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

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. The problem with your question is...

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, alright?

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.

Alright, 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, alright? 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.

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

Okay. 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, alright?

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 and 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 Psalm 115 and 3? Our God is in the heavens and he does all that he pleases.

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.

The first question that he probably should have said right out of the gate was, is it your position that God communicates to people?

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.

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.

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, with whispers and tuggings on a person's heart,

LDS folks have famously described this as a burning in the bosom. 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, alright? So, let's see how it goes.

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.

What I heard from your opening statement, I'm questioning regarding that. You said that even if the scriptures were infallible, because of our fallibility, we cannot properly interpret them.

That would hinder his fallibility, correct? I'm sorry, repeat the question. That would hinder his fallibility in revealing himself in scripture.

God's fallibility? God's infallibility. 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 believe... I'm not sure I understand the response here from the LDS team.

So maybe they just need to clarify. The question from the Christians is an epistemological question. 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. That's what it looks like the

Christians are trying to ask at this point. 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?

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.

The Bible gives us multiple examples of God speaking to men who had no relationship with him.

Some of them were enemies of God when they heard him speak. Saul, on the road to Damascus, 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 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, 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, 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. 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 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?

And 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, 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 and fallible 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 any time 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.

God is 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, 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. 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 remember the O .J. case? O .J. Simpson? It's one thing to show the glove in court, and then go, here it is, right?

It's another thing to make O .J. put the glove on. That's a bad analogy, because that didn't go well for the prosecution.

But that's what I mean. 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. Like, you don't have to have a confidence level of, it's not 0 or 100, right?

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 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? I don't think people who come to that conclusion are mentally deranged or something.

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 the Scripture teaching that it is infallible? 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 its communication to us.

Like if He came down right now and He talked to us, we would say that that is infallible. I understand that. 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... 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 as 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?

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 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 project 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 you mentioned, the Quran is also self -attesting. But we see the books of the Bible, agreed upon throughout history, and formally agreed upon and interacted with throughout church history, long before any council declared it.

Long before Council of Trent in the 16th century. In the 2nd century, I believe you have 22 books of the

New Testament already being interacted with. 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. And what does that...

So now the LDS team has pulled out their baseball bats, and they are swinging for the fences. 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, they can understand a little bit more about the presuppositional view, other than 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 is a testimony that God is not a liar.

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

If the Bible is true, 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. 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. Okay, so let's go into something else real quick.

Is God the greatest conceivable communicator? Is what? Is God the greatest conceivable communicator?

The greatest conceivable communicator? What is... I don't even... God can communicate, yes, clearly.

Yes, so can anyone communicate better than God? Okay, no. 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... So is the

Bible perfectly clear? In the means, in the matters concerning salvation, in the will of God for man, 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 that was in Scripture. Good job.

Good job. Jesus himself treats the Scriptures as the very words of God. I literally just heard a sermon on this.

In Matthew 15, Jesus quotes the Scripture. But right before he quotes the Scripture, he says, God said, and then he quotes like an

Old Testament passage that was written centuries before he walked the earth. Why didn't Jesus speak like these LDS guys and say, well, you know what, there is an

Old Testament passage that was written by fallible men who received God's word fallibly, and this is what it says.

No, that's not Jesus' attitude. He spoke as if the Bible were the very words of God. So good job on the

Christian side. That's how you do it. So is the Bible perfectly clear on how long the creation process took?

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?

So why would God put things that are unclear in his book? We're talking about the intention of Scripture.

God intended Scripture to say a certain thing. We see that in the Scripture mentioned in 2

Sympathy 3 .16, right, 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 is 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?

So Scripture tells us in Deuteronomy 29 that the secret things are kept for Yahweh our God and the things that are revealed to us are for us and our children.

What do you mean by that? 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're unstable and they're 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. So what is, according to the Bible, what is necessary for salvation? Faith alone in Christ.

So why doesn't the Bible just be like a one -page document that just says that? 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 that Scripture itself attests that...

