Defending Letters to a Mormon Elder in SLC

I'm your host Martin Tanner. Tonight, I think we will have a fun discussion for the last couple of hours here of our program. In studio, we have a couple of regulars back here. We have the Reverend James White, who has not to be confused with James Randy of our last hour.

James White's been on here several times in the past. He's from Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona. He comes up in connection with the LDS General Conference. This is not because he is LDS, but because he believes that the Mormons need to learn a few extra things to change their ways.

So he comes up to conference to talk with the LDS people outside of Temple Square during conference. He's been on our program. We've had some lively discussions in the past with Van Hale. Tonight, we have a couple of other people in studio for him to talk with this evening.

But James White, thank you for joining us tonight. It's a pleasure, as always, to have you here. Thank you. And also in studio, we have Professor Daniel Peterson, who has been here in the past as well.

He will be a guest next week to talk about Islam and a book that he has written on that subject called Abraham Divided, which deals with Islam and Christianity. I think we'll have some good information next week on that issue, so I'm looking forward to it.

Thank you. I need you to move up very, very close to the microphones, if that's possible. These studios were built for two and a half people, and we have four in here. So I'll ask you all to do that. We also have Professor Hamlin of Brigham Young University here tonight, who has not been a guest on this program before, but I'm looking forward to having you here with us tonight as well.

Thanks for joining us tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Tonight we sort of have competing books, if you will, to talk about. A book that has been out that was written by Professors Dan Peterson and Stephen Ricks, who is not here in studio, called Offenders for a Word, takes aim at those people who criticize the LDS faith.

And Reverend James White has written a book called Letters to a Mormon Elder, which sort of takes aim at the other side of the same issue here. And so I think if we can discuss some of the issues that come up in those two books, I think we'll have a good time tonight, and I hope we can all do it in a decent manner.

I'm sure we can. Let's start off and have, first of all, some kind of a statement here a little bit about the books themselves. Reverend White, tell us a little bit about Letters to a Mormon Elder, what it contains, and what was your purpose in writing it.

It is somewhat unusual in the sense that it's not like most books on the subject. It is written in the form of imaginary letters based upon extensive correspondence that I've undertaken to a Mormon elder.

And it is not primarily historical in nature. It has a few historical chapters in it, but it's primarily theological in nature, focusing upon what I think are the important issues and avoiding what I think are sometimes the more sensationalistic issues that unfortunately tend to be emphasized in some of the literature that's out there these days.

Which will, of course, currently remain nameless, but may. And it attempts to present a Reformed perspective in regards to, for example, the nature of God and the Gospel, and when I mean Reformed, if you're familiar with Protestant denominations, Reformed would refer to Presbyterians and certain Episcopalians.

For example, I am a Reformed Baptist myself. Those who would present a perspective that would be similar to that of John Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith that underlies, for example, the historical Presbyterian churches and the Reformed Baptist churches.

And so hopefully it does so in a way that shows respect for those to whom it is intended to be given, and hopefully avoids unnecessary offense, though I realize that offense is simply something that's going to happen when you have two competing truth systems, and you don't run into folks who have engaged in total subjectivism and decide that no one knows truth and goes from that perspective.

And those conversations, while interesting, I don't know really go anywhere. But Mormons generally do not hold that position, I don't either, and hence the book comes from that perspective. One of the things that I was amazed at when I read the book, and perhaps it's because I didn't know you that well, we've talked on the radio before, but it's not like we've had hundreds of conversations or anything, but you've taken a very Calvinist position in your letters.

I'm a Calvinist. Well, and I guess that's not surprising then, but that's not something that had really come out before in the discussions we've had on the radio, so I thought that was interesting. Well, I don't know that that was in any way, shape, or form purposeful.

I just think that as you recall in the past programs we've done, everything has focused primarily upon the nature of God and Scripture and a few things like that. That has come out in other forums, however, that yes, when we stand there and present a message to folks, we're presenting a very Reformed message, because we sincerely believe that that is the biblical message.

Professor Peterson, Offenders for Word. Tell us a little bit about that book and how it came about, what it was for. Offenders for Word was written really in response to what Professor Ricks and I regarded as illegitimate semantic games, that is, word games that were going on among those who were critical of the LDS Church.

Not, of course, all those who were critical of the LDS Church, but a certain very large and considerable strand, who were repeating the claim that the Latter-day Saints are not Christian, based upon what I regard as a fairly tricky redefinition of the term Christian.

