of the, the verses in some of those books, they interpret to say that. Are they really after the truth, or are they worshiping their own image as the chosen ones who can see what the rest of us cannot? We offer something different. We offer a religion that is after the truth and are willing to use all of the tools that God has given us to find it. The first president of our church said, "The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and the other sects is that other sects are circumscribed by a particular creed, whereas the Latter-day Saints are ready to believe all true principles that exist as they are made manifest." The contrast should be obvious. One side of this debate says, "There are the chosen ones and demand that you conform to their narrow interpretation of the Bible, which says we're not all children of God and all that." But we're here to say something different. We're here to say that you're all children of God, and that He loves you beyond all comprehension. He did not create any of you to be damned. He created you to be one with Him. But it's us who reject that freely offered, loving relationship. We're here to invite you to join with us in gathering together the truth from wherever it may be, using all the tools that God has gave us, including those 66 books of the Bible. We follow the model of the early Christians. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians that the church was "built upon the foundation of the apostles who were living, and the prophets, the writings of the of the of the prophets in the Bible, in the, in the Hebrew Bible, with Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." So who is the ultimate authority? The words of the dead prophets alone? No, that's not what he said. He was the living Christ guiding His church, the living servants who held the keys of His kingdom. Jesus Christ Himself said to the living Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." He did not say, "Upon your interpretation of these 66 books that I gave you, I'll build this church." The church was founded on living authority by a living God who, who's guiding His church through living revelation. I want to sincerely say, despite our clashes today, okay, Hayden and I have developed a real friendship with our opponents, and we will continue to be friends. Okay. Our message tonight was not to destroy many of the wonderful truths that you all have, and they are significant, but we are here to seriously question notions that maybe constricting your ability to see a bigger picture. God has given you more than John Calvin's biblical interpretation. Remember James 1:5, which says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God." That's our message tonight. How can God answer if we limit His ability to answer to the interpretations of men? God can speak to you. Don't be afraid of the truth. Don't be afraid if you have to do a little spiritual and theological remodeling. That's how we grow. God exists. Jesus Christ was the Savior of the world. By His grace, we are saved through faith, not of works, not because of all that we can do, but despite all that we can do. We are not here to boast of ourselves as the chosen ones, but to testify of God's ability to speak to you. And we invite you to drop all of your preconceptions about what us Mormons are and what we believe. We invite you to come and see, to talk with us, to serve with us, to be our friends. Tonight, we have rigorously challenged certain ideas, but please don't misinterpret that as an attack on any of you. Unlike our opponents, we believe that you all are children of God, and therefore, you are our brothers and sisters. We love you. Come join us in seeking the truth using all the faculties that God has given you. And I testify that the God of truth will bless you in that noble quest. And I leave that with you in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

All right, I do have a question of our sound people, and that is, how is our friend going to go, going to use the microphone? No, he'll get them to you, and you should be both good. Alternate. Oh, you. So he picked the ones. You'll read three's fine. Only three. Just grab four. In 20 minutes, there's more. I thought maybe you could just take the microphone. It's got a long, long lead there. You can take it. Yeah, if you wanted to sit back down down there or whatever. It's like twisted. Yeah, because you, you get this pulpit. You've already read them and can see them, and I haven't read them. So, and some of them are, as you will testify, you have to look rather carefully. Not all of you excelled in penmanship in first grade. That's not all theano. Another. No, it looks like some of these might have been mixed up. I don't know if it was completely understood that there might be some questions in here that were directed to the other side, but they still, let's go with the ones they still roll. So they're good. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, since we started with this side first, you go ahead and ask a question of them. Then I'll ask a question here, and, and we decided on what was the time frame? It's going to be 90 seconds to respond, and then they'll get a 60-second rebuttal. Oh, that's a long time, but okay. All right. Uh, you know what? Since we're doing two different time things here at the same time, that'll prove to be fun. Uh, so I will do this one here, and then this one for 20 minutes, and that way we have a good idea what's going on. All right, go ahead, sir.

Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the scripture and the only scripture God breathed? So, the Bible doesn't have explicit verses for everything we believe in that manner. The Bible teaches us what books are, what a book would need to be considered, the nature of God. So, given with what we have, all we have is, uh, God's revelation. We wouldn't have a verse, for example, to point to that gives us a, um, an order of 1 through 66. We don't claim to have that. No one has ever claimed to have that. Just to add to that, really quick, um, um, we have scripture. Scripture, uh, what we read in Second Timothy identifying itself as God-breathed. And they would say typically that's regarding the Old Testament, but we also have Peter referencing the writings of Paul, the letters of Paul, and identifying them as scripture as well. Okay. All right. And, uh, 60 seconds. So, in other words, the, the Bible doesn't establish what is canon.