I'm sorry, I'll go back to the questions. Good catch there. The LDS team caught themselves.

In more formal debates, you're only supposed to ask questions, you're not supposed to make speeches, that time is for other segments of the debate, and it can be very easy to get swept up in the exchange, you know?

Especially if you don't do this kind of thing on a regular basis. But he caught himself right there, so good for him. Is it perfectly clear on the issue of infant baptism?

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.

So you guys would say it's a salvific 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.

I have something here real quick. I just want you to look at it. It's in our common language.

It says, I never said you stole money. Okay? Is this perfectly clear?

The statement? I mean, there's no context to it? Sure, I guess the statement is clear but if there's context behind it that you're leaving out then

I would think it's not clear. 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 understand. 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 there.

So it's called Bible study. This is exegesis that really should be taught to every single

Christian free of charge. You know, when I was in school to get my theology degree, I kept thinking I gotta tell as many people as I can about what

I'm learning. So I'd share stuff with my wife and I'd share stuff with my friends. I mean, everyone should know how to read the

Bible properly and how to disciple others. 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 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 breathed out the scripture so ultimately...

The language determines it. So when it says, he who does not believe in me is already condemned the words themselves determine clarity.

He would determine that. So he could reveal to us the things that are clear and that are not? 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. If someone said otherwise they would be misinterpreting scripture?

Yes. So I'm going to read to you guys a 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 when I'm talking about something where 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. Okay, so next question. You just admitted that there's things you don't know infallibly.

Can I respond to the question? Go ahead. 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 are infallible.

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

Yeah. 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 in my heart. So someone who says, God told me through the spirit that pouring hot water on this baby is right.

How do you know which one is right? I would look at them and simply say, God told me in my deepest heart.

Yeah, and they would say, hey Jacob, God told me that burning this baby is really good. How do you know which one is right? How do

I know? Because God told me. And God told them that it's okay.

So how do you know? I can only say what God told me. I think that they are lying in that case. Say it again?

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

So then you would take back the statement when you said we would have to... So this is getting spicy quick.

Let's hope at the end of this garden path that the Christians are setting up here that there's some kind of a humdinger of a question.

They 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 tools to your model? Your collective witness model? So, essentially it's this.

Anything that helps us to understand the truth. I can use mathematics to learn the truth about things.

Okay, that is a... 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?

It is. How false do we believe that? Is it possible?

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?

No. It's not possible? I would say that it's not possible because of the witnesses that I have.

I can only speak the truth as I have received it. So it's subjective. It's not anything outside of yourself.

It's been revealed to me by an outside source. Okay, is it possible tonight that... So, I think a more precise question that gets at the heart of the issue here is can you explain the criteria to know the difference between your own feelings and the

Holy Spirit? That's what the Christians should be asking. And maybe there's an answer to this question from the

LDS side. I've never heard an LDS member ever give one because I've asked that question many times.

And, you know, really what they say is, well, I just know, which isn't an answer. You guys sit there, you guys are actually women and not men?

Is it possible? No. No, it's not possible? No. How do you define woman in our day to day?

You gotta define that. It ultimately is a definitional thing here.

If you say, can you know that you're not a married bachelor? It's like, you just said something that makes absolutely no sense.

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. Do you see the problem? 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. Again, I'm asking you one more time.

What models, what are the tools in your model? Do you have a certain amount? By the way, this is exactly what

I was saying in the previous cross exam. If you argue, as the LDS team did, that human beings are fallible and that God cannot communicate in a manner that is clearly understood by human beings, then that applies to your own religious beliefs as well.

The LDS team cannot know with confidence that their own religion is of God for the same principled reasons they tried to use against Christianity.

So the Christians are asking exactly what they should hear. Good for them. Can I have the time to give the because there's five of them that I personally and I need a little bit of time to actually give them.

Can I have that? Try to make it as quick as possible. I just want to know the five. That's it. One is going to be obviously like my heart, my intuition.

Someone pours something on a baby. I don't need the Bible to tell me that that was wrong. God can witness to me directly. That's one.