And so the book basically focuses on semantic issues in a sense, not so much on the truth claims of the LDS Church. The book really isn't dealing with that. It's not dealing with the question whether the LDS Church is true, but with the question, by and large, whether the LDS Church can be considered a Christian Church.

Of course, as you might suspect, the answer to that, from our perspective, is clearly in the affirmative. In the course of the discussion, we tried to look at the most frequent arguments made to substantiate the claim that the Latter-day Saints are not Christian, and tried to show that those claims, in fact, result in either a rewriting of history, or a surreptitious redefinition of words, or various other logical quirks and anomalies.

That is our position. There's also a short essay in the book dealing with the term cult. Our basic conclusion is that both the term cult, which is a pejorative, ugly, four-letter word, and the accusation of non-Christianity essentially rest upon word games and have no substance to them.

The Nature of God and the Reformed View of Scripture

Let's start off with a question here for James White. Pick a key theological concept that you deal with in Letters to a Mormon Elder, and tell us what your purpose was in including that particular item in your book.

Can we do that? Sure. I think the one that would strike most people as they read it is the focus upon the nature of God. We focus upon the nature of God in a number of different aspects. We focus upon it in reference to the concept of monotheism, in concept to the sovereignty of God, in concept to the fact that God has eternally been God, that God is without origin or source.

Instead, He is the origin and source of all things. That is really one of the prime messages that we attempt to communicate, for example, during conference. When we come up and distribute tracts and literature and speak with people, a lot of our conversation does center around the good news that we feel we have in regards to who God is, that the God that we wish to present to people is the God who does not change, who has eternally been, and hence is the only possible solid foundation for the gospel of Jesus Christ, the only possible foundation for knowing that we are right with Him and that we have eternal life, because He does not change.

He is not going to change the way of salvation tomorrow. We are not going to wake up and find out that God has progressed in some way and things have changed. Our God does not change. I think chapters-wise, we started in dealing with two chapters on that issue and then went back to two more after that.

There were a number of issues we attempted to address. It's probably the most exhaustive, and that's the reason we want to share it with folks. Before we go to the phones, let me ask Professors Hamlin and Peterson about their reading of Letters to a Mormon Elder.

I'm sure that both of you have had a look at the book, because as Reverend White mentioned before we came on the air here, he sent them up a copy. Is that right? Yes. I see a couple over there, so somehow they arrived.

Somehow they arrived. Give us a crack at what you saw as the greatest weaknesses in the book, or something that you disagreed with maybe would be a better way of saying that, so we can get a couple of contrary points of view here that we can have a discussion about.

Anything in particular that you saw as something that was wrong with the book? I think one of the fundamental issues that the book raises is that it surrounds the question of inerrancy of the Bible. Jim White tells us that the Bible is the inerrant and sufficient word of God, and the Latter-day Saint position is that the Bible is neither inerrant nor is it sufficient.

So I'd like to explore some of the issues that I think the question of inerrancy raises. First of all, I'd like to ask Reverend White why he thinks that the Bible is the word of God at all. Why not the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or many of the other scriptures?

And what evidence does he have that the Bible is the word of God, number one, and secondly that it is inerrant? That's very interesting, especially in light of the fact that Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ricks frequently cited an acquaintance of mine in their book, I'm not sure how many times, Carl Keating of Catholic Answers, based in San Diego.

And last Tuesday I was in San Diego debating the vice president of Catholic Answers, Patrick Madrid, in public on the subject of sola scriptura, the sufficiency of the scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith of the Church.

And the exact same question was raised there in the context of the Roman Catholic claim, that without the authoritative pronouncement of the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no way that I could know that, for example, the Gospel of John was scripture and that it was authoritative in my life.

And it was very interesting because my response to that question has always been along these lines. If I'm asked why do I believe that the Bible is the word of God, I first of all would say by the authority of Jesus Christ.

And I do that in the sense that the Old Testament scriptures, I believe, carry most definitely his authority. I would have to disagree with Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ricks in their statement in Offenders for a Word that the Old Testament canon was undecided at the time of Christ.

I think that there is very good evidence, Dr. Beckwith's fine work from 1985, for example, that the Old Testament canon of the New Testament Church makes a very strong case that the Old Testament canon, of course, the Hebrew canon of 22 books, which is, of course, the Protestant canon of 39 books, the 12 Old Testament small minor prophets being rolled into one, so on and so forth, I believe was very firmly in place.

