Defending Letters to a Mormon Elder in SLC

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:00

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.

00:07

In studio we have a couple of regulars back here. We have the

00:13

Reverend James White, who has not to be confused with James Randy of our last hour.

00:19

James White's been on here several times in the past. He's from Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona.

00:27

He comes up in connection with the LDS General Conference.

00:33

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.

00:42

So he comes up to conference to talk with the LDS people outside of Temple Square during conference.

00:50

He's been on our program. We've had some lively discussions in the past with Van Hale.

00:56

Tonight we have a couple of other people in studio for him to talk with this evening.

01:03

James White, thank you for joining us tonight. It's a pleasure as always to have you here. Thank you. Also in studio we have

01:13

Professor Daniel Peterson, who has been here in the past as well.

01:18

He will be a guest next week to talk about Islam and a book that he has written on that subject called

01:26

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.

01:40

Thank you. I need you to move up very, very close to the microphones if that's possible.

01:45

These studios were built for two and a half people, and we have four in here.

01:52

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.

02:04

Thanks for joining us tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Tonight we sort of have competing books, if you will, to talk about.

02:15

A book that has been out that was written by Professors Dan Peterson and Stephen Ricks, who is not here in studio, called

02:25

Offenders for a Word, takes aim at those people who criticize the

02:32

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.

02:44

And so I think if we can discuss some of the issues that come up in those two books,

02:51

I think we'll have a good time tonight, and I hope we can all do it in a decent manner.

02:59

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.

03:10

Reverend White, tell us a little bit about Letters to a Mormon Elder, what it contains, and what was your purpose in writing it.

03:19

Letters to a Mormon Elder is somewhat unusual in the sense that it's not like most books on the subject.

03:26

It is written in the form of imaginary letters based upon extensive correspondence that I've undertaken to a

03:35

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

03:44

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 eventually come up sometime later on,

04:03

I don't know. And it attempts to present a

04:08

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,

04:17

Reformed would refer to Presbyterians and certain

04:22

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

04:31

Westminster Confession of Faith that underlies, for example, the historical Presbyterian churches and the

04:37

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.

05:05

And those conversations, while interesting, I don't know really go anywhere. But Mormons generally do not hold that position,

05:12

I don't either, and hence the book comes from that perspective. One of the things that I was amazed at when

05:18

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

05:33

Calvinist position in your letters. I'm a Calvinist, that's why.

05:39

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.

05:48

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.

06:03

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

06:10

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.

06:27

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

06:38

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

06:48

Latter -day Saints are not Christian, based upon what I regard as a fairly tricky redefinition of the term

06:54

Christian. And so the book basically focuses on semantic issues in a sense, not so much on the truth claims of the

07:01

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

07:09

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.

07:18

In the course of the discussion, we tried to look at the most frequent arguments made to substantiate the claim that the

07:27

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.

07:41

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.

08:02

Let's start off with a question here for James White. Pick a key theological concept that you deal with in Letters to a

08:15

Mormon Elder, and tell us what your purpose was in including that particular item in your book.

08:25

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.

08:33

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

08:46

God, that God is without origin or source. Instead, He is the origin and source of all things.

08:53

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

09:10

God is, that the God that we wish to present to people is a 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.

09:28

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.

09:38

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.

09:49

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

09:58

Professors Hamlin and Peterson about their reading of Letters to a

10:07

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.

10:17

Is that right? Yes. I see a couple over there, so somehow they arrived.

10:25

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.

10:43

Anything in particular that you saw as something that was wrong with the book?

10:48

I think one of the fundamental issues that the book raises is that it surrounds the question of inerrancy of the

10:57

Bible. Jim White tells us that the

11:02

Bible is the inerrant and sufficient word of God, and the Latter -day Saint position is that the

11:08

Bible is neither inerrant nor is it sufficient. And so I'd like to explore some of the issues that I think the question of inerrancy raises.

11:15

First of all, I'd like to ask Reverend White why he thinks that the

11:21

Bible is the word of God at all. Why not the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or many of the other scriptures?

11:29

And what evidence does he have that the Bible is the word of God, number one, and secondly that it is inerrant?

11:35

That's very interesting, especially in light of the fact that Dr. Peterson and Dr.

11:41

Ricks frequently cited an acquaintance of mine in their book, I'm not sure how many times,

11:46

Carl Keating of Catholic Answers, based in San Diego. And last Tuesday I was in San Diego debating the

11:54

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

12:03

Church. And the exact same question was raised there in the context of the Roman Catholic claim, that without the authoritative pronouncement of the

12:12

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.

12:21

And it was very interesting because my response to that question has always been along these lines. If I'm asked why do

12:28

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, I first of all would say by the authority of Jesus Christ.

12:34

And I do that in the sense that the Old Testament scriptures, I believe, carry most definitely his authority.

12:41

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.

12:50

I think that there is very good evidence. Dr. Beckwith's fine work from 1985, for example, the

12:56

Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, makes a very strong case that the Old Testament canon, of course the

13:01

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,

13:10

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.

13:20

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.

13:27

The Bishop of Rome certainly had nothing to do with it since there wasn't such an individual. And yet the

13:32

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

13:46

Rome or any other, because the Lord Jesus did hold people responsible for what God had said to them in scripture.

13:52

And I think the answer to how we know that the Bible is the Word of God, we know that Jesus Christ is the

13:58

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

14:06

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

14:17

Word of God? Because the Apostle Paul taught that what is scripture, 2

14:22

Timothy 3, 16 -17. He said scripture is theanoustos, that is, God breathed.

14:28

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,

14:34

Matthew 22. This is God speaking. And God's speech cannot admit of any higher authority because God is the ultimate authority.

14:43

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

14:49

Word of God, I would refer to the very speaking of God himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, as referenced in the

14:55

Old Testament canon, and then 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.

15:05

And because of that, the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto every good work, 2

15:10

Timothy 3, 17. Now, I don't recall that Dr. Peterson or Dr. Ricks addressed this passage in Offenders for a

15:16

Word, but I know that Dr. Robinson did in Our Mormons Christians. And Martin, you had that book,

15:22

Gracious Thanks, a year and a half or so ago. I remember seeing it on your pile there.

15:28

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.

15:35

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.

15:44

I know I've taken a lot of time. 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, low and neat as Greek -English lexicon -based font semantic domains, and the

15:57

Reinecke -Rogers linguistic key, give as the meanings of these terms, sufficient. Sufficient for the work of the man of God in the

16:05

Church, sufficient to undertake every good work. And so I think that the

16:10

Protestant anyways will probably base his belief in the sufficiency of Scriptures upon that, and say that that which is

16:17

God -breathed equips the man to do the work of the ministry. Martin, can

16:22

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.

16:30

To respond with biblical quotations to a question about the authority of the Bible is really to miss the point,

16:36

I think. The question is, why, and I'm asking this as a believer in the

16:41

Bible, as a believer in Christ, but why do you say that Christ has authority?

16:48

Why do you say that the Bible has authority? Why should I accept? If you quote me passages from the

16:53

Bible to prove that the Bible has authority, I, as a non -believer, hypothetically in the Bible, would find that unmoving.

16:59

If a Muslim comes to me and I say, why do you believe the Koran to be the word of God? And the

17:04

Muslim says, because the Koran 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

17:10

Bible. Truth has come and falsehood has vanished away. The Koran is the

17:16

Kitab Mubeen. It's the perspicuous or clear book. There's no doubt in it.

17:22

All that sort of thing. It's sufficient, it's absolutely true, and so on. Nevertheless, I, as a Christian, am unmoved by that.

17:28

The prior question is, why accept the authority of the Bible, or even of Jesus Christ, in the first place?

17:34

You have to have a metabiblical and outside the Bible position to come to that conclusion.

17:40

What is that position? One of the things I'd like to add is that we could do exactly the same thing with the

17:47

Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. They proclaim the truthfulness of those documents as well. So if we are to accept the authenticity of the

17:55

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?

18:01

Well, two responses. First of all, in regards to Dr. Peterson's question, it seems that I'm being asked to...

18:07

This metabiblical position is fundamentally contradictory to the Protestant position in regards to Sola Scriptura because it requires me to find a metabiblical basis, an outside -the -Bible basis for the

18:19

Bible's authority when the Bible's authority is God speaking Himself. And hence, epistemologically, if God is the

18:26

Absolute Being who defines all things by His very Word, there cannot be any authority outside of the

18:32

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.

18:39

Now, 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.

18:48

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.

18:54

But they have also been very plain in pointing out these things in and of themselves do not have a superior authority to the

19:01

Bible that then proves the Bible. And, because of sin darkening the human mind outside of the work of the

19:07

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.

19:15

So, I cannot abandon the concept of sola scriptura, which

19:20

I believe is very plainly taught in Scripture and is functioned upon by the Apostles themselves to provide this metabiblical.

19:29

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.

19:38

They are not considered in a vacuum. They are considered as part of a larger canon which allegedly contains the

19:43

Bible itself. And so, when I address the Book of Mormon, when I address the Doctrine and Covenants of Prolegrate Christ, then

19:50

I apply a standard of consistency in regards to what is agreed upon by the Mormon and the non -Mormon, myself, is the inspired

19:58

Word of God, and that is the Bible. And I find grave inconsistencies, just as I find, for example, grave inconsistencies between the

20:06

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

20:15

Scriptures say. And if God is a God of truth, then those inconsistencies demonstrate that those books are not, in fact,

20:20

Scripture. I would respond to that, but I still don't think you've really addressed the question. Or maybe there is no possible

20:27

Protestant response to the question because to say that this is the voice of God is already to beg the question.

20:32

The question is, is that the voice of God? That is the question to be determined by someone on the outside.

20:37

Now, it seems to me that you face two choices, as I understand your answer. There is a possible arbitrary choice.

20:46

You allude to the consistency of Scripture and to the fulfillment of prophecy. Now, many people would dispute those.