And what isn't, uh, that ultimately happens outside the Bible? Because there is no golden table of contents. And what they assume is that just because it's in there, that means other things we can't receive a witness from God to help us know that other things outside the Bible or scripture, we're going to get through more questions than we thought we were. We're not having any filibustering here. All right. For the LDS side, did Elohim have any foreknowledge that his spirit daughter Anne Frank was going to end up in a concentration camp in the pre-existence? Yes.

All right. Now, gentlemen, you have one minute to comment. It's, I think it's important to understand what's being pointed out. This whole time, we heard how the Calvinistic reform God was so bad because of what he knew was going to happen to Anne Frank. Our opponents just admitted that their God created Anne Frank while knowing this was going to happen to them. That's called using an argument on a side that doesn't work for yourself, right? If God, God is ultimately responsible, if God has the power to stop her from dying in the holy Holocaust, then he's responsible for not stopping. So we are going to get through a lot of questions too. Hear that? We're going to run out of the questions we chose and we're going to get out of here early. One, two. Your turn, sir. Quick question on my end. I was trying to sort through, was it supposed to be relevant to infallibility of scripture or well, if it came up in the debate primarily? But I put a number of them away that were, you know, how many wives can we have? You know, that might be one. That's fine. Or why do you talk so fast? Or something like, sorry, sorry, I skipped those. Sorry. So go for it.

Okay. Um, there are many Christian churches that proclaim their interpretation is correct, but may differ than yours. What makes your interpretation correct and there's incorrect? Well, the, the, the thing that we have to recognize is that scripture has spoken with perpetuity. The issue is not the scripture, the issue is people, right? So there are disputes about, like we said, preferential issues, issues that are not essential, right? But when somebody is denying a Christian, um, orthodoxy as far as a doctrine that is, that is essential for salvation, essential in terms of being a Christian, those things, we would say they are not only, um, disagreeing with our interpretation, they're disagreeing with the interpretation of the church throughout redemptive history. And I would just add to that, it's important what's being assumed is that the scriptures aren't clear, okay? I said in my opening statement that sola scriptura is not a claim of unanimity. We never said that we would always agree on everything. The question is, how do we know which interpretation is right? And we tell that by the scriptures. If you have an interpretation that's inconsistent with the scriptures, that's how you can know it's wrong. If you have one that's consistent, that's how you know it's right. You guys are so fast.

Okay, one minute. So in other words, if it's consistent with their interpretation of the scriptures, then it's, it's right. Okay. So that is, that is at the heart of the problem. Uh, so, and just as a side note, we have a very different understanding of foreknowledge. So just as a side note, that's it. All right. Are we allowed to respond to past questions if we didn't use all of our time? You have, you have a certain amount of time and I can say whatever I want. How much time do I have left? It would be good to continue answering the question. Okay. All right. Yeah, I mean, you want to shout out to your mom or something? I will, I will. Hi, Mom. Hey, Erica. That might not look all that good, but, uh, you can do that if you want.

Okay. Question for your side. And I, I think I know what the background here is. In light of Matthew 22, where Jesus quotes from 1400-year-old texts of scripture and holds men accountable to it, do you believe that Jesus' epistemology reflects your argumentation that you've used this evening? If it's different, why? Absolutely. Jesus Christ, very clearly, uh, a good example would be, um, would be Peter. He looks at Peter and he didn't say that scripture revealed it to you that I am the Christ. He said, my Father in heaven revealed it to you. Jesus Christ also said that it's by the Spirit. The Spirit will teach us all things. Jesus pointed to the fundamental nature of God's Spirit revealing to us it as the foundation of his church. And that's what he was saying to, uh, to, to Peter. Do you want to? It's easy to pull out one verse to make an argument out of context. That's called proof texting, which is what just happened.