And the Lord Jesus utilized that canon of scripture and referenced that canon of scripture as being authoritative. And yet, the process by which that took place was not some sort of miraculous thing. It wasn't a matter of church councils meeting.

The Bishop of Rome certainly had nothing to do with it since there wasn't such an individual. And yet, the Lord Jesus obviously held people accountable for knowing what the scriptures were. So there must be some mechanism whereby people can know what is and what is not scripture that does not require the infallible pronouncement, shall we say, of some sort of a church, whether it be Rome or any other, because the Lord Jesus did hold people responsible for what God had said to them in scripture.

And I think the answer to how we know that the Bible is the word of God, we know that Jesus Christ is the word of God who became flesh, and we know that he accepted that canon of scripture, and we know that he promised that his apostles would be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit of God, John 14, 26.

The main thing, though, that I would say is we need to be very careful to avoid saying, well, do you have some external authority by which you prove that something is the word of God? Because the apostle Paul taught that what is scripture, 2 Timothy 3, 16 -17.

He said scripture is theanoustos, that is, God breathed. That is, it's the very speaking of God. Jesus taught the same thing when he said, have you not read what God spoke to you, saying, Matthew 22. This is God speaking.

And God's speech cannot admit of any higher authority because God is the ultimate authority. And so when someone asks, well, how can you know something is the word of God, or that it is sufficient to function as the word of God, I would refer to the very speaking of God himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, as referenced in the Old Testament canon, and the fact that his apostles provided to us a consistent testimony to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the person of Jesus Christ, and what follows.

And because of that, the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto every good work, 2 Timothy 3, 17. Now, I don't recall that Dr. Peterson or Dr. Ricks addressed this passage in Offenders for a Word, but I know that Dr. Robinson did in Our Mormons Christians, and Martin, you had that book, gracious sakes, a year and a half or so ago, I remember seeing it on your pile there, and you'll be glad to know that I added it to my to-be-read file just because I saw Martin Tanner with it here in the radio station.

But 2 Timothy 3, 17 says that because scripture is God breathed, the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished for every good work. I know I've taken a lot of time, but let me just mention that the terms that are used there, artios and exartizo, mean complete, fully equipped, and in fact, at least two lexical sources, Lo and Need is a Greek-English lexicon based upon semantic domains, and the Reinacher-Rogers linguistic key, give us the meanings of these terms, sufficient.

Sufficient for the work of the man of God in the church, sufficient to undertake every good work. And so I think that the Protestant anyways will probably base his belief in the sufficiency of scriptures upon that, and say that that which is God breathed equips the man to do the work of the ministry.

Martin, can I respond to that just a little bit? It was a very long and eloquent discussion, but it did not really address the question that was asked. To respond with biblical quotations to a question about the authority of the Bible is really to miss the point, I think.

The question is, why, and I'm asking this as a believer in the Bible, as a believer in Christ, but why do you say that Christ has authority? Why do you say that the Bible has authority? Why should I accept, if you quote me passages from the Bible to prove that the Bible has authority, I, as say a non-believer, hypothetically, in the Bible, would find that unmoving.

If a Muslim comes to me and I say, why do you believe the Qur 'an to be the word of God? And the Muslim says, because the Qur 'an says it is the word of God. And I could quote you passages that are every bit as strong as those you quoted from the Bible.

Truth has come and falsehood has vanished away. The Qur 'an is the Kitab Mubeen. It's the perspicuous or clear book. There's no doubt in it. All that sort of thing. It's sufficient. It's absolutely true, and so on.

Nevertheless, I, as a Christian, am unmoved by that. The prior question is, why accept the authority of the Bible, or even of Jesus Christ, in the first place? You have to have a metabiblical and outside the Bible position to come to that conclusion.

What is that position? One of the things I'd like to add is that we could do exactly the same thing with the Book of Mormon and the Document of Covenants. They proclaim the truthfulness of those documents as well.

So if we are to accept the authenticity of the Bible because the Bible says it's authentic, why not accept the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants for the same types of reasons? Well, two responses.

First of all, in regards to Dr. Peterson's question, it seems that I'm being asked to this metabiblical position is fundamentally contradictory to the Protestant position in regards to Sola Scriptura because it requires me to find a metabiblical basis and outside the Bible basis for the Bible's authority when the Bible's authority is God speaking himself.

And hence, epistemologically, if God is the absolute being who defines all things by his very word, there cannot be any authority outside of the Bible that therefore proves the authority of the Bible any more than God saying, I am God can therefore be proven by something outside of that.