20:51

Many people would say there are gross inconsistencies in the Scriptures, that the prophecies are at best vague. That can be debated.

20:58

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.

21:05

Again, I say, unless you can provide some sort of metabiblical position, there seems to me no rational basis for a decision between the

21:15

Qur 'an, 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

21:23

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

21:32

Latter -day Saint Scriptures. No. No, I think, possibly, are you familiar,

21:38

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

21:48

Scripture to be sufficient? Somewhat. Well, the reason I would say that there is a pretty large difference between the concept of the

21:55

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?

22:02

No, no. Actually, there is no discussion in your book that I think really addresses this issue. Well, maybe

22:08

I can make this comment. We can bring it down to a little bit more of the

22:16

Testament canon. The Book of James, he didn't like. The Book of Revelation, he also wanted to throw out.

22:23

Amongst the early Christian communities, there were other books that were considered very authoritative, like the

22:30

Shepherd of Hermas, for example. If someone were to come to you,

22:38

Reverend White, and say, gee, I think James in the Book of Revelation ought to be thrown out,

22:44

I think the Shepherd of Hermas ought to be thrown in, tell me how I know whether that's right or wrong.

22:51

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

23:01

New Testament about the God -inspired nature of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture, they were in fact talking only about the

23:07

Old Testament, which was the only Scripture that existed at that time. So it's precisely the same question there.

23:13

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

23:20

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.

23:33

The problem is that I think it's very mistaken, because while it's very true that the canon of Scripture to which

23:41

Timothy would have had access was the Tanakh and did not include the New Testament Scriptures, that isn't

23:46

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

23:55

New Testament shares that same nature as Scripture, that is the basis upon which the man of God can be made complete.

24:01

It's not an issue of, well, this is the canon. Here are your 39 books.

24:07

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

24:13

God -breathed, is what makes the man of God sufficient. Why? Because the Church never lacks the voice of God within her.

24:20

And that's a very important point. A lot of LDS people feel that, well, you know, you feel that the heavens are closed. No. As long as we recognize that Scripture is

24:29

God speaking to us, as Jesus taught in Matthew chapter 22, then God's voice is never absent from the

24:36

Church, and hence the man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work that he would undertake.

24:41

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.

24:49

I was dealing with the nature of Scripture. So why can't the

24:54

Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants also have the same characteristic? Because that which is... Why is the

25:00

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?

25:05

Well, again, because, first of all, it would have to be theanoustos, and hence it would have to be... Precisely, the

25:10

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

25:19

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.

25:32

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

25:42

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.

25:49

Between LDS doctrine and Reformed doctrine or evangelical doctrine, there certainly are inconsistencies.

25:56

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

26:05

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.

26:13

First was Dr. Peterson's statement saying, well, I still don't think Mr. White has addressed the issue.

26:20

And again, I think I have been 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.

26:31

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.

26:48

I do believe that's very, very true. Now, Martin, you then asked me a question in regards to James and Revelation.

26:54

I do 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

27:13

Luther was saying would not lead you quite to that radical position because you know that eventually Martin Luther found a tract,

27:20

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

27:31

Pope was the Antichrist and so he glommed on to that and really enjoyed it and used it a lot. In regards to the issue that you're really raising there, how would

27:40

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

27:49

I'd asked Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin. Dr. Peterson said, well, we do have this authority outside of the

27:57

Bible to speak to us of the inspiration of Scripture and what is and what is not Scripture, which

28:02

I would assume would be the teaching authority of the Church. Is that what you were referring to,

28:09

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

28:19

Spirit and not through the Church saying this is the canon of Scripture? I'd say that if you're going to talk about an inerrant

28:25

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

28:33

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.

28:40

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.

28:54

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

29:01

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.

29:11

Your telling me that it's God speaking to me does not convince me. Because however well -intentioned you may be,

29:16

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.

29:27

So wouldn't you say then that epistemologically you are saying that these other sources, whatever they might be,

29:34

I guess you're referring to a testimony of the Spirit, or maybe you're referring to some other extra -biblical standard.

29:40

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...

29:47

Westminster Confession. Well, this is actually the Baptist Confession of Faith, which, for very few points, is the same as Westminster.

29:55

It says in the sixth article on Scripture, it says, The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, as are expressly set down, are necessarily contained in the

30:07

Holy Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.

30:13

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

30:20

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

30:30

Word, which are always to be observed. And so there is, very plainly, in the Reformed tradition, the recognition, due 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

30:49

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 that the

30:58

Bible is the Word of God over against any other claimant, but man is not neutral, and he's not unbiased.

31:04

And that, of course, is a position that maybe we disagree on, I don't know, but I've certainly found many

31:09

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.

31:15

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

31:25

Spirit is there to interpret the Scriptures for us, and that is sufficient for our guidance.

31:32

In the first place, I, as, say, a tabula rasa, a kind of neutral observer trying to decide which path

31:37

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,

31:45

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.

31:55

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,

32:05

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...

32:18

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.

32:25

Now... No, no, no. Don't interpret me psychologically there. I'm not... I'm saying simply that I have to have some sort of...

32:32

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,

32:40

I am speaking for God, or this speaks for God. That isn't enough for me. Well, I would say that if...

32:46

Logically, for anyone. Well, for me, I think logically, Jesus Christ does hold that position. How do you know that?

32:52

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

33:01

Christian without recognizing that there is no ability to answer the question how, outside of the existence of the

33:09

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.

33:17

Well, I would just point out to you that the Muslims were extraordinarily good at logic, and they wouldn't accept any of this.

33:23

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?

33:30

No. Or do they recognize that we are creatures, and that hence we are finite, and we must start with God's revelation of himself?

33:37

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

33:45

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.

34:01

But the question is to find the ultimate authority, and you've provided me no rational grounds...

34:06

I do believe, I do, I do obviously believe that the only way that a person will ever bound that ultimate authority,

34:12

Dr. Peterson, is as the confession I read states, by the work of the Holy Spirit in his life.

34:18

But initially, you were addressing how do we discuss sufficiency, and you're confusing two different things here.

34:27

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?

34:38

No, I'm not confusing that at all. The sufficiency of scripture is not based upon a subjective feeling that I have.

34:43

It is, in and of itself, subjective outside of any work of the Holy Spirit in my life. It is, it is, it is,

34:49

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.

34:57

No, you're misunderstanding. I'm not talking about whether something is objectively true, I'm asking how I can know that it is true.

35:03

You ask whether God's, what was it, God's omniscience is based upon my own knowledge of his omniscience.

35:08

Obviously not. Actually, I said his inerrancy. Okay, his inerrancy. The initial question from Dr.

35:14

Hamblin had to do with the doctrine, as we call it, of sola scriptura. No, no it didn't.

35:19

The inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture. No, no it didn't. That was half the question. Okay. The primary part was how do you decide on scripture at all?

35:27

Okay. Have you had enough of this, Martin? Well, let's put it this way. I think there are a few people nodding off in listener land, and we don't get to the phones pretty soon here.

35:35

I'm going to get some hate mail again next week. So pretty soon we need to take a call or two.

35:41

You never get hate mail, do you? Only when I don't take calls. Ah, okay.

35:47

And the people who are sitting on the phone for 50 minutes never got on. Exactly. Just like our callers who are waiting now.

35:55

I think if I can make a brief attempt here to cut to the bottom line, and don't let me put words in your mouth, but are you saying that scripture to you is determinable just by looking at it itself?

36:14

I am saying that because it is theanistos, it is, as we have said I think many times in the past, self -authenticating because God is self -authenticating.

36:23

You have to have a starting point. And I start with God speaking rather than my reasoning process.

36:29

So someone who is listening out there who has never had Greek, who has never had Hebrew, you would say, look at the scripture, it will speak to you as God's word.

36:39

And as Jesus said, those who are Christ's sheep will hear his voice. All right. All right. Fair enough.

36:44

All right. Let's take a call from Pharrell. Hello. All of you there, without naming all of your names, but I'd just like to say that I appreciate the program.

37:00

But you've been talking about a little bit, mentioning 2 Timothy 3 about scripture.

37:11

I see that as a scripture showing how scripture is given, that it's given by inspiration of God and how he goes on to explain how it's what it's profitable for.

37:25

But the thing that I note also is how that Timothy was made wise into salvation.

37:31

Now, did the earliest later Christians reject all of the books and writings of the apostles and prophets that came out of the

37:43

New Testament era because they figured that they had enough from the old Hebrew canon to make them wise unto salvation through Christ Jesus?

37:54

I think I heard you ask did the early Christians, are you certain you mean the early

38:01

Christians or are you talking about the early Jews? Well, the early Christians, Darrell, restate your question.

38:10

I'm not sure we got it. Did the earliest later Christians reject all of the books and writings of the apostles and prophets that came out of the

38:20

New Testament era because they figured that they had enough from the old Hebrew canon to make them wise unto salvation?

38:29

No, not at all. In fact, all of the early writings, no matter what you determine to be the earliest writings, whether you look at the

38:37

Didache, whether you look at Clement's letter to the Corinthians, any of these early writings,

38:43

Ignatius is filled with citations of the Gospels, Pauline epistles.

38:51

There was no rejection of these things because they recognized that these things bore witness to and explained the revelation of Jesus Christ, which in Hebrews chapter 1,

39:04

God in the past spoke unto the apostles, unto the fathers, by prophets. Now in these last days He's spoken unto us by His Son.

39:11

And of course, how then do we know about the Son? Well, we know about it through those special men that He chose who wrote down for us epistles to the letters to the

39:21

Gospels, things like that. But I don't think anyone's going to say that there was some wholesale rejection of the

39:27

New Testament on the part of the New Testament church. There's just no evidence of that.

39:32

There were some books, for example, like the book of Revelation, was not as widely accepted in some areas of the church as others.