Uh, oh, is there our turn now? Um, yes. One minute. Yeah. Um, I would say if you notice, they didn't even answer the question. The question was, does Jesus' epistemology reflect theirs and why? He took us to Peter, which this whole time for the debate, he had a problem with God choosing people. And the text he gave us from Peter was God revealing something to Peter. I think it's important to point that out. But the point is, is Jesus' epistemology was God could speak clearly in scripture, and there wasn't this question of, is that your interpretation? The question to them was, is, do they share that same epistemology that the Lord Jesus held? I think you guys heard the answer tonight is no. And what you see there, uh, is, is Christ's epistemology is, is the word of God, right? It's the word of God in a sense that we expect exactly what we see happen to Peter. What he says to Peter, we expect that from Old Testament revelation concerning the New Testament. We see that Jeremiah 31, we see that in Ezekiel in chapter 11, in chapter 36. We see exactly what we should see, what we should expect according to Old Testament revelation.

Okay, sir. Sorry, I had to look up a scripture. I'm not a scriptorian. Um, so in regards to limited atonement, what is your understanding or your truth that you find in, um, sorry, First Timothy 4:10? And I, I found the scripture. I'll go ahead if you agree if you have it. Okay. So First Timothy 4:10 regards to limiting atonement, um, "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe." We guess I'll allow it, even though we're really starting to stretch the topic range just a bit. Sorry, it was just a question about limited time. Go ahead. Are you going to read it? Okay. Regarding limited atonement, again, what we were pulling from is John chapter six. We said, "All those, all those that the Father has given to the Son will come to him," and further on, he says, "He will not fail to raise them up on the last day." So when we're, when we see the same of what we see in John chapter 3, John chapter 3, uh, in 16, "All those, uh, uh, who believe will be saved," right? The question is, who will believe? The question is, who will come, right? So when we are understanding a limited atonement, it's regarding man by nature, right, being hostile to God, not being able to understand the things of God, and being, um, influenced in his slavery to sin, being dead in trespasses. And I would say to the person who gave us that text, go read chapter two. Paul tells us in First Timothy chapter two, who the people are. In chapter four, he gives the list. King, he's, what Paul is trying to say is, is God is the Savior of types of all types of people, which is why Paul gives us that list. I would also ask the person, why do they take Paul's word in, uh, First Timothy chapter four and not in Romans nine, when it tells us that salvation is not based on man's will, but on God's election? 9:16, right? Now, will exertion.

So bringing this back to the debate, that verse was so clear from the greatest conceivable communicator on the issue of salvation that it required that giant explanation from them, from their interpretation of it. Okay. So when they say that the Bible is perfectly clear, yet all of a sudden there are these verses that seem to contradict and need all this stuff, if you're going to hold the idea that this book was written by the greatest conceivable communicator, it seems awfully unclear. But they don't think that. They say, well, the only reason you can't see it is perfectly clear, but you can't see it because you know you're not elect. And that's why within Protestantism itself, you get all these divisions. You have like, what, 8,000 different Protestant denominations or something like that? That's because every time someone comes up with a new interpretation, a new, new church pops up. Here's a few verses to, and how much time are we on? Ten seconds. Uh, First John 2:2, and there's 10 of them. I could share if I had time. And he, Christ is the propitiation of our sins, and it's not ours only, but also the sins of the whole world.

All right. I have two questions here that are so closely related that I'm going to fold them into one. Okay. So we'll actually read both of them, but you'll see they're basically saying the same thing. If I have a burning in my bosom that testifies the Book of Mormon is not true, can I trust that message from the Holy Ghost? (Moroni 10:4) And the methodology presented by the Latter-day Saints reminds me of that which led me away from the LDS Church. Would you say that this is valid? So they're both asking the same thing. How can they know whether the testimony that they're referring to is valid when it opposes what you're saying? Ultimately, what's happening here is that I can only testify for what I have received as a witness from God, okay? And if other people feel something different, yeah, okay. But the thing is, is I would say that they're, ultimately God speaking to you. It doesn't mean that God, just because you feel something, doesn't mean it's God speaking to you. And I think that through these various witnesses from God, we can arrive at the truth that this particular, uh, set of doctrines and ideas is from God, even despite the fact that it may contradict their interpretation of scripture. We do not subscribe to the idea of feelings alone. This burning in the bosom, which I would, I would bet that person doesn't even know where that phrase comes from. I'd be very surprised if they did. It's in our scripture. But using the collective witness, not just this burning in a bosom, can we come to know God's will? Spiritually, you do need to, you do need to understand that scripture plays into the collective witness. It's not like we just ignore it. It's definitely part of this. We just say that that's not the only thing. And specifically because they want you to adhere to a very specific interpretation of scripture, and we're saying, yeah, take into account the scriptures, but don't just blindly follow them and not ask God for yourself.

