Debate Teacher Reacts: Great Debate: Christian vs. Mormon on the Bible

Debate Reactions and the Problem of the Criterion

Do you believe the Bible in Falwood teaches that even little babies who die will go to hell if God doesn't choose them?

Say it again.

Do you believe...

I... What is going on with Dr. White? Look at James White right here.

In Falwood teaches that even little babies who die will go to hell if God doesn't choose them.

Say it again.

James White is not happy about this question, ladies and gentlemen. I... What's that? I hear a whole episode on the dividing line about this question from the LDS team.

Do you believe the Bible in Falwood teaches that even little babies who die will go to hell if God doesn't choose them?

Oh, James. Whoa, James. Calm down. Calm down, Dr. White, please. Please calm down.

The problem with your question is...

Burden of Proof in Christians vs. Mormons on Authority

Welcome back to a brand new episode of Debate Teacher Reacts. My name is Nate, and this is Wise Disciple, where we help you become the effective Christian that you were meant to be. If this is your first time here, welcome.

I'm a former debate teacher, and part of what I do here is I react to apologetics and theology debates, breaking down the arguments, deciding who was the better debater from a judge's perspective. I highly encourage you not to just check out this particular series, but to check out the other videos that are on this channel.

We are close to launching a membership feature here, where I'll spend time with you, answering your specific questions, creating videos that you want me to. I'll also train you up to be an effective disciple of Jesus in today's culture.

Now more than ever, it is imperative that we live on mission, all right? And I'm here to help you to do that. Well, today's debate comes to us via Apologia Studios. The topic of the debate is, on what authority should we believe?

Christians are on the one side, and Mormons are on the... LDS member. They don't like being called Mormons. LDS member is on the other side. Note that with a topic worded in such a way, this tells us where burden of proof rests, right?

I made some other videos on this before. We talked about this. It appears that both sides shoulder their own burden here, all right? So definitely watch the whole debate. I'll leave the link in the notes below so you can see who does a better job with that.

We are going to zoom in on cross-examination, where all the sausage is made, all right? This is where clash gets really interesting and super exciting. So let's jump right in, shall we?

First question for you guys. Is God omnipotent? And if so, can you explain what you mean by that?

Is God a what? Sorry.

Omnipotent.

Omnipotent.

Omnipotent?

Omnipotent.

Okay. Yes, God is omnipotent in that God can do all things that are possible.

Okay, I really don't think that you should start right here, okay? I'm already seeing cross, right? If you haven't seen this debate before, you really do need to go back and watch the openers and the first rebuttals from both sides because both sides just came out swinging, all right?

Both sides provide rigorous argumentation. Now, I'll go ahead and say that the LDS side didn't really bother to make much of a case to shoulder their own burden, okay? So now, here we are. The Christian right off the bat says, do you think God is omnipotent?

You have to understand he's setting a garden path for his opponent based on things that his opponent said in the opening in the rebuttal. So he's probably setting up for a slam dunk here. Let's see what happens.

And what do you make of Psalm 115 and 3? Could you read that 115 and 3? Our God is in the heavens and he does all that he pleases.

That God does all that he pleases.

Right, so 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.

Well, what it 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 prefaced the first question, is he able to do all that he pleases? Is he able to communicate with perspicuity to people through scripture?

So this is me being pretty picky here. Probably the Christian should have started one or two steps back, all right? The first question that he probably should have said right out of the gate was, is it your position that God communicates to people?

Okay, so that makes the claim under attack clear for the audience. Because let's face it, the audience can't keep track of every single word that's been said in both openers and rebuttals, you know? And at some point, and I can't remember if this was open or rebuttal, the LDS team did say that God communicates privately to people.

Then they quoted James 5, which I think is one of those go-to passages that you can literally set your watch to it. An LDS member at some point during a discussion with a Christian is going to quote James 5 to talk about God speaking privately to individuals, all right?

That concept that God speaks privately to folks is what the Christian appears to be challenging right now, presumably to say, well, if humans are fallible and God speaks privately to humans, you know, with whispers and tugging on a person's heart, right?

LDS folks have famously described this as a burning in the bosom, you know? If that's how God speaks, then how can we trust what a fallible human says about what God said? And this is probably a dig at LDS prophets like Joseph Smith, all right?

So let's see how it goes.

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.

What I heard from your opening statement, I'm questioning regarding that. 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, repeat the question.

That would hinder his fallibility in revealing himself in scripture.

God's fallibility?

God's infallibility.

Okay, so...

Our fallibility hinders God's infallibility.

No, it's that God has given us a gift of agency so that we can choose to enter into a relationship with him because that is part of his purpose.

If you're asking if God can force us to...

I'm not sure I understand the response here from the LDS team. Okay, so maybe they just need to clarify. The question from the Christians is an epistemological question, all right? If God is omnipotent, he's all-powerful, how can you say that the power of his communication is hindered by fallible creatures?