39:39

But it was not like everybody hated Matthew or everybody rejected Mark or something like that on the basis of supposedly being able to be made wise in the salvation by the

39:49

Old Testament scriptures. I think what Paul's referring to there is it was his practice, as you see in the book of Acts, to go into the synagogue and to debate with the

39:57

Jews publicly demonstrating from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. And hence, they felt that the scriptures, the

40:04

Old Testament scriptures, were sufficient to do that. But the Old Testament scriptures are not, for example, going to give you all the directions for the

40:11

New Testament church, which come through the apostles themselves. Well, see, here's my point. I've often heard different critics cite this particular passage to say that, well, we don't need the book of Mormon because we have enough to make us wise in the salvation.

40:28

And you go on to point out to them that, well, the only scripture that Timothy could have had known about during his youth was the old

40:37

Hebrew canon. I mean, that seems to blow that particular argument.

40:43

Well, if I were to use that as an argument against the book of Mormon, you'd be right. But it's not one that I do use. As I mentioned earlier in our discussions,

40:51

I think it's a fundamental error to think the passage, the passage of primary concern or even of secondary concern is extent of canon.

40:59

The issue of the passage is the nature of scripture as Theanoustos. We know that the book of Revelation came under fire in the council of Laodicea, I think it was 360

41:13

AD. What if that council had enough impact as the

41:19

Nicene Creed council? Maybe perhaps our later canons would not have included

41:27

Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon, though. I think you're talking about Carthage and Hippo in 393 and 397. But even they only are historically important because their canons and decrees were not exactly the most widely distributed thing on the face of the earth.

41:43

But it's common for people to say Nicaea fixed the canon. It didn't. That wasn't an issue that they were interested in.

41:49

That was not my point. My point is about how the council of Nicaea did seem to have enough effect on the particular belief concerning the nature of God, whereas other councils like this particular one that I mentioned didn't seem to carry as much weight.

42:14

Perhaps if it had like Nicaea, then we would have maybe had a different canon than we do now.

42:23

What about some of the missing prophecies that Justin Martyr mentioned in his dialogue with Trifle where he says that to the

42:35

Jews, you've taken out a passage from the Saints of Jeremiah where it talks about the

42:41

Messiah would go into the underworld and preach the gospel in a certain prison there. Basically, in a sense,

42:47

I'm paraphrasing. I'd like to go to the text itself and read a bit. But what if that was someday found and authenticated?

42:55

Would we want to include that in the canon if it could be authenticated? Well, I certainly don't believe so, especially on the basis of just Justin Martyr.

43:03

I mean, Justin's a very interesting individual. I enjoy reading his writings, but I also recognize that someone who continues to wear the philosopher's cloak is probably going to be fairly influenced by that particular issue.

43:17

There is an interesting discussion of that. I'm trying to remember where I read it. I don't know if it's in Beckwith or not. Maybe it will come to me a little later on.

43:24

There's a pretty full discussion of the particular passages you're citing there. Maybe it will come to me a little bit later on exactly where it was.

43:30

It might be in Beckwith's work on the Old Testament canon and the New Testament church. I'm not totally certain on that. Thank you,

43:35

Darrell. Okay. Appreciate the call. Thanks. Bye now. Speaking of altering the scriptures,

43:42

I had on a guest, gosh, was it two weeks ago or last week, who is a participant in the famous or infamous

43:50

Jesus Seminars. Exactly. They will be in your neck of the woods, James White, in just a few months.

43:56

They're going to Phoenix and I was told during our conversation that they are going to be at the beginning of next year publishing their own

44:06

New Testament. They've done Mark and John and I know John ended up only having two words that are still original.

44:13

That was it. It was a very short publication. This one is going to have underlined in red the statements from Jesus that they believe are authentic.

44:23

They did that with Mark. I have it. Yeah. And in some other color things that are probable, things that are questionable.

44:30

But this is the point that I thought was interesting. They are also including the gospel of Thomas as one of the guests.

44:36

Yes. I was on the air with Dr. Robert Funk, who was, at least. Is he still the head of the organization?

44:42

I don't know. That's not who I had on. Yeah. Well, he bases most of his interpretation of those gospel messages on the gospel of Thomas.

44:50

They're a pretty radical group. I'm not throwing my head in with them. Let's take another call. Bob, you're on the air.

44:57

Bob has perhaps wisely left. Harold, your turn. Oh, hello.

45:03

Hi. Yeah, you were right for whoever said that a couple of callers ago how boring it is out here.

45:13

Just slightly, though. I mean, letting the guy go on and on and on about the circular definition saying that we know that God exists because God, after all, told us, and he wouldn't lie.

45:26

Well. Basically, that's what he said. I'll be short. What I really called about was one other thing.

45:33

I only called about one thing, but now it's got two more since I listened. At the very first, the fellow saying that Mormons are not

45:43

Christians. In other words, they aren't. And my view is that if you're polytheistic, you're not monotheistic.

45:50

And Christianity, the cornerstone of it, is monotheism. I don't know.

45:57

I mean, that sort of settles it in my mind. I see. And you also believe that the

46:04

Bible is the complete word of God? No, I don't. I don't believe any of that stuff. Well, you lost

46:10

Reverend White on that one. He was nodding his head there. He already took a shot at me. Now he's taking a shot at everybody else.

46:17

You cannot be both polytheistic... Pardon me? That's right. Go ahead, Colin. Well, you just can't be polytheistic and a

46:25

Christian. I see. And so, you know, why don't they just say, okay, we're polytheistic.

46:31

We're not Christians, but we're LDS, and go blah, blah, blah. Because if someone bases the cornerstone of their faith on Christ and his message, and the name of their very church is the

46:44

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, and although they interpret scriptures differently from some other denominations, he is the center of their belief.

46:55

I mean, come on, can't you see... There's more to it than that. From the days of Yahweh, when everybody knew that there were lots of gods out there, and Moses took them out and said, don't listen to them.

47:08

I am your only one. And from then on, he isn't as polytheistic, and so it's

47:14

Christianity. Well, they've got that problem, a little problem with the Trinity, but that's another thing.

47:20

Well, let's see, you say plurality of gods, maybe the Jews would throw stones and say, gee, they have plurality of persons in the

47:30

Godhead. It's all polytheistic. Well, I'm not that familiar with this

47:36

Godhead thing, but I have a feeling... Well, all right, traditional Christianity believes in the person of God, the

47:43

Father, the person of Christ, the Son, and the person of the

47:48

Holy Ghost. All of the major creeds have three persons, 31 beings, 31 beings, and there are three persons, and the

47:57

Jews all believe, and I've got several writings, rabbis, they all say, wait a minute, that's, that's, it's not...

48:07

Well, they would say it's poly -person, poly...

48:13

I'm using the wrong terminology, but there's more than one person in the Godhead you're dealing with polytheism in a certain sense.

48:22

Next thing, we're going to be discussing the transubstantiation. You know, it's just completely boring and silly.

48:30

No, we're not. But let me, what I really called it at... Hey, he struck on something we all agreed on.

48:35

Yeah, we did. We could talk about Kabbalah for the next hour or something. You know, I...

48:40

My question... And now we're... Here's the question. All right. I was just sitting on my computer dialing up bulletin boards as I do.

48:48

Oh, good. I did the same thing. And there's one here in Salt Lake called The Unbelievers, and there's another one that has, and they have like a religion section on it, and I'm a little bit connected with that, and there's one called

49:02

Lower Life, and they have quite a good religious discussion on it all the time, and I was just wondering, you know,

49:09

I don't want to make aware of people who may be out there listening with their motives and have never called into these.

49:15

A little advertising there. Well, yeah. Well, you know, it's not like we charge a bill or anything. People just call in and it's...

49:22

If I can make a statement on that, I... Please. I moderate an echo called Apologia.

49:28

I've been very active for quite some time on an echo called Mormon and Mormonism. There's also an echo called

49:33

Open Bible, and that's really an interesting way of communicating with people, especially since what you write you end up having, and in fact,

49:41

I have with me some information I have with me this evening are posts that I have written to people over the past couple of years, so it's not totally a commercial there,

49:49

Martin, but close enough. No, it's not a commercial because there's no financial gain. It's more of a... No, it's a financial drain.

49:55

I can guarantee you that. Okay. Well, we're a local number, and if you want, I can give you that, the one that...

50:01

Well, I'm sorry, but let's close this up. If you want, I can mention that. Otherwise, I don't have... Feel free to give us your phone number.

50:08

Yeah, it's 466 -4261. Let me close this up.

50:13

Did you hear that? Well, it's just a silly term. I just call in and write up. The other fellow does all the work.

50:20

But Lorelei's is a really good one. They're actually stronger than ours. I don't have their number, but what I will do, I will post their number on ours.

50:29

Did they discuss Mormonism there at all? They discussed any and everything. Lorelei, as a matter of fact, recently had some discussion of the temple sacraments and that, and the fellow from there was so upset about it he just deleted it all.

50:47

Oh, yeah. Well, you can't please all of the people all the time, of course. People have differing points of view.

50:55

Harold, thank you. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Bye -bye now. Let's start some conversation here with Bob.

51:02

Hi. Hi. I got back. Sorry, I got cut off before. Sorry, and we may have to go to the news before you're done.

51:07

We've got about a minute left before our NBC break. Okay, I'll hold through the break, too, then. The question

51:13

I had was I've read, or at least I read part of Letters to a

51:19

Mormon Elder. I got it last April, I guess. They handed it to me on Temple Square. And the question was, in one of the chapters,

51:30

I don't know which one, it's on page 134, it talks about false prophecy of Joseph Smith.

51:37

You want to know what that is? No, no, I've got it here in front of me. Oh, I see. All right, your question is?

51:44

My question is, basically, it deals with the temple will be built in this generation.

51:53

And related to that, in Matthew 24 -35, Jesus Christ says that this generation will not pass away.