So one minute. So what we would see there again is subjectivism. We, we would say, uh, when, when you're saying that this is real to me, this is what's been testified to me, but something different has been testified to someone else, they are just as valid as you are, right? There is no opinion or view that's more valid, uh, than the other one. And, and that's, that's what you have when you don't have an ultimate standard of truth. The Spirit testifies to you one thing, it testifies to someone else another thing, and therefore you have no real claim against Buddhism, Islam, or all the rest. And even, let me say, really quick, uh, Brigham Young fails all of these tests, admittedly to you, and you still hold him as a prophet. I'll just add, really quickly, try to bring this back to the debate. What they needed to do to win this debate was show that their collective witness model, the, the collective witness model, is the authority and how we can know God's mind. And well, part of that model is the testimony of the Spirit, which is that question here. But the problem is, is they've told us that God can try to communicate to us, but we can't receive it.

Sir, I probably have a lot less questions than you do. Um, if God wanted to, can God add to the scriptures to help us? Example, Law of Moses, God changed to help them. If then why not now? Well, scripture in Hebrews chapter 1, it tells us in past times, he spoke in many different ways through the prophets, and in his last days, he spoke, uh, through his Son. His Son has come. His Son spoke, and his Son sent apostles into the world, and they spoke authoritatively as representatives of Christ. When those people died out, that ceased. Yeah. The scriptures, again, they don't have a verse explicitly that says the canon is closed. When you take the teachings of the scripture, you come to realize it's saying the canon is closed. God spoke to us in past time to the prophets, and in these last days, he's spoken to us through his Son. Now, I bet you our opponents are going to say that we decided the canon. We don't believe that. That's never been a claim of ours, and we don't, uh, use any counsel or decisions of men to base our canon. It's based on what the scriptures tell us can be identified as canon that we know and trust.

What is canon? In a minute, I just want to say that that is their subjective interpretation of the scriptures. That is disputed by the vast majority of Christians now and all throughout history. Yet they want to say, oh, well, this is what it, object. Remember, they say that this is what the Bible says. They're really saying this is what we think the Bible says. And because they're the elect ones, you know, they can't be mistaken on that. They already, they already admitted that tonight.

All right. Question, uh, for your side. Two minutes to respond. In the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, Joseph added a prophecy in Genesis 50:24-26 that is not found in any Hebrew manuscript in existence. So why should we accept 2 Nephi 3:4-22, which contains the same pretty much the same material, or anything Joseph Smith said at all? So I'm sorry, read the question one more time. I actually started with that. When you, in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, Joseph added a prophecy in Genesis 50:24-26 that has not found any Hebrew manuscript in existence about himself. So why should we accept 2 Nephi 3:4-22, which also speaks of Joseph, or anything Joseph Smith said at all? Okay. So first of all, just point out the fact that because we believe that human beings are fallible, it's perfectly possible that he mistranslated that. That's a possibility. I'm not saying that that's what we believe, but I'm just pointing out here, bringing it back to the debate, because this is a, obviously a question questioning Joseph Smith, which by the way, just, we all know if Joseph Smith was not a prophet, there's a total fraud and all that stuff. That doesn't validate their argument. Okay? That's a, it's a separate debate. Okay. But what I would say is, is that because Joseph Smith, um, is fallible, he may have, he may have made mistakes.

Sorry, that was mine. No, that was his. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. You have plenty of time. Check your times. 9 p.m. Uh, timer or, uh, okay. So where are your children at 9 p.m.? Right. Yes. So I need to collect my thoughts. How much time do we have? 30 seconds. Let's just go. Yeah. Um, it's not relatively debate. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. Sorry. Well, I think what the question was stating is that that which he added to the scripture is not found in any Hebrew manuscript. So it's not a matter of mistranslation. It isn't there, right? And so the question is, should we, why should we believe him? We shouldn't. He fails the test of scripture, Deuteronomy 13, Deuteronomy 18. And, and I think what, what needs to be understood is that again, when we approach the scripture, uh, from a worldview that is contrary to scripture, then we can say things like, well, even if he's wrong, that doesn't mean that these guys are right. Yeah. Uh, I would just add, their whole collective witness model is based on the testimony of Joseph Smith that the new, that the New Testament was missing parts, like he needed to restore the gospel. And so I think the question is trying to get at, if, if Joseph was wrong there, and he could be wrong about restoring the gospel, doesn't that destroy your whole collective witness model? Which I would agree it does. And I think it has.