And that does not mean, because of course historically Calvin and others have been very plain in saying, there is plain evidence of the inspiration of Scripture. There is plain evidence in the sense of its fulfilled prophecies, in the sense of its historicity, in the sense of its consistency, so on and so forth.

But they have also been very plain in pointing out these things in and of themselves do not have a superior authority to the Bible that then proves the Bible and because of sin darkening the human mind outside of the work of the Holy Spirit, even in the light of those evidences, without the Spirit's working, an individual will find reasons not to believe in those things.

So, I cannot abandon the concept of Sola Scriptura which I believe is very plainly taught in Scripture and is functioned upon by the Apostles themselves to provide this meta-biblical. And in response to Dr. Hammond very quickly, in regards to the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, these books are not considered by themselves.

They are not considered in a vacuum. They are considered as part of a larger canon which allegedly contains the Bible itself. And so, when I address the Book of Mormon, when I address the Doctrine and Covenants or pull a great price, then I apply a standard of consistency in regards to what is agreed upon by the Mormon and the non-Mormon, myself, is the inspired Word of God, and that is the Bible.

And I find grave inconsistencies, just as I find, for example, grave inconsistencies between the Gospel of Thomas or the various Gnostic Gospels of the 2nd and early 3rd centuries. There are grave inconsistencies between what they say and what the Scriptures say.

And if God is a God of truth, then those inconsistencies demonstrate that those books are not, in fact, Scripture. I would respond to that, but I still don't think you've really addressed the question.

Or maybe there is no possible Protestant response to the question. Because to say that this is the voice of God is already to beg the question. The question is, is that the voice of God? That is the question to be determined by someone on the outside.

Now, it seems to me that you face two choices, as I understand your answer. There is a possible arbitrary choice. You allude to the consistency of Scripture and to the fulfillment of prophecy. Now, many people would dispute those.

Many people would say there are gross inconsistencies in the Scriptures, that the prophecies are at best vague. That can be debated. And, of course, as you allude to the sin-darkened mind, it does raise questions about whether the human mind is to be trusted with such decisions.

Again, I say, unless you can provide some sort of metabiblical position, there seems to me no rational basis for a decision between the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, or the Book of Mormon. Now, Mormons are consistent in this, in saying that, yes, there is a position from outside the Scriptures.

That is, there is the voice of the Spirit. You seem to allude to something like that in your answer just now, which interested me very much, because you seem to deny that possibility with regard to the Latter-day Saint Scriptures.

No. I think, possibly, are you familiar, Dr. Pearson, at all, with, for example, statements of the Westminster Confession of Faith in regards to the sufficiency of Scripture and the reason why we believe Scripture to be sufficient?

Somewhat. Well, the reason, I would say, that there is a pretty large difference between the concept of the Mormon testimony, which may be what you're referring to in the comments I made in my book. Is that what forms the background of your statements there?

No, no. Actually, there is no discussion in your book that I think really addresses this issue. Well, maybe I can make this comment. We can bring it down to a little bit more relevant canon. The book of James, he didn't like.

The book of Revelation, he also wanted to throw out. Amongst the early Christian communities, there were other books that were considered very authoritative, like the Shepherd of Hermas, for example. If someone were to come to you as Reverend White and say, gee, I think James in the book of Revelation ought to be thrown out.

I think the Shepherd of Hermas ought to be thrown in. Tell me how I know whether that's right or wrong. How do you respond to something specific like that? Let me add one other point here in relation to that, and that is in the passages quoted from the New Testament about the God-inspired nature of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture, they were in fact talking only about the Old Testament, which was the only Scripture that existed at that time.

So it's precisely the same question there. Maybe the Old Testament is sufficient. Maybe it is God-inspired. Why do we think the New Testament is? Because those New Testament passages are only discussed in the Old Testament.

Okay, if I could respond to that immediately. That is a position, for example, that was presented by John Henry Cardinal Newman in his work and is very commonly repeated by Roman Catholics about that very issue.

The problem is that I think it's very mistaken because while it's very true that the canon of Scripture to which Timothy would have had access was the Tanakh and did not include the New Testament Scriptures, that isn't Paul's point.

Paul's point is that the sufficiency that is provided by the man of God is based upon the theanoustos nature of Scripture, and that since the New Testament shares that same nature as Scripture, that is the basis upon which the man of God can be made complete.