52:00

All right, hold that thought. Anyway, I was asking the question about on the one hand,

52:08

I don't think the criteria used to evaluate the Mormon is fair in relation to the way it deals with the same criteria that applies to Christian beliefs in general.

52:20

For example, the passage in Matthew 24 -35, or verse 34 rather, where Jesus says that this generation shall not pass away before things are fulfilled.

52:36

And it's pretty clear from the text. In fact, I've got multiple translations here in the Greek also. But it's pretty clear that he was talking about this present generation.

52:45

And Joseph Smith, and he was understood by those, in fact, Clement of Rome and others make it pretty clear that they think that the end is right at hand.

52:56

And when Joseph Smith and D &C 84 made a similar prophecy, then we become much more literal in that it must be fulfilled right now.

53:08

And in fact, your comment is that if there is even one false prophecy, then the person cannot possibly be a prophet.

53:15

And I'd like to hear your response to that. Well, I'd be glad to give it to you because I think in the book, and by the way the one we gave to you is probably black in color primarily.

53:27

The one that is now out in the bookstores, Bethany House publishers have picked it up and it's different and the discussion that you're addressing here begins on page 109 now of the new edition.

53:39

So there's different paginations and so forth. But first of all, in the book itself,

53:45

I attempted to emphasize the fact that we do need to utilize the same standards for both. And in this particular situation, that's why

53:53

I provided a number of pages in the current version, pages 110, 111 and 112 provide you with the interpretation of that particular prophecy by early

54:06

LDS leaders who are considered to be apostles and prophets and who are contemporaries who heard the original statement from Joseph Smith.

54:14

They walked with him and understood what the teaching was, so on and so forth. Now in regards to your statement in Matthew chapter 24, again, you're probably familiar with the understanding of the passage that is found probably in most commentaries today in regards to the meaning of generation.

54:31

You may not be familiar with, and I'm certainly not going to in the short time we have tonight, all the eschatological arguments that take place over Matthew chapter 24, whether you're a premillennialist, an amillennialist or a postmillennialist.

54:45

And if you're a premillennialist or a pre -trib, mid -trib, post -trib, and all the rest of that stuff, which would be enough to confuse everybody into agnosticism,

54:54

I'm sure. But be that as it may, there's a lot of arguments about those things in regards to what generation means.

55:00

But my point was, let's let Joseph Smith and his contemporaries define this term for themselves.

55:07

Clement of Rome was not a contemporary with Jesus Christ. We don't know when the book was even written.

55:13

And to say that, well, yes, the Christians believed that the coming of Christ was imminent, yes. So let's let the Christians define this term for themselves.

55:44

So let's let the Christians define this term for themselves. So let's let the Christians define this term for themselves. So let's let the term for themselves. So let's let the

55:58

Christians define this term for themselves. So let's let the

56:04

Christians define this term for themselves. So let's let the Christians define this term for themselves. So let's let the

56:10

Christians define this term for themselves. So let's let the term for themselves. So let's let the Christians define this term for themselves. So let's let the

56:15

Christians define this term for themselves.

56:33

So let's let the So let's let the Christians define this term for themselves. So let's let the Christians define this term for themselves.

56:41

So let's let the Christians define this term for themselves. So let's let the Christians define this term for themselves.

56:46

So let's let the Christian churches to not show, or distribute, or encourage people to see

56:51

Godmakers 2. It is garbage. It is unfair to the Mormon people. It says some true things once in a while, but it mixes truth with far too much error that is unfair.

57:03

I'm not going to utilize those kinds of arguments, and I honestly don't think that's what I'm doing in this passage because of this fact.

57:09

Let me stop you right there and say, Pete, Pete, our next caller, Pete, I hope you just listened to that last statement.

57:15

Well, I hope that anyone... Now you can continue. Go ahead. If I can, just very quickly,

57:21

I think that it is incumbent upon us that if we are going to say that what we're saying is true, that we need to be fair, logical, and rational in the arguments that we use in regards to these issues, and that we should not use arguments against others that, when turned upon our own position, make us look foolish.

57:38

I doubt very much that either of the scholars from Brigham Young University are going to argue with me on that. I think they would agree with me on that.

57:44

My point is, I don't think that's what I was doing in Letters to a Mormon Elder. This is... Who am

57:50

I speaking with? This is Bob. Bob. And this is why. Because you don't have an exact parallel here.

57:56

What I gave you in citing all these early LDS church leaders, these are contemporary witnesses who had the opportunity of hearing

58:04

Joseph Smith speak about these things, or at least second generation. These are LDS church leaders.

58:10

You don't have that same situation with Matthew chapter 24 that will force you to say... The generation there means the same thing.

58:16

I think, at least in the case of Clement of Rome, you do. But even if you let the early saints judge,

58:24

I mean, Joseph Smith himself said he didn't understand what the prophecies about 1890, or 1893, or whatever it was, referred to.

58:31

He never claimed to know exactly when the second coming was coming. And I think if you apply the same yardstick that the people of Christ's era felt it was within their lifetime, so did the people of Joseph Smith's era.

58:42

And it doesn't really stretch the imagination to think that we're applying that to ourselves.

58:48

And of course, we naturally think that it's going to be coming. But Pete, I'm sorry,

58:54

Bob, the problem that I have with that, though, is you're saying, well,

59:00

Christians believe the coming of Christ is imminent. Yes. But that does not mean that the interpretation of generation in Matthew chapter 24 has to be fixed at the people living in that day.

59:09

Right. That's where the problem is. But it certainly would discredit the Savior as a prophet if the interpretation is applied, rigidly applied, that that meant that day.

59:20

But I'm saying to you that the early LDS leaders defined what generation meant. That's all I'm saying.

59:25

Right. But I think it's up to God to define his terms. And gentlemen, if I could throw in a comment here from another perspective, and that is that just as subsequent events made it so that God did not continue on with the course that he had told

59:44

Jonah to prophesy about Nineveh, Nineveh was not destroyed, so the

59:52

Lord said, because of subsequent events that came to pass in section 124 and verses 49 and 50, that particular event didn't come to pass either.

01:00:04

And so I think you have parallels in a different place there that can explain section 84, which

01:00:12

I address on page 112. Can I throw in here, in the beginning discussion you were talking about how to judge the

01:00:21

Bible, and I've got the 27th edition of the Nestle -Allen Greek New Testament.

01:00:26

How'd you get that? Mine's only the 26th. Well, let's see here. You're right, 26th. Excuse me.

01:00:32

Oh, okay. Look at the spine. It's 26th. Apologize for that. But nonetheless...

01:00:37

Shame on you, Colin. No apology necessary. I just wanted to find out where I could get it. You're right. I should know this. I mean,

01:00:42

I've only had this for 13 years, but it makes it clear in the foreword, in the introduction to the text, that this was the edition that came to harmonize the

01:00:55

Greek New Testament with the Nestle -Allen New Testament. You mean UBS text? Right.

01:01:01

And that between the two of them, they made over 500 changes in the text of the committee's edition.

01:01:12

And that, in fact, a little later on in the introduction, it says that in the correlating of minuscules, they're going to make an edition that will incorporate even further changes in it.

01:01:22

And I think that... We're almost done with that. Yeah. Well, good. It's only been 13 years. 14 years.

01:01:27

I mean, it takes a while. There's not a lot of money in that field. You know what I mean? That's probably true. But I guess the point is that as the subject was developing earlier,

01:01:37

I think that what the professors from BYU were trying to get at is how do you discern what is true?

01:01:44

And in Romans 8, verse 16, where they talk about our end result being errors with God, it makes a really pointed statement that the

01:01:55

Spirit bears witness with our spirit. And again, last April, I was talking to some of the

01:02:01

Alpha Omega Ministry people on Temple Square. Not on Temple Square. Around.

01:02:06

Around Temple Square. That's right. We don't trespass. That's right. Well, no. And you wouldn't be trespassing if you were looking for the truth.

01:02:12

That would be funny. But if we were passing out tracts, we've been told we would be. But anyway,

01:02:17

I believe, and I think you can show it from the

01:02:22

Scriptures, that clearly at times the Spirit bears witness in a way that you can physically feel.

01:02:29

And that that's one of the ways that we discern truth, and of course that's a Mormon position. Well, again,

01:02:34

I want to reread what I read from Westminster and the Baptist Confession of Faith. We are not denying the role of the

01:02:40

Holy Spirit. We are denying that the authority of Scripture is dependent upon that extra -scriptural position, that extra -scriptural thing.

01:02:52

We're not saying that, well, you use this argument, this argument, this argument, and they somehow prove that the Bible is the

01:02:57

Word of God. We are saying it's absolutely necessary for a person to wish to obey the Word, to love the

01:03:03

Word the way that I want to love the Word, the way the Christians love the Word. It necessitates the work of the

01:03:09

Holy Spirit in a person's life. What we're denying is that there is some insufficiency in Scripture itself that requires an external authority like maybe the teaching magisterium of the

01:03:21

Church, or the Roman Catholic position, or maybe other Scriptures or something, maybe a tradition.

01:03:28

There's all sorts of denials of Sola Scriptura that go along those lines. But isn't that exactly what happens when, in fact, we establish the text based on the most ancient archaeological findings?

01:03:39

I'm glad you brought that back because I could tell, I don't, again, I'd like to ask Dr. Peterson or Dr.

01:03:45

Hamlin to address this, but I don't think the textual criticism was necessarily foundational to the position they're taking there in the sense that I think they were talking more in the realm of how do you know that this as a collection, this as a revelation is

01:04:01

God's truth, rather than how do you know that the particular reading of John 118 is a monogamous squeal or is it monogamous chaos?

01:04:08

Dr. Peterson is shaking his head yes. Isn't that not the case? Me? No, I was asking the doctors.

01:04:17

However, that issue is quite relevant to the question of inerrancy of Scripture. Yes, I believe it is. To establish what is

01:04:22

Scripture. Secondly, whether Scripture is inerrant or not. So that's a separate question. I agree. Bob, thank you. Thank you very much.