Number two, I would say is my empirical experience. I can see right now.

My eyes are revealing the truth about who's in this room right now. I don't doubt that. I don't need the Bible to tell me who's in this room.

So it witnesses the truth and the truth is reality in God's word. Number three, the third one, I would say is reason.

Two plus two equals four. 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. 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.

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 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. Not one of the things listed here is objectively situated outside of human persons.

Everything this guy said is situated inside subjective human experience. Well, it's my experience with this, and it's my experience with that.

And it's other people's experiences over there. And so, the question still stands. Even conceding what this person just said, how can you know the difference between your own subjective experience and God actually speaking?

What is the criteria to know the difference? There's still no answer. Look, I'm six foot with my shoes on, okay?

If you wanted to challenge me on that, you'd say, well, how do you know you're six foot, Nate? If my answer says, well, because of my own sense experience, it tells me that I'm six foot.

You know what? And other people over there, their own sense experience, you know, because they've looked at me, and they've also concluded that I'm six foot, like, no.

If your answer doesn't mention a ruler, then you cannot say with confidence that you know the answer.

...reference point that you can point to that tells you you should use these, or is it arbitrary? God. God told you.

Okay. You guys reject Adam -God theory, the theory that Adam was God, correct? Depends on what you mean by that.

There are so many interpretations that... Do you believe Adam was God? No. Depends on what you mean.

The way Brigham Young taught it. No. Okay, you don't. Depends on... 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. Brigham Young or Joseph Smith? You don't believe he's inconsistent with what was taught...

Are you talking about Brigham Young or 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 I don't believe... Joseph Smith never had a false prophecy. We don't... Next question. Can we answer?

It's impossible to prove... Let him answer. Go ahead. 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, you also said... Don't miss this because it was said very quickly.

There's a lot of excitement on stage, and you can tell. But the test of a prophet in Deuteronomy is very simple.

If a prophet speaks a word in the name of God, but God has not commanded this prophet, this man shall die.

That's the command. Now you tell me, does that sound like the Bible teaches that sometimes fallible humans can get the word of God wrong?

It's impossible to prove sola scriptura using the text of Scripture. Do you still hold to that statement?

What was that one more time? It's impossible to prove sola scriptura using the text of Scripture. 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. 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? But in your question, it presupposes that we know what constitutes the

Scripture. If we just use 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 God has revealed to the world. Let's move on.

That's not the question that was asked. So, again, these LDS guys are pretty solid in their abilities to articulate themselves in advantageous ways during cross -examination, but you have to listen closely to what is being asked and answered.

Does the Bible teach folks to obey anything outside of its own 66 books? The answer is no.

As a matter of fact, the Bible warns about men in the future who would come along and teach something new and different than what is already established.

It also condemns those who tried to do that very thing in some of the early churches in the first century.

The Bible calls these men false teachers, and the promises for the future in the New Testament are not about a time later where new revelation will be revealed.

Rather, the promises are about the end of all things. Which is really interesting that the

Old Testament spends so much time prophesying the coming of Jesus Christ, which is fulfilled in the first century, but spends zero verses on another coming of Jesus to America so that the

LDS church can be established. Once again, the Christians are doing a great job asking the questions that they should be asking.

The Christians have the advantage. You guys said you believe that God can communicate to us, but as soon as we essentially touch it, it's tampered because we're fallible.

Is that correct? We don't believe in infallibility of human beings. We believe that we ultimately always walk by faith.

I can't help but feel this desire for something that is perfectly infallible that you have.

If you have that, then you're no longer walking by faith. You're walking by perfect certainty. We always walk by faith. When missionaries get ready to leave their house on a trip, 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 claims it. It's in the title page. It says, if there are errors, they are the mistakes of men.

Do not deny the things of God because of the mistakes of men, essentially. Let's try to get one more in.

Augustine says, What more shall I teach you than what is in Scripture, 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 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. Let's go. Let's 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. Do you believe you interpret the Bible? You would have to define interpret, because 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. So 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.