It's not an issue of, well, this is the canon, here are your 39 books, that's the only thing. There's not going to be anything added to that. The point is that that which is theanoustos, that which is God-breathed, is what makes the man of God sufficient.

Why? Because the Church never lacks the voice of God within her. And that's a very important point. A lot of LDS people feel that, well, you know, you feel the heavens are closed. No, as long as we recognize that Scripture is God speaking to us, as Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 22, then God's voice is never absent from the Church, and hence the man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work that he would undertake.

And so I don't believe that that really strikes at the presentation that I made, because I was not dealing with canon issues in regard to that. I was dealing with the nature of Scripture. So why can't the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants also have the same characteristic?

Why is the New Testament the only document? Why not something from the Middle Ages? Why can't that be inspired by God or the Book of Mormon? Well, again, because, first of all, it would have to be theanoustos, and hence it would have to be...

Precisely, the Book of Mormon is theanoustos. Well, the point being that that which is theanoustos has to be consistent with that which is already revealed, which, of course, the New Testament documents are with the Old.

And I do not believe that, for example, D &C 132 or 130 can in any way, shape, or form be considered to be consistent with Isaiah 43 or 44 or a passage such as this. I doubt the rabbis would agree with you that the New Testament is consistent with the Old.

They may not. Where the inconsistency lies is between your interpretation of the Bible and the LDS interpretation of the Bible. That is to say, we interpret it in a consistent manner that we find there's no inconsistency between LDS doctrine and Reformed doctrine or Evangelical doctrine.

There certainly are inconsistencies, but that's a problem of interpretation and not from the biblical document itself. That is to say, our doctrines may disagree, but we don't see ourselves as inconsistent with the Bible.

Well, I think there's much in LDS Scripture that is, and we can get into that, but there are now two questions on the table that I haven't had an opportunity of responding to yet. First was Dr. Peterson's statement saying, well, I still don't think Mr. White has addressed the issue.

And again, I think I have in pointing to Christ's authority as the incarnate word in regards to the Old Testament canon and to Matthew 22, where Jesus again refers to the Scriptures as speaking to us.

Yes, I am presenting to you a radical epistemology based upon the doctrine of Paul taught in the book of Colossians that all wisdom is tied up in Jesus Christ and that we are in fact taking every thought captive under the obedience of Christ and that outside of Christ there is no basis for human knowledge.

I do believe that's very, very true. Now, Martin, you then asked me a question in regards to James and Revelation. I think that thou misusest Dr. Luther because while Martin Luther made some very interesting statements in regards to James and in regards to Revelation, I think a full-orbed perspective of what Luther was saying would not lead you quite to that radical position because you know that eventually Martin Luther found a tract, Martin, on the subject of the papacy, are you not?

And he found that for many centuries people had been interpreting the book of Revelation as demonstrating that the Pope was the Antichrist. And so he glommed onto that and really enjoyed it and used it a lot.

In regards to the issue that you're really raising there, how would I respond to someone who says, well, I think I should remove the book of James from the canon of Scripture? Well, I would take it back to a question that I asked, and in fact I'd ask Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin.

Dr. Peterson said, well, we do have this authority outside of the Bible to speak to us of the inspiration of Scripture and what is and what is not Scripture, which I would assume would be the teaching authority of the Church.

Is that what you were referring to, Dr. Peterson? No. What were you referring to? I was referring to the Spirit. Okay, so you're saying that your knowledge then of that is due to direct revelation from the Spirit and not through the Church saying this is the canon of Scripture?

I say that if you're going to talk about an inerrant Scripture, you first of all have to come to an inerrant decision as to what that inerrant Scripture is. If you have not got an inerrant decision as to what the inerrant Scripture is, you can have an inerrant Scripture, but you can't be sure that it's inerrant.

You can't be sure that you have the right one. The initial uncertainty destroys any possible subsequent certainty. And so it seems to me that you have to have some basis upon which to make a decision to choose between the competing claims of various world religions.

And it seems to me then that you would say that, for example, even God's very own inerrancy is based upon whether we can come to an inerrant decision as to which God is God. Is that what you're saying?

No, absolutely not. But I can't know who is speaking for God or whether God is speaking to me unless I have some way of validating that within myself. Your telling me that it's God speaking to me does not convince me.

Because however well-intentioned you may be, I see you as a person of, as I am, finite intelligence, various other flaws that make your decision, however good it may be and how well-based it may be, nevertheless not certain.