01:04:28

Appreciate the call. Let's talk now with Pete. You're on the air. You know,

01:04:34

James, thank you. There are some Christians out here, and we are supporting you, and we are trying to print the good news of Jesus Christ to the

01:04:40

Mormons. But as you know, do you listen to CRI, James? No, it's not available in the area

01:04:48

I live in. Well, Hank Hanegraaff went to the World Religion Seminar that they had back in Chicago.

01:04:54

I heard about that, yeah. And they asked all these people. The Mormons went too, didn't they? Yeah, the Mormons were there too.

01:05:00

But they asked them, and they played it, and they asked them, what's the truth? And everybody was saying, you know, my witness, my spirit witnesses the truth.

01:05:08

My spirit witnesses the truth. I mean, from the Buddhists, from the Mohammeds. But the Bible tells us to test all doctrines, to see if it stands with the

01:05:17

Word of the God. Galatians 1 .8, as I'm sure everybody knows, it says,

01:05:22

I'm surprised at you, and no time in your deserting for who called you by the grace of Christ, and you are accepting another gospel.

01:05:30

Actually, there is no other gospel. And then he goes on to say that if anybody accepts another gospel, let them be condemned to hell.

01:05:37

Now, if we take a look at the Book of Mormon, at the bottom of it, it says, the new Book of Mormon, it says another gospel of Jesus Christ.

01:05:45

The Testament. Another Testament. But here we see where Paul says there's not another gospel or another

01:05:53

Testament. Now, we have of the Old Testament, of the New Testament, we have the Hebrew, and we have the

01:05:59

Greek. We can look this up. We have basis. We have ground. We can go into this, and we can check it.

01:06:04

But we don't have anything on the Book of Mormon. I mean, Joseph Smith saw these golden plates. He translated it on paper, and then we got the

01:06:11

Book of Mormon. But how do we test it out? I mean, two places in the Book of Mormon, it says, the

01:06:16

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. How do we test it out? What is the meaning on this?

01:06:22

And I'm asking this question to the professors. Well, it's... All right, I won't even answer.

01:06:27

That's right, Martin. Now, go right ahead. The question is, how do you test whether the Book of Mormon is the

01:06:32

Word of God? Yeah, I mean, do I just take Joseph Smith's word for it? Well, at that level, it's exactly the same as the

01:06:41

Bible. You're taking the word of Paul, his writings are Scripture. But I think there's two other things you can do to test the

01:06:47

Book of Mormon. One is, of course, to receive a personal revelation from God about it, which is typical

01:06:53

Mormon response. The second method is to analyze the text from a historical perspective and see if it does or does not fit an ancient setting.

01:07:02

And I think numerous LDS scholars are working this with a foundation known as the

01:07:07

Foundation for Ancient Research in Mormon Studies. We will now do our advertisements. Together. I think you should sing this, guys, together.

01:07:15

Well, we had the earlier guy who had the computer thing. I guess you can talk about farms for a minute or two.

01:07:21

It's just an academic research institute that distributes various works on Mormon studies in the

01:07:29

Book of Mormon. And the phone number is not on my chart here. Post Office Box 7113.

01:07:37

Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name.

01:07:46

Joseph Smith uses it in the Book of Mormon as a name for a male. And since that time, we have discovered that in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a

01:08:00

Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah, another perfectly good

01:08:06

Hebrew name. Same thing with Nephi. All of these names have been discovered. They're non -biblical, and yet they are authentic in the setting that the text claims to come from.

01:08:13

So there are certain types of historical analysis you can do. I don't think you can prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the

01:08:20

Book of Mormon. We are claiming some level of flammability. What I'm saying is, in the

01:08:25

Bible, there's maps. I can see the maps of Israel. I can see the maps, all types of maps.

01:08:32

Well, let me ask you this. Why can't I document? I mean, I hear some scholars saying... What's that?

01:08:38

Suppose that you... I can show you a map where Troy was, all right? Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and we should worship

01:08:45

Zeus? You know, but that's not with our subject. That has nothing to do with our subject. It precisely has to do with our subject.

01:08:52

I mean, Homer claims that he wrote a book all about the doings of the great Greek gods. We have now authenticated that, in fact, the city

01:08:58

Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It's perfectly good history. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and we should worship

01:09:04

Zeus? Well, to be fair to Pete, I don't think that's really what he's saying. I think what he is saying is that the lack...

01:09:10

If you have what is meant to be taken as a serious historical document, the lack of a verifiable geography for it is relevant.

01:09:19

Not that, well, because a fable has a verifiable geography, that makes it true. I think those are two very different arguments,

01:09:24

Dr. Dunn. Wouldn't you say? Well, maybe I can make two quick points here. First of all, if you want to take a look at some very good works on the issue, like Professor John Stornson's An Ancient American Setting for the

01:09:36

Book of Mormon, you can see your maps, Pete. Second of all, if you look at the Bible, the maps are not part of this inerrant biblical text that you're talking about.

01:09:45

The maps themselves are extra -biblical, and so I'm surprised that you yourself would resort to an extra -biblical source to try to show or somehow demonstrate that it's true or accurate.

01:09:58

In addition, there are lots of sources in the Bible, not sources, there are lots of places in the

01:10:06

Bible that we don't have any archaeological proof of yet, and I'll grant you that.

01:10:13

We could say the same thing about the Book of Mormon, though. Yes, certainly. The point is that I don't think that Reverend White would say, wait a minute, wait a minute, the way to test the legitimacy of the

01:10:33

Bible text is to see if there's a map. That's nothing to do with what White brought up earlier at all,

01:10:38

Martin. The way to test is to say, who is God, and find out what the Bible says is God, and if it differs from what the

01:10:45

Bible says is God, then, and someone says, well, our God is so -and -so, I can get in here, Martin, but usually you get mad when

01:10:52

I try to define the Mormon God, but, you know, our God is so -and -so and so -and -so, but it doesn't match up to the historic

01:10:59

Bible, then I've got to say, these people are not Christians. Why are you bringing up maps, then?

01:11:04

Well, because, you know, I mean, first of all, there's no basis. What I'm saying is there's no basis for the

01:11:10

Book of Mormon, other than Joseph Smith got these golden plates, which we don't know where these golden plates are today.

01:11:16

Well, you brought up a map, Pete. I'm saying if you want a map, go look at Thornton's book. Well, we're in the

01:11:21

Great Lakes now. I hear some scholars say that the Mormons were in the Great Lakes, or they were in Panama.

01:11:27

I mean, where were they? Some scholars say that the Bible took place in Arabia. Does that cast doubt on your faith in the

01:11:33

Bible? Some say that Herod's Chaldees is one place, and some say that it was another. We don't know where Abraham was.

01:11:40

Does that mean Abraham was not a historical person? I don't think so. If, as a dues -paying member of farms, which

01:11:47

I am, by the way, if I could throw a question out at our scholars here this evening, they've already seen what

01:11:55

I'm holding in my hand, a book called New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, and I was reading through this, and for example, you'll find a great deal of dispute in regards to a number of the issues that have been brought up.

01:12:07

For example, the limited geography theory is fairly well addressed from the author's perspective anyways.

01:12:14

Obviously, Dr. Peterson doesn't feel that it's addressed well at all, but the point is that these things can and are disputed by individuals that, well, some people might not even call them

01:12:24

Mormons. I don't know, but they certainly claim themselves to be.

01:12:30

Then again, I mentioned to someone today, Dr. Peterson, when I was trying to hand them a tract, that the tract did nothing but cite

01:12:37

BYU scholars, and the fellow turned around and said, that doesn't mean anything these days. So you guys seem to be an endangered breed at the moment in regards to that.

01:12:45

But the point being that there are, I think Pete's point, Martin, was that the

01:12:52

Bible, you're able to find the land of Israel, and it's not a matter where people have these huge debates that are at least seriously taken.

01:13:00

Are you telling me we can't find the land of America? I didn't think that was much of a dispute either.

01:13:06

Well, we're talking about large locations here. As you know, Martin, there's a huge amount of discussion.

01:13:11

Dr. Sorensen's position is probably the most scholarly position that's being presented right now from the

01:13:16

LDS perspective. But you know that it can be disputed from other perspectives, and that it is in and of itself a theory.

01:13:25

It is not, I do not believe that anyone would say that it exists on the same level as the archaeological research into the question of when, for example,

01:13:34

Jericho fell. On the same level, you're absolutely right. And Mesoamerican archaeology is in its infancy compared with archaeology in the old world.

01:13:45

And you yourself, I'm sure you know, Reverend White, that there are tremendous debates raging within the

01:13:54

Christian academic community about where events occurred in the Bible, whether or not events in the

01:14:00

Bible occurred at all, or are mythological, that sort of thing. You had Martin Wright and many others who had discussions like that going on for a century, and that shouldn't cast doubt on one's faith.

01:14:12

But Martin, the difference between the two is that the arguments amongst Christian archaeologists or non -Christian archaeologists are based upon facts.

01:14:20

Exactly. The issue is, where is the Book of Mormon data? I have to go back to the same thing. Where is the data? Oh, oh, oh, that is absurd.

01:14:26

Where's the elephant? Where's the wink? Where's the barley? Where's the corn, which

01:14:32

Reverend Wright denies the existence of in his book, and we have found? Where's the horses?

01:14:38

Oh, oh, you want to know about horses? We really ought to read the latest research. Pete, Pete, if you would subscribe to Farms, you would see much of that.

01:14:45

But I'm amazed that Reverend White would, like you, Pete, resort to scientific explanations to try to prove or disprove something.

01:14:54

No, no, Martin, that's an invalid argument, Martin. That's an invalid argument. It's different. At a different level. I'm simply saying that the archaeological research in the text of the

01:15:02

Bible is quantitatively different than any discussion of theories regarding locations for any

01:15:10

Book of Mormon city or anything of the kind. Absolutely true, and you're comparing apples with oranges. It's an absurd comparison.