That would appear to make fallible creatures more powerful than God, all right? That's what it looks like the Christians are trying to ask at this point. And so, if God speaks privately to a fallible human, which is what the LDS team claims about God, what does a relationship with God have to do with hearing God speak?

Can't God just say what he wants and have it be received clearly regardless of whether or not a relationship exists? And by the way, isn't that the testimony of the entire Bible? God doesn't communicate only to people who first have a relationship with him.

The Bible says that we love because God first loved us. When was that? When we were dead in our trespasses and sins. God loved us and made us alive together with Christ. I mean, the Bible gives us multiple examples of God speaking to men who had no relationship.

With him.

You know, some of them were enemies of God when they heard him speak. Saul on the road to Damascus, you know, when he's blinded and Jesus speaks to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? Saul had no relationship with Jesus at that point.

But he clearly heard God speak and then communicated God's specific message to Saul. He communicated that to others as part of his testimony. So, so maybe there's a point to be made here from the LDS team.

I'm just not seeing it right now.

I believe the answer is no.

That's not what I'm asking. I'll move on.

What do you interpret God breathe or Theanostas to mean?

That God has spoken through Scripture.

Clearly. Has he spoken clearly with perspicuity?

Define clearly.

Has he spoken in a way that we are able to understand and receive?

We're able to.

Yes, but because of our own fallibility, 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 what an interesting take on 2 Timothy 3 .16, right? 2 Timothy 3 .16. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for a proof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete.

That quite literally equates the Bible to being the very words of God. It's very difficult to introduce fallibility into this verse. But the LDS team, I mean, they're not the only ones that do this, right?

This is the progressive Christian also who, you know, they would say something like, well, human beings in the past experienced God, and then they tried to communicate that experience of him in the best way that they possibly could being ignorant, fallible creatures.

But that's not what the Bible says about Scripture. It says Scripture itself are the very words of God. There is a one-to-one relationship with God in the Scripture. By the way, the same picture is given in creation when God breathed into the dust and made mankind.

That same one-to-one relationship between God and his act of creating Adam and Eve out of the dust is the same one-to-one relationship now between God and his breathing out all of Scripture. That's 2 Timothy 3 .16.

That's what it's giving us. That's the picture of it. So the question is, does the LDS team understand what 2 Timothy 3 .16 is really saying? I think the answer is no, they don't. But it's up to the Christians now to call this out.

So let's see how it goes.

Let me get this straight. 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, 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 books?

Yes. No.

Why not?

Because it was written by man.

And that is a complete rejection of the plain teaching of 2 Timothy 3 .16. You have to do some hermeneutical gymnastics in order to say something like that. The other thing is you end up opening the door to the next question, which is, if the Bible is fallible, how do you know what to accept about it and what to reject?

Everyone's fallible. The Bible's fallible. In this kind of an environment, how can you know real biblical truth? If the LDS answer is, well, it's the Holy Spirit, you see, that doesn't solve anything because they just got done saying that God's speaking cannot be reliably understood.

You see the issue? The LDS team here has no reliable criteria to know truth.

Why?

Because information is sifted through multiple epistemological filters, and not one of those filters is 100 reliable. This really undercuts the force of their arguments when they try to say that Christians are absolutely wrong about their interpretation of the Bible, and that the Bible itself is wrong in parts, right?

Because it was written by fallible men. They have to admit that they cannot say that with 100 confidence because of their own fallibility. It gets even worse than that. They can't even say with confidence that their own religious beliefs are correct.

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 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.

These LDS guys are super articulate, and they're quick on their feet. To some folks, it may sound like they're giving great responses. The problem is there are really only two answers to the Christian at this point.

The Christian says, so God is unable to communicate clearly to his creation? The only two answers to this question are, number one, yes, God is unable to communicate, but then if he's unable, he's not even the Christian God at this point.

This is like open theism or something, you know what I mean? He's trying really hard, but he's just unable to do all things, which violates the teaching of the scripture about God. Or, the second option is, God is able, but he just doesn't want everyone to hear him.

Those are the only two answers here. And the second answer is kind of ironic, because the LDS team just got on the Christian's case for being Calvinists, but the LDS, they opened the door to sounding like Calvinists themselves.

I'd say right now the Christians have the advantage, because they're asking the right kinds of questions. Are they asking it in the best way possible? Maybe not, but they're doing exactly what they should be doing, and the LDS team are not providing sufficient answers.

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, 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.

So this is too abstract. I hate to keep interrupting. This is too abstract. If I were these Christians, I would just say, open your Bibles to 2 Timothy 3 .16. Everyone in the audience, if you have a Bible, open your Bibles to 2 Timothy 3 .16.

LDS team, let's hear you exegete this specific text in order to get at your own conclusion, you know? You remember the OJ case, right? OJ Simpson, like, it's one thing to show the glove in court, right?

And then go, well, here it is, right? It's another thing to make OJ put the glove on. That's a bad analogy because that didn't go well for the prosecution. But that's what I mean, like, make them put the glove on.