Oops. This is a very simple question, and the answer to it is yes, we interpret the

Bible. See, the Christians know that the LDS team is setting that garden path, and so they don't want to be pinned against the wall, intellectually speaking, so they're trying to evade where the question is leading, to the point where they're not even answering the question.

The problem is that the answer is clear, and when you don't easily give a clear answer, that becomes bad optics for your team.

So you would agree that you don't interpret the Bible? I would say the interpretation is to understand clearly what the

Scripture is reading. So if you just read a text at face value without context, then you would be wrongly interpreting it.

So we interpret the Scripture according to Scripture. 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? A fallible human being, yes. Do you believe you can be wrong about your interpretation of the

Bible? There are things that God reveals, and as the Almighty God who reveals these things to His creation,

He communicates them clearly. So like I said in my opening statement, we take God at His own word. So whatever

God says, we can't be wrong about. We can be wrong about things that are not essential. The things that God has revealed to us plainly concerning His will, concerning salvation, those things are plain in text, and that's what we see

Christ holding people accountable to. The law can be interpreted. What do you mean when you say God reveals it to you?

God reveals to me? Yeah. No. God speaks in His Scriptures, and so this is what the church has.

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.

Okay. Do you have a choice in your belief in the Bible? Can you reject the Bible? 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. Can you reject... Being fair to the

LDS team, maybe there is a point that they're getting at here, or maybe they're asking questions that don't have to do with the topic.

But which is which? Right? If these questions lead to Calvinism as bad, then the

Christians can appeal to topicality later, right? In other words, they can point out that their opponents have strayed from the topic.

So, let's see what happens. Do you reject your belief of the Bible? 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 gonna 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. So can you reject it? Yes or no?

So, if we were given to Jesus, I mean, we were given to the Father, we were given to Jesus by the Father, then no, we cannot reject it.

So you cannot reject it. Okay. Would you agree that you have to be chosen by God to believe in the message of the

Bible? To believe in it in terms of bringing about saving faith? Yes. Of course. Yes. Okay. 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? No. Okay. Would you say that you know that you are one of God's elect and are regenerated?

Well, in 1 John it tells us that He's written these things so that we may know that we have eternal life. But you just said we can't know.

No, you said people. 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. Because you, so because you are regenerated and His elect, you believe the

Bible's message. Is this correct? Am I understanding that correctly? So, I've been waiting all night for Brett Kunkel here to take those glasses off and reveal himself to be a fake

Mormon. The LDS guy, he kind of looks like Brett Kunkel from Maven and Brett Kunkel does

Mormon role plays sometimes. Say 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 doesn't determine whether or not the

Bible is correct. Whether or not we believe 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 if we're able to, it's we wouldn't want to. And not specifically. 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 put it that way where they say,

I'm assured 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 faith. What about a

Calvinist? Have you known Calvinists who thought they were? 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 says. But they thought they did, right? Yeah. They thought they did, but they didn't because John says. So what makes yours different?

That doesn't determine. I would actually have saving faith. That has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Okay. Oh, it absolutely does.

How does it have? Oh, go ahead. I'm just here to ask a question. So, I think I get where this is going. If the Christian team cannot know with certainty that they are saved, doesn't that affirm the

LDS argument that humans are fallible, right? What this has to do with God's Word being infallible is still unclear.

It's one thing to say that humans are fallible and to show that through the questioning and cross -examination.

It's another thing to say that the way Scripture was given by God is fallible. The Bible teaches that God's Word is infallible and that all of Scripture is the very words of God.

That God can communicate clearly through His fallible creatures when He so chooses.

The LDS team, they don't have that worked into their theology. Christianity does because that's literally what the

Bible says. So, or that's what the Bible teaches. This is why I said earlier, Christians, you've got to make the

LDS team exegete the biblical passages that teach this in order to clearly wrestle with their own claims.

But let's see how this plays out. Can I respond to that? No, you're just going to ask questions. 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 even possible. God would have to lie.