01:15:15

That was Martin's point. I agree that the comparison was absurd. It's absurd because Mesoamerican archaeology, as such, is not comparable with Palestinian archaeology.

01:15:27

That's right. Are you saying that Mesoamerican archaeology does not deal with any excavated sites with any facts concerning Noamex or Toltecs or any other?

01:15:36

Any reputable Mesoamerican archaeologist will tell you that less than 1 % of the potential sites in Mesoamerica have ever, ever been excavated.

01:15:49

Nevertheless, we still have a substantial amount of information that confirms many of the claims set forth in the

01:15:58

Book of Mormon. Barley is only one of the examples. There are dozens of them.

01:16:04

Chariots and armor and stuff like that. There are dozens of them. Glass. Exactly. There are dozens of them that have been shown with the wee amount of archaeology that's taken place there.

01:16:15

And I would point out that if 100 or 200 years ago, people were applying the same yardstick to biblical archaeology that you are applying to the

01:16:26

Book of Mormon archaeology, they might very well wind up an atheist. I'm pleased to learn that Reverend White is a dues -paying member of forums.

01:16:33

But that disappoints me, then, because so much of his discussion on the Book of Mormon in his book Letters to a Mormon Elder is so, well, really astonishingly,

01:16:40

I have to say, ill -informed or uninformed. As L .R. Norwood said. Yes, he did.

01:16:46

And I should give a commercial for that. Reverend White's book has been reviewed in a recent publication of Farms, the review of books on the

01:16:52

Book of Mormon, Volume 5, which is available, I think, at Deseret Book and in the BYU bookstore and from Farms directly.

01:16:57

But I would say, for example, the denial of weapons, the denial of the existence of weapons in the Book of Mormon seems not to have read

01:17:03

Farms publications, which deal with those very issues. The denial of the existence of barley in pre -Columbian America.

01:17:09

This is simply wrong. The denial of the existence of corn. Corn in pre -Columbian

01:17:14

America? What in the world is maize? Indian corn. I thought everybody knew about that. My Thanksgiving parties at school were always decorated with Indian corn.

01:17:23

The mention of coins in the Book of Mormon. We found no Book of Mormon coins. Big deal. There are no Book of Mormon coins.

01:17:29

The book never claims to have coins. I hope everyone will look. These are very interesting discussions, but I'd like to point out that I have always been amazed, gentlemen, at scholars who focus in upon these issues,

01:17:41

I think very plainly Alma 11 is addressing that issue, and I have read, but I simply reject as being far -reaches, the attempt to defend such a subject as coins, but the point that I'm making is that...

01:17:53

These are the very issues that you brought up. The point, you know, actually, you brought it up with me, but the point that I'm making is that when one looks at the

01:18:03

Book of Mormon culture, and one, for example, looks at weapons, I don't think I mentioned weapons.

01:18:09

As I recall, I mentioned bows and arrows, spears, not spears, but metal swords.

01:18:15

Those are weapons. And the point being, yes, I realize that, but I was very specific in what

01:18:20

I was talking about there, and tying these in with the old world cultures that I believe formed the background of Joseph Smith's story about those things.

01:18:28

They formed the background of the Book of Mormon peoples as well. Pete, thank you. Okay, one more thing to Pastor White.

01:18:35

Does this mean, Pastor White, after hearing you about the Godmakers, I can't listen to Bob Larson either? Well, I'm afraid that Mr.

01:18:46

Larson has accepted Godmakers 2 as being absolutely, well, almost inerrant in and of itself, and I think that's very unfortunate.

01:18:55

And I would have to say that I was very, very upset when I heard Mr. Larson allow

01:19:01

Ed Decker on totally free reign to attack the character of some,

01:19:08

I think, some wonderful Christian people here in the Salt Lake area that maybe a few Mormons aren't all that pleased with, but Gerald and Sandra Tanner.

01:19:16

I was very, very disappointed in that, and I have tended to express that in those ways that I think are appropriate.

01:19:23

Well, thank you. God bless. Thank you, Pete. I appreciate the call. Let me ask Reverend White a question.

01:19:29

Do you believe there were no swords in pre -Columbian Mesoamerica? I believe that the world,

01:19:35

I'm sorry, the culture that is presented in the Book of Mormon, where you have warfare utilizing swords, where you have basically old world culture fighting was not present.

01:19:44

Were there swords in pre -Columbian America? Metal swords like Joseph Smith describes? Not that I'm aware of. Well, are you certain the

01:19:50

Book of Mormon describes metal swords? Well, when you say pre -Columbian America, are you meaning in the place where you feel that the

01:19:56

Book of Mormon took place or all across in Mesoamerica? Between 600 BC and 421

01:20:02

AD? Right. I don't believe there were swords in the sense of armed people with that's what they fought with.

01:20:09

Have you read the... I just handed you a book called Warfare in the Book of Mormon. I have not read your book. You have to read it before you make such statements.

01:20:16

Well, let me ask you something. Has this evidence that you find so compelling caused non -Mormon archaeologists to begin to examine the

01:20:25

Book of Mormon as being a historical document that relates to the inhabitants of this hemisphere so that they are changing their entire viewpoint?

01:20:34

That would seem to conflict with the limited geography theory that says we can't really expect to find huge amounts of evidence because we're talking about maybe, what, 200 years ago?

01:20:45

Do you feel that these arguments are compelling and hence that the Book of Mormon represents the Mesoamerican cultures? Well, we've shifted the question from whether or not the swords are there to non -Mormon archaeologists.

01:20:56

You are begging the question. You claim there are no swords. You claim there are no bows. You claim there are no coins. We've demonstrated that there are bows, there are swords, there's armor.

01:21:06

They had armor in ancient Mesoamerica. We've also... They had armies going around in horse -drawn chariots with swords and bows and arrows.

01:21:14

We're talking massive armies traveling along roads on wheeled vehicles. Well, the chariots issue is a different issue.

01:21:22

No, it's all part and parcel, the same warfare. We haven't found evidence of chariots yet. That doesn't mean that there is no evidence whatsoever.

01:21:31

Now, you ought to read the books by non -Mormon Ross Hassig, one called Mesoamerican Warfare, the other one called

01:21:38

Aztec Warfare. He goes through numerous evidence that from 1000

01:21:43

B .C. or earlier, there were major wars. Warfare was an integral part of Mesoamerican society. No one's questioning warfare, but the question is what kind of warfare?

01:21:51

Is it old world warfare where you have horses and chariots and you have swords and you have bows and arrows?

01:21:57

Number one, yes. Or even old world culture where you have coins. There were swords and bows and arrows and armor and so forth.

01:22:03

Notice what Joseph... Some metal armor, yeah. They had plates, metal plates that hang on their chests.

01:22:10

But the important thing to note here is that... I've forgotten what the important thing to note was.

01:22:16

Well, the question I was asking you in regards to the coinage was... No, let me just finish. Okay, I'm sorry.

01:22:22

Then we'll get to the coinage. The important thing to note is that there is ways to interpret the evidence of Mesoamerica that fit perfectly with the

01:22:30

Book of Mormon. It's not a problem. Now, we don't have all the answers, but 150 years ago, 200 years ago, there was not all the answers for Bible archaeology, nor are they all answered today.

01:22:39

Would you say that non -Mormon archaeologists would say that they fit perfectly? Well, of course not. So there's an element.

01:22:46

Would you say that non -Christian archaeologists just would agree that the Bible fits in perfectly with their archaeology in Palestine?

01:22:56

There are many who would recognize the Bible's validity in that way, yes. If they don't have a problem with the

01:23:03

Christian faith, yes, indeed. But the question I wanted to ask was... Maybe I can say that there are many non -Mormon archaeologists who would see that ancient

01:23:13

Mesoamerican archaeology fits in with the Book of Mormon in a certain way.

01:23:21

Well, the other issue is that if someone comes to the conclusion after studying the

01:23:26

Book of Mormon that it is, in fact, a historical document and therefore it's true, it rather compels him to become a

01:23:33

Mormon. And therefore, he is a Mormon archaeologist or a Mormon scholar who now accepts the

01:23:38

Book of Mormon. I don't understand how anyone could come to accept the Book of Mormon as authentic and not become a Mormon.

01:23:43

And so it's kind of a contradiction in terms. It's like saying, are there any non -Christians who accept the resurrection of Jesus?

01:23:49

Well, if you accept the resurrection of Jesus, you become a Christian. But you'll notice, Dr. Hamlin, there are many non -Christian archaeologists that accept the basic historical liturgy of the

01:23:57

Bible. They accept that there were those people in parts of the Bible, yes.

01:24:03

But most secularists would probably reject that Abraham existed at all, for example. That Adam existed.

01:24:09

But they would admit that the Bible actually comes out of the ancient setting that it is described as coming out of, would they not?

01:24:15

Yeah, it's not an issue. Well, is it an issue with regards to the Book of Mormon? The issue is more like the issue related to Homer and the

01:24:22

Homeric question. Because there was, at one time, a significant doubt as to the authenticity of Homer. Now, through archaeological research, that's been demonstrated that there really were wars back then.

01:24:32

So we're at a state, a pre -Sleeman state in Book of Mormon archaeology, if you want to put it that way.

01:24:39

So I agree. It hasn't been proven yet. Anything you want to mention here?

01:24:44

And then we'll go on to another call? Or I think we lost the call. Right. All right, let's talk with Cavy.

01:24:54

Good evening, gentlemen. Hi. Hi. I have a statement, a couple of questions that deal with God in general.

01:25:00

But I think they're germane to the great show. I personally believe in God and the higher power based on faith.

01:25:08

I could not prove it to you. I don't feel a necessity to try to prove it to you.