Make them do some work with the scripture, because you can't say what they're saying right now, the LDS team, in light of 2 Timothy 3 .16. So make them do the work of exegesis for everyone in the audience to see.

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 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 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... 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. You don't have to have a confidence level of... It's not zero or 100, right?

If we didn't...

Friends, open your Bibles to 1 Peter 1 .20. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Okay, LDS team, exegete this passage of the scripture for us and show us how you get to the conclusion that fallibility is somewhere in there.

Make them do the work. That's the best way to do this kind of a thing.

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.

Got you.

Can you see from a plain reading of the text.

That...

Can you understand why someone would believe the infallibility of scripture?

I would say that 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, I think that 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.

I see scripture teaching 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. 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 does inspire scripture, and I believe that it's highly reliable. But I don't think that it is infallible. That's just another jump.

So just one more.

That's good. That's good. So to recap, LDS, do you think God's word is infallible?

Yes.

Okay, LDS, is all scripture breathed out by God? Is that what the Bible says?

Yes.

Well, but that doesn't mean what you think it means. Okay, LDS, does the Bible teach that the Bible is God's word? Yes, it says that. But the Bible is not fallible. Are you guys keeping track of this?

If there is some sufficient explanation for all of these comments that the LDS team has made, now would be the time to explain it, okay? And they need to start from the beginning. Because if you just say these things and you provide no follow-up or further details, it appears that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

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 word? 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 there.

Thank you.

So I'd say the Christians asked some good questions. They had a few opportunities to really press their opponents with interpretation of scripture, or perhaps exploring some tests of consistency with regard to the LDS belief system.

But, you know, overall, I think advantage goes to the Christians so far.

Why do you believe that the Bible is true?

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

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?

We 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 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 the 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 reject this revelation, any standpoint you take now outside of God's revelation is reduced to foolish thinking and absurdity.

Okay, so you have to see the content of the books to decide which one is the true one. So 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 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 Council of Trent in the 16th century. In the 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 you don't believe that the Bible is true just because it says it's true. There are these other things that you're talking about that attest to its truth, and that's why you believe it?

So God will put 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. If you're asking me to just... The way you presented book A and 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 declares...

And what does that...

So now the LDS team has pulled out their baseball bats, and they are swinging for the fences, all right? And the Christians should have been prepared for this line of questioning, and I hope they thought about this ahead of time.

The problem is, this is a regular talking point with presuppositionalists. The Bible is self-authenticating. We begin with the truth of God's word as our starting point. The problem here is the Christians need to unpack some kind of an explanation for using circular reasoning in this situation.

What I'm hearing is, well, God says this. God's word is that. What is required at this point is a logical justification for the use of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not the same thing as making a circular argument, and so it is appropriate at times to use circular reasoning.

As a matter of fact, everyone is circular in their reasoning if you press down deep enough. I made a video a little while back where I talked about the problem of the criterion, which is the $6 million question when it comes to epistemology, because guess what?

It's everybody's problem. I'll leave the link below if you want to take a look at the video, because whatever your answer is to the problem of the criterion, you're forced to beg the question, and that's the point.

So, everyone has to start with presuppositions. The LDS team has their own presuppositions. Everyone does. So, I think what is necessary, besides explaining that the Bible is God's word, is a logical justification for circular reasoning when it comes to the Scripture.

That way, the audience, they're not well-versed in philosophy or logic or, you know, they can understand a little bit more about the presuppositional view other than in just simply saying, yes, we are going in a circle.

By the way, I'm not someone who argues in this way. I don't think I would do this myself, but I do know enough to know that there are explanations for the presuppositional approach with regard to the Bible.

But if these Christians really don't provide it, they're not going to adequately address the challenges from their opponents. I think the LDS team is asking the questions they should be asking right now to challenge their opponents, and I'd say the LDS team has the Christians on their heels right now.

What does that have to do with the truthfulness of the book? Isn't the Bible true because the Bible says it's true, and there's no other thing outside of that that we have to look to?

We don't need the evidence. Again, it's God's fingerprint. It's almost like putting icing on the cake. We didn't need it, but the fact that we see it as a testimony that God is not a liar.

Okay, so what's the relevance of that testimony then?

If the Bible is true, right? We believe that the Bible 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 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 contents manifested in time and history.

So when you actually see things happening in time and 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, 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 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 they're the 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.

Clarity, Salvation, and the Perspicuity of Scripture

Okay, so let's go into something else real quick. Uh, is God the greatest conceivable communicator?

Is what?

Is God the greatest conceivable communicator?

The greatest conceivable communicator? What is... I don't even...

If God is the greatest...

God can communicate, yes, clearly.

Yes, so can anyone communicate better than God?

No.

Okay, no.

Okay.

Could he have made the Bible any more clear?

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 you should reveal your word.

So I would assume that... Okay, um, so. Is the Bible perfectly clear?

In the means, in the matters concerning salvation and the will of God for men, yes.