So wouldn't you say then that epistemologically you are saying that these other sources, whatever they might be, I guess you're referring to a testimony of the Spirit, or maybe you're referring to some other extra-biblical standard.

I don't know. You heard me say that we do not deny. In fact, I didn't have the opportunity to read it. I'd ask you if you're familiar with the... Westminster Confession. Well, this is actually the Baptist Confession of Faith, which for very few points is the same as Westminster.

Right. It says in the sixth article on Scripture, it says, The whole counsel of God, considering all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, as I have expressly set down, are necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by any revelation of the Spirit or traditions of men.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

And so there is very plainly in the Reformed tradition, the recognition, not to an insufficiency in Scripture, but due to an insufficiency in man as a sinner whose intellect is clouded by his sin of the necessary work of the Holy Spirit to cause us to understand these things.

Again, as Calvin said, there's plenty of evidence out there if man was unbiased and neutral to demonstrate the Bible is the Word of God over against any other claimant. But man is not neutral, and he's not unbiased.

And that, of course, is a position that maybe we disagree on. I don't know. But I've certainly found many LDS people that were in disagreement with me on that particular point. Well, then I would say that that function of the Spirit is insufficient.

That might have worked in a culture that was overwhelmingly Christian in which other religions did not come into consideration. But especially in an increasingly pluralistic world, it simply isn't enough to say the Spirit is there to interpret Scriptures for us, and that is sufficient for our guidance.

In the first place, I, as, say, a tabula rasa, a kind of neutral observer trying to decide which path I should take, I have to decide which Scripture, which tradition I'm going to enter into. Once there, under the rules of exegesis of that particular tradition, I may be able to find some sort of certainty.

But it's the assumptions that ground that first decision that I can't see any justification for in your system. Well, Dr. Peterson, that's because we're starting with a radically different starting point which, interestingly enough, came up in a recent conversation with Van Hale, and that is, I honestly believe, that instead of starting from a theistic-centered position that recognizes the centrality of God to all forms of epistemology, you're seemingly...

You made a statement earlier on that you said you need to have some starting point in yourself by which you then make this decision. Now, no, no, no, don't interpret me psychologically there. I'm saying simply that I have to have some sort of way of making a well-grounded decision myself as opposed to basing it on the authority of someone else who tells me I am speaking for God or this speaks for God.

That isn't enough for me. Well, I would say that if... Or logically for anyone. Well, for me, I think logically Jesus Christ does hold that position. How do you know that? Because of who he was. How do you know who he was?

Again, the reason... What you're challenging me to do here is to attempt to function as a Christian without recognizing that there is no ability to answer the question how, outside of the existence of the Christian God who made all things, who is the origin and source of all the laws of logic and reason that you want to utilize to come to a knowledge of his existence or his word.

Well, I would just point out to you that the Muslims were extraordinarily good at logic and they wouldn't accept any of this. Well, again, and what's the starting point of that? Is it a sinful, humanistic starting point where we start with mankind as the source?

Or do we recognize that we are creatures and that hence we are finite and we must start with God's revelation of himself? A Muslim would recognize every single one of those propositions and find it validated in the Quran.

The point being, when you look at Scripture and what Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, said if you accept his authority if that is the ultimate authority if that is the ultimate authority you're asking me to give me a secondary authority that proves an ultimate authority and that logically is not possible to be done.

But the question is to find the ultimate authority and you've provided me no rational grounds I do believe, I do obviously believe that the only way that a person will ever bound that ultimate authority, Dr. Peterson is as the confession I read states by the work of the Holy Spirit in his life.

But initially, you were addressing how do we discuss sufficiency and you're confusing two different things here. One is, how are the Scriptures sufficient? The other is, how do sinful human beings come to understand that the Scriptures are sufficient or how do they come to obey what the Scriptures are saying?

No, I'm not confusing that at all. The sufficiency of Scripture is not based upon a subjective feeling that I have. It is, in and of itself, subjective outside of any work of the Holy Spirit in my life.

It is, I'm sorry, sufficient. It is sufficient whether I ever know that it is or not. It is not based upon some outside criterion which is what you're asking me for. Now you're misunderstanding. I'm not talking about whether something is objectively true I'm asking how I can know that it is true.

You asked whether God's, what was it, God's omniscience is based upon my own knowledge of his omniscience obviously not. Actually, I think I said his inerrancy. Okay, his inerrancy. The initial question from Dr. Hamblin had to do with the doctrine, as we call it, of sola scriptura.