01:25:14

But my question is, do any of you gentlemen there, based on the evidence that you have and believe in, consider that proof positive of the existence of God and the divinity of Christ?

01:25:29

And lastly, then I'll hang up and take your answers. And they are, is it sufficient for a religion to simply state its faith to those who will listen, say that we ask you to join on the basis of faith?

01:25:45

This is what we believe. We offer no concrete documented proof other than this is what appeals to us.

01:25:52

This is what we believe. We invite you to believe with us. I'll hang up and take. Hold on for just a minute,

01:25:58

Cavy. And let's get responses here. All right. Go ahead. I didn't get the first. My statement?

01:26:05

Do you see any evidence that the existence of God has been proven without a doubt?

01:26:13

Well, I would say yes. And unfortunately, in the amount of time

01:26:18

I have, it'd be very difficult to give the whole basis for that. But I would say yes. And I would do that on the basis of saying that it is impossible for us to even be addressing the issue and questioning it without the existence of the

01:26:32

Christian God. Obviously, that puts me under a lot of pressure to demonstrate what I mean by that. What I'd like to refer you to, and if Cavy would be happy to, if Cavy would be willing to contact us,

01:26:42

I'd be glad to either correspond with him or send him what I think was an excellent debate. I don't know. And let's take a minute and tell people how they can do it.

01:26:51

In fact, if you'd like to see my response to Farm's review of my book, you can contact the

01:26:58

Alpha and Omega Ministries. And we're at post office box 47041 in Phoenix, Arizona.

01:27:05

That's post office 47041, Phoenix, Arizona. The zip code down there in the nice warm valley of the sun is 85068, 85068.

01:27:16

But anyways, what I'd be glad to send you is a debate that took place, I think at USC, maybe at UCLA, between Dr.

01:27:24

Gordon Stein, who is one of the nation's leading atheists, and Dr. Greg Bonson on the existence of God.

01:27:31

And I think Dr. Bonson is probably the most articulate defender of the

01:27:38

Christian faith, in my opinion, these days. And I think you would find his debate with Dr.

01:27:43

Stein to be very, very interesting. And he brings this out very much so in his presentation.

01:27:48

So yes, I do feel that there has been an argument put forward that basically undercuts any atheistic position in regards to the existence of God, and in so doing, demonstrates the necessity of Christian theism.

01:28:02

Does it simply win a debate, or does it offer proof positive? Well, you know, the question is, who gets to judge of what is proof positive?

01:28:11

And Christians believe that, well, first of all, Christians believe, according to scriptures, that God has revealed himself to all men, that men are actively involved in suppressing that truth.

01:28:21

And so we are not going to say there's not a spiritual element that's involved here. But I think if there was a world where there was a neutrality, where there was an ability to have an unbiased opinion,

01:28:33

I would say yes. But I don't believe such a world exists. I don't believe there's such a thing as a neutral fact. Every fact that exists, exists because God made it so.

01:28:39

Okay, and then my second question was, is it necessary in order to confirm a religion's validity or belief that evidences exist and debates be won, that simply by believing, saying,

01:28:54

I have faith, that that's not sufficient? Or is that a, have

01:29:01

I made a confusing, asked a confusing question? I think that's a good question.

01:29:07

All right, I'll hang up and let somebody else get in and listen to the answer on the air. All right, thank you. Let's see, how are we going to do this?

01:29:14

Did you get the second question? I was a little distracted. Second question was whether or not, if I'm going to do this the right way, whether or not if somebody tells you you should join a particular denomination on faith, that should be enough.

01:29:34

Well, again, it depends on who's telling you. Interestingly enough, I don't think any one of us would disagree that it depends upon the authority of the ones who are speaking.

01:29:43

We would obviously disagree on what amounts to authority, but I believe that when Jesus Christ says, I am the way, the truth, and the life, there is no need for any outside verification of his statement, because he is your creator, and he is the ultimate authority, and there cannot be an outside verification of his statement.

01:30:00

So, you know, he can say that, and then the question then becomes, who then has the authority to speak for Christ today?

01:30:06

And I would say it's the individual who speaks in accordance with his word. That is very important, because I think down through church history, you can see that there have been those who've claimed to speak for Christ, but it was no longer their top priority to speak as he spoke.

01:30:21

They began to speak their own words as if they had the authority of Christ, and hence, you have such things like, well, inquisitions, which are, you know, a black mark on history itself.

01:30:34

Professors Hamlin and Peterson, same questions. Well, as to the second question, whether it's enough for someone to come to us and say, believe, take it on faith,

01:30:43

I would have some problems with that. I think that you have to have some sort of reason to accept that person's propositions on faith.

01:30:49

I find, again, that this is utterly circular reasoning to say that Jesus says, I'm the way, the truth, and the life, therefore, we have to accept it because he's our creator.

01:30:57

I believe that to be true, but to accept it on that basis alone is to involve yourself in purely, perfectly circular reasoning, so much so that I feel myself dizzy just thinking about it.

01:31:09

However, I would say as to the question whether the existence of God has been definitively proven, I'm not familiar with this debate just mentioned here at either

01:31:17

USP or UCLA. I wasn't present, haven't read it, but I am familiar with most of the standard theistic proofs in Thomas Aquinas and elsewhere.

01:31:24

I don't find them convincing, as I think most philosophers do not. I don't think that the existence of God has been proven.

01:31:31

I don't think it's supposed to be provable in that sense. However, I think there are good reasons, rational reasons for thinking it probable.

01:31:39

I think there are good historical reasons for thinking it probable. I find the resurrection narratives, for example, convincing, but I don't find them absolutely and utterly so convincing that no rational person could doubt them.

01:31:52

I think, once again, that we're left with a position where we have to come to faith and to take the standard

01:31:58

Mormon position once more, the only option to us, the only way to certainty is by personal revelation, because there are no logical or evidentiary grounds so compelling that they can't be denied.

01:32:10

Professor Hamlin. I concur with my colleague. As a

01:32:18

Calvinist, do you believe that God has an eternal plan, or a great plan of salvation?

01:32:24

Yes, Ephesians 111 is very plain in stating that God has an eternal will that he is working out.

01:32:31

Not will, it's plan. Plan? Is that a biblical notion? I believe that it is, at least as far as we know.

01:32:38

What's the biblical, what's the Hebrew or Greek word? Well, the Greek term refers to his will.

01:32:44

His telema. That he is working out. Translate that plan, though, would you?

01:32:50

You could, if you're understanding it to mean that. Do you know a Bible that does it? Uh, no, not personally.

01:32:58

You know, you're using Mormon language. Okay, what do you mean?

01:33:04

How great the plan of our God, great plan of redemption, so on, is Mormon language. Book of Mormon.

01:33:10

Well, uh. I'm sure he'll shift words. Actually, I think the term planning preexisted the

01:33:16

Book of Mormon. I don't know the. I think that's right. I think we can find lexical evidence that did preexist the

01:33:22

Book of Mormon, but I obviously the Book of Mormon utilizes a tremendous amount of the language that was, that was prevalent in language of the

01:33:31

Bible. This is unique to the Book of Mormon. The word plan is unique to the

01:33:38

Book of Mormon. Well, I'll do a little computer search on that myself.

01:33:44

Yeah, I'm simply referring, if you look at Ephesians 111, you'll run across a couple of terms that are used there that refer to God's will.

01:33:54

That term predestination. Are you sure that you haven't picked up the term plan of salvation from your one -a -day conversations with Latter -day

01:34:04

Saints? No, I'm certain of that. You see what

01:34:09

I'm getting at? You say the Bible, but you mean the Bible as you interpret it through the

01:34:17

Westminster Confession, through Calvin, or your understanding of the Westminster Confession, or through your understanding of Calvin.

01:34:26

Or my understanding of Calvin and the Westminster Confession as I study God's word and do what both said to do, and that is to hold them to the standard of God's word.

01:34:35

So there is that other possibility you might want to look at. That's question -begging. I don't think it's question -begging at all.

01:34:41

You're making an assertion that my interpretation of Scripture is determined by an extra -scriptural source, and I'm saying to you that, for example,

01:34:47

John Calvin believed in infant baptism, and I don't. That is, I take what he said, so did Westminster, for that matter.

01:34:52

I take what he said, and I take it to the Scripture, and I test those things. For example, what John Calvin wrote against the

01:34:58

Anabaptists. Well, he was ignorant of what the Anabaptists believed. I can still accept the man as a man of God and very much admire what

01:35:05

God did in his life without accepting him as some inerrant sorcerer. I do not believe that he's inerrant in any way, shape, or form, and I take anything he said or anyone else to Scripture.

01:35:15

Our interpretations... No, and no, because we ourselves, sir, are still sinful. We are undergoing the process of sanctification.

01:35:20

You have an inerrant Bible that is errantly interpreted. Yes, that's called... So then, we're back to why should we believe your interpretation?

01:35:29

Well, again, sir, because God will hold you responsible for what he has said to you in Scripture, and therefore, it's one thing that a lot of people died, a number of people died, so that because of the fact that they emphasize that we believe that every individual, most definitely he will, sir, and I'm very glad to be held responsible for that.

01:35:50

I'm saying, sir, that we do believe that every man and woman will be held responsible for God's truth.

01:35:55

Now, we as two, you and a few people would agree with you, but not the entire... I'm talking about those who have held for doctrines such as Sola Scriptura and for the individual responsibility of the human soul before God.

01:36:11

You want to speak for all Christians. Now, you can do that if you limit your Christians to yourself, and a few that may agree with, which may overtly believe the same thing you do, but otherwise, there are vast numbers of different interpretations.

01:36:27

I'm well aware of the vast number of interpretations. I do not believe that the vast number of interpretations indicate an insufficiency in Scripture, but a sinfulness in mankind.

01:36:37

Well, then, maybe we need more than just our interpretation. Well, regeneration helps, yeah.