All right. How about we try to get one more question for each side? Because we started over here, so we'll get one more for them and then one for, and we'll wrap it up. So Daniel 2 teaches that God will establish his kingdom in the latter days. If you believe this prophecy is true, how do you expect God to do this without communication to men, and shouldn't this communication be considered scripture? When, when we see that term used, uh, "last days" in scripture, we, we see it used, uh, in the New Testament time. And what we, when we take a consistent teaching of what that meant, it's the last times of the Jewish age, right? That Jesus was doing away with that covenant, he was bringing in and establishing the new covenant, which Jesus did bring. He says, "If I cast out spirits by a demon of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." So Jesus brought in, he inaugurated his kingdom, and he's building it. So he's done. I wouldn't have a problem with that verse, given what all of scripture says. If you isolate it by itself, then sure, you could twist it to make it look like it's saying something it's not. Yeah. And, and just to add to that, um, scripture tells us that that Christ is, uh, his, the fulfillment of these messianic prophecies is to build the kingdom in these last days. Due to, I mean, um, Matthew chapter 24, this is all regarding this, this situation. And Christ is saying, "Before some of the people who are alive today die, they will see him coming in his glory." And we say they did see him coming, and he came and he judged Israel. That was the end of the age. So ultimately, what they're saying is that God used to breathe, but he doesn't breathe anymore, okay? It's this idea of like a dead God. God was breathing scripture all this time, and all of a sudden he just stopped. There's nothing in scripture that said that he was going to stop and that all revelation would cease. In fact, Jesus Christ himself said that prophets will come in the future. Jesus could have just said, like, hey, any other people after this, like they're all false prophets. That is what he said. He said, "You'll know them by their fruits. You will know them by their fruits," right? And so ultimately, what you have here is the New Testament model of the church, living apostles and prophets who hold the authority from God. They're not infallible, but they do hold the authority from God to speak authoritatively and to adjudicate these questions in matters of general revelation to the church.

Okay, last question for your side. Uh, since the Book of Mormon teaches one God (in Alma 11:27), the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants teach multiple gods. Was it God contradicting himself, or was it Joseph, the author of those three books? So I would, I'll just say this, personal response. The question, I would challenge anybody in the room who believes that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon to put together some presentation and give it to us, and let's have a conversation on whether or not Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon. You will lose. It's been tried again and again and again. So if anyone wants to take us up, maybe that's our next debate is the validity of the Book of Mormon. Uh, that being said, sorry, remind me the question. I lost my train of thought about, since the Book of Mormon teaches one God and only 11:27, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants teach multiple gods. Oh, yeah. This is simple. So, um, with the, what we, what we've coined as the First Vision, we would know that when the word "one" is used, as it's used in John 17 in the New Testament, when Christ says, "that you may be one, as I am one with the Father," he doesn't mean he wants the apostles to all become one person. He wants them to be one. You've probably heard the phrase, "in unity," right? "In purpose." We wouldn't. It depends on the context. And I would say, as well, I would say, as well, that in the Psalms, you can find references to, to, uh, multiple deities within the Old Testament. The, the hard monotheism was a creation after the Old Testament. If you actually look into the scholarship, there's a lot of good reason to believe that the Old Testament authors actually, uh, had a polytheistic view of the world.

One minute response. I would, I would just say, I'm pretty sure you guys are gonna get that slide that you're looking for. And, um, if you guys can tell our audience after this is over, any one scholar, more, give us actual evidence for the claim you just made that scholarship says that monotheism was a creation after the Old Testament, given that the Old Testament consistently teaches there's one God. I think the point of the question is, is Joseph claimed one thing here and claimed another thing there. He's contradicting himself. And since your worldview is based upon the revelation that Joseph gave about restoring the church, your worldview is built on sinking sand. It collapses right at the beginning because Joseph Smith is fallible. Again, I want you guys to understand, they're winning this debate is actually losing. They're saying you can't know anything for sure. So everything that they're stating and defending, they could be wrong about it all, and they're acknowledging that. And so that's nothing that, that, you don't build your worldview on that.

All right. I would like to give you all opportunity to express your thanks to our debaters for the presentations. [Applause] [Music]