Since I believe 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 that way. 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 God can't be wrong. We're saying we received that revelation.

But you have to make the decision on whether or not you believe you are an elect. We're taking God at His own word. That's what we're doing.

God speaks, we believe Him. But you know other people who have believed that and then fell away later.

So what makes you different? What makes you different from them, let's say? I'm going to answer. That doesn't determine the veracity of that statement.

Just because a person believes it, that doesn't mean that that's what it is. 1 John 2 .19 tells us that those that were a part of the body of Christ, they were a part.

It says they went out from us to show that they were never really of us. So just because they claim 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 to lie. And that's not just your opinion or something that you feel.

It is the way that it is. 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 elect?

No, no. They claimed. In their own minds, I mean. They did believe. They claimed that when they died they thought they were going to be the

Lord Jesus. But you're saying they didn't actually believe it? 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.

Fair enough. Do you believe that the Bible is infallibly teaches that we are not all children of God?

Yes. Do you believe the Bible is... We are not all the children of God. So you do not believe that we all are children of God?

We don't believe that. The Bible doesn't teach that. 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 and 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 want to go to hell. How do you know that? Because God tells us that.

God can't be wrong. Okay, okay. God tells you that. In Scripture. In Scripture. Not by the

Spirit. In Scripture. In your interpretation of Scripture? No, in what He said in Scripture. Ephesians chapter 2 says that we are dead and trespassed as a sin.

Psalm chapter 14 tells us that no person seeks after God. Isaiah 53, 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. You see the subtle way the questions are worded?

The LDS team asks not about God's Word, but about the Christian's human experience.

The Christians will do themselves a service every time this happens to do what this gentleman just did.

What's this gentleman's name? Oscar. They should put the focus right back on the Word of God, because the focus is not on how these two

Christians sitting at that table experience God, but the Word of God itself, because that's the standard, that's the authority, it's not human experience.

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

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

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

The problem with your question 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 has to choose whoever is his elect.

Do you believe 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 babies the same way he's free to save everybody else.

Do you believe he 100 % has saved all of them who have died in infancy? Do I believe...

No, I don't believe I'm given the... I wouldn't have a problem with that, by the way, just so you know. Let me answer that in another way.

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 pre -presume upon Scripture to say that which it does not say.

Okay, so what you're saying is do Scriptures say that you have to have faith in Jesus Christ 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 create faith. But if he didn't give faith to little babies, then that would mean that they're dead.

That's the only way a little baby would be saved, if God gives them His saving grace and His 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 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. So, in the last minute of time that they have in cross -examination, the

LDS team, it seems, has decided to ask questions that they believe are so ridiculous.

It paints the Christians in a corner that is so ridiculous that the audience should immediately recognize something is wrong here with the

Christians' answers. And maybe this works for some folks in the audience. It has a bit of rhetorical power or persuasiveness behind it.

The problem with this is, this has nothing to do with the topic. They are wasting valuable time conducting this little exercise, and it's not helping them at all.

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. Time's up. Very interesting debate.

Very lively. Very well done. This debate started off a little slow at the beginning, kind of like a car in the 1980s.

The Christian engine spent a little bit of time getting warmed up. But, the Christians dedicated the majority of cross on the

LDS claims of human fallibility in God's communication. That, to me, is one of the cruxes.

The cruxes. One of the most important pieces to challenge in a debate like this.

The LDS team really handled themselves well in terms of being very polished and even keeled, and providing answers in cross.

They even challenged the Christians in a few places on the presuppositional approach, and the Christians could have done a better job justifying themselves on that issue.

But, overall, the Christians beat the LDS team because they asked the right questions that the

LDS team just could not respond to. This was a win for the Christians. I highly encourage you to watch the entire debate, and then you tell me, who do you think won,

Christians or Mormons? Let me know in the comments below. If you have an idea for a debate that I should react to, also throw those down in the comments, and I will add them to my list.

In the meantime, I hope this video got you thinking more critically. Perhaps it can give you some ways to think about engaging others for Christ.