01:36:42

That's what I've been saying all along. In other words, the natural man does not resort to talking to the Spirit of God in regards to interpretation.

01:36:49

But the point remains that the insufficiency does not exist in Scripture itself, because Scripture is archaic.

01:36:55

It is ex -archidzo is the verb form. If we are sin -flawed, how do we know that?

01:37:02

Well, sir, I would say that any individual in whom the Spirit of God is working is well aware of their sin because of the

01:37:10

Holy Spirit of God. When the Holy Spirit of God works in a person's life, they experientially know that.

01:37:16

But of course, the revelation of God in Scripture makes it very plain that all have sinned. Let me ask you a question.

01:37:24

If the Scripture is aimed at a sinful humanity, but we misinterpret it because of our sinful nature, couldn't

01:37:29

God, the omnipotent, omniscient God, have created a Scripture that would speak more clearly to our sinful humanity if He knew, as He had to, that we were sinful?

01:37:37

Well, first of all, what would be the need in light of the fact that since He gave the Scriptures and He inspired those

01:37:43

Scriptures, we're now asking, well, couldn't He have just eliminated all the possibilities of error?

01:37:49

It's like asking the same question, why doesn't God just save us and skip all this whole process of sanctification where we learn and we become like Christ and we go through difficulties and trials and we, all of a sudden, one day in Scripture discover something new and amazing about God and it's a wonderful and tremendous thing.

01:38:04

I would say the reason He didn't do so, Dr. Pearsons, because it wasn't His plan to do so. Ah, the word plan again. Well, you said the

01:38:09

Scriptures. Or we need the Westminster Confessions to straighten out everything. Okay, Dr.

01:38:15

Pearsons, it's his telematos not to do so. Okay, you say that the Scriptures... And I didn't borrow that from Mormons either.

01:38:21

Or we need the Westminster Confessions to straighten out everything. You say that the

01:38:26

Scriptures are not insufficient, but they clearly are because they don't reach us. If I speak a language... Only they do, they do reach us.

01:38:32

If I speak a language that is understood by only about so 5 % of those who listen to me, but I insist that the insufficiency is not in my ability to communicate, but in the stupidity of my hearers, that's at least an open question,

01:38:45

I think. Well, certainly. But since God does say that the insufficiency exists in mankind, as you may recall, what does the

01:38:52

Scriptures say about those who twist Paul's letters in which there are some things difficult to be understood? I've used that on Protestants for years.

01:38:59

I'm well aware that you probably have, but probably improperly. And that's the whole point, that the twisting comes from the sinful nature of the individual who is interacting with the

01:39:07

Scriptures and is conforming them to his own image, shall we say. Let me give you an example. Just yesterday at Temple Square at the

01:39:15

South Gate, I had an LDS individual approach me from Scotland. And as we began discussing things,

01:39:21

I opened up my Bible to Ephesians 1 .11. In fact, it was a quad that I opened up to him and I showed him the passage.

01:39:27

And the individual simply rejected that Scripture. That Scripture is wrong.

01:39:32

It is not true. It's your interpretation of it. No, it was the Scripture itself because it used the term predestinated, which he had told me was a doctrine of the devil.

01:39:40

So the point is, you asked maybe... I've had precisely the same experience with a

01:39:46

Protestant. Well, the Protestant was wrong for doing so. You say the Mormon is wrong for doing so? This Protestant actually ripped a page out of her

01:39:52

Bible. Well, that person was a very poor Protestant. Now, was this a very poor

01:39:57

Mormon who did this? I have no idea. Oh, okay. Well, you don't settle an issue by it with an anecdote.

01:40:05

Lewis? Yes. Some good points. Thank you for joining us tonight. Thank you for letting me join.

01:40:11

I think the question becomes, how does Reverend White know that his interpretation is the correct one versus the

01:40:17

LDS interpretation? Well, it's interesting. From very early on, there's been those who have claimed that the

01:40:22

Scripture is because they are consistent and seiannistos. If our interpretation is formed by continuously going to it and having the realization of our sin and our need for our beliefs to be conformed to Scripture all the time for our entire lives, if we draw our beliefs solely from Scripture, this is what a sufficiency is.

01:40:43

Now, you say, how do I know my interpretations are inerrant? I don't believe they are inerrant. I may be wrong about eschatology.

01:40:49

In fact, I don't even argue about eschatology. But on certain issues, the Scripture is very plain that we can have certainty about the fact that Jesus is

01:40:56

Christ, about the fact that there is only one true God, et cetera, et cetera. But we don't necessarily have certainty about the relationship between Christ and God.

01:41:04

Well, I believe, again... That's been a Christological controversy for 2 ,000 years. It has been a great Christological controversy.

01:41:10

That does not mean that the relationship between Christ and God in regards to the fact of monotheism is questioned. I don't believe that in any way, shape, or form it can be given the

01:41:18

Scripture. Now, Martin, I did want to ask a question. We never got to discuss this. Ask your question.

01:41:24

Well, no, no, no. It would be totally unfair of me to ask Dr. Peterson about his book in less than five minutes.

01:41:32

I certainly would like to have the opportunity of doing so sometime because I had a lot of issues that I wanted to bring up there.

01:41:38

And I don't know if Dr. Peterson would be interested in talking about them sometime again. I think we'll arrange another one.

01:41:44

And we'll talk a little bit about offenders for a word. Maybe we can talk a little bit more about letters to a

01:41:52

Mormon elder. Whatever. We'll do it again. I'd be delighted to do an advertisement for offenders for a word sometime.

01:41:58

It's a wonderful book. I advise everyone out there to read it. All right. Let's take a call.

01:42:06

Ryan, you're on the air. Hello. Hi. I want to read a Scripture. It was about what

01:42:13

Pete had said about the Book of Mormon. All right. Read your Scripture. It's in Ezekiel 37, 15 through 17.

01:42:20

The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it for Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions.

01:42:32

Then take another stick, and write upon it for Joseph the sick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions.

01:42:38

And join them one another into one stick, and they shall become one in thine hand.

01:42:46

Wondering how they thought about talking about the Book of Mormon. The stick of Judah represents the

01:42:52

Bible. You've asked a tough one for the last three minutes. Well, obviously,

01:42:59

I don't believe that the passages in any way, shape, or form relevant to the Book of Mormon. I realize that Mormon leaders have applied it.

01:43:06

That and Isaiah chapter 29, where, for example, LeGrand Richards said that the Book of Mormon speaks with an oath, a familiar spirit, which

01:43:15

I don't know if the gentleman from BYU would wish to defend that. But I know FARMS has,

01:43:21

I think it was FARMS that addressed this issue a couple years ago. In regards to Babylonian writing tablets, the gentleman, was that FARMS?

01:43:30

I know it. I think they did a reprint. Oh, okay. All right. And I think someone wrote a rebuttal article to it as well later on.

01:43:39

Exactly. I personally don't feel that it really has anything at all to do with it.

01:43:45

And I certainly don't think that anyone, if they had never heard the Book of Mormon, by just reading the text and researching the background of the text, become the conclusion that it actually did refer to another testament, being the

01:43:55

Book of Mormon in any way, shape, or form. I would agree with that. I think it's very much like the situation of Hosea, where it says, out of Egypt have

01:44:01

I called my son. I think nobody reading that without Christ in mind would ever think of Christ simply reading that passage.

01:44:08

That's why the inspired apostles gave that. Matthew applies the scriptures in much the same way

01:44:13

Mormon apostles apply the scriptures. The similarities are overwhelming. Even though I don't think Matthew would have said that the

01:44:19

Book of Mormon speaks with an oath, do you? I don't know. I haven't talked to him lately. Well, with the absence of Shirley MacLaine, I doubt you're going to.

01:44:26

But the point being, of course... The issue is the Book of Mormon speaks from the dust, which means dead people speaking again.

01:44:32

And I think that's the point. The Book of Mormon is a book written by people who are now long gone, and they speak again through the book.

01:44:39

The oath part, I think, is marginal to the interpretation. I think LeGrand Richards got it wrong. That's right.

01:44:44

Okay. Anything else, Ryan? No, not really. Thank you.

01:44:50

I appreciate your joining us tonight. Let's see if we can squeak in a quick question from Stephen.

01:44:58

Good evening, Martin. How are you doing? Good. We have about a minute left. All right. It's just a comment.

01:45:04

This has been an astonishing performance on the part of Reverend White. He has ranged in most of what he has said from the incoherent to the uninformed about Mormonism.

01:45:18

It's simply true. He has continually shifted ground in what he has been saying in the arguments.

01:45:25

Sometime, I hope that he will actively address some questions that were raised. Two, though, I noticed as I was racing through my scriptures, because he says that Sola Scriptura is clearly in the scriptures.

01:45:35

I simply cannot find it in my Greek Testament, and I cannot find it anywhere in my

01:45:41

English version either. Well, of course, I did not say the Latin phrase that you found in your Greek New Testament, of course.

01:45:46

I did say the concept of Sola Scriptura is found in Matthew 15, verses 1 -9, and numerous other passages.

01:45:53

I would be glad to send to you debates that we have done with Roman Catholic scholars, such as Jerry Matatix or Patrick Madrid, on the subject of Sola Scriptura, if you would like to contact us.

01:46:01

And, of course, you may think that they are incoherent and without meaning, but I would like to allow other...

01:46:06

No, of course it doesn't. I never said that it did. The concept does, sir. That was my statement very plainly. And if you are listening to me that closely, or not that closely, maybe that explains why you felt that I was incoherent.

01:46:16

No, no. I think that derives from what you were saying yourself. Thank you.

01:46:22

Appreciate the call. And, gentlemen, thank you all for being here. Reverend White, thank you for being here. Professors Hamlin and Peterson, thanks for joining us tonight.

01:46:31

Thank you. I appreciate your time here tonight. We'll do it again. Good. I'm Martin Tanner. This is