Christian / Mormon Debate, White vs. Potter

Calvinist God, and we're using that as part of your example, and Calvinists believe that men are dead in sin,

Ephesians chapter 2, you being dead in trespasses and sins. What part of your analogy then takes into consideration our belief of man's deadness and sin, or do you just reject what we are?

Obviously, dead in sin is some sort of metaphor, and I need to know what it means literally before I can respond to that.

What does it mean literally about whether we're able to do things, like do good works, or whatever?

Well, in light of the Reformed understanding that, for example, in Jesus' words, I'll give you an example in John 6, verse 44,

No one is able to come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

That inability on man's part. My point to the question is, does your analogy address that deadness of man in sin,

A, and B, the justness that we at least assert, because we're talking about rebel sinners here, not just cute little kids in a tub.

Yeah, well the deadness of the sin is the fact that they're physically incapable of getting out, in that case.

That's what's supposed to be analogous to that. Now notice what you just said is, no one can come to me, unless...

The Father who sent me draws him. Yeah, unless there's an enabling, and that's perfectly consistent with the position that I'm advocating. Okay. Would you then say that your position is consistent with the fact that in John 6, verse 44, that enablement is limited to those who are given by the

Father to the Son? Or would you reject that? That that enablement is limited to those...

In John chapter 6, when he says, no one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day, if you follow the context, the him that is being spoken of is the one who is drawn by the

Father, given by the Father to the Son, etc., etc. It's a specific group. In fact, Jesus is explaining the unbelief of the

Jews. Would you say that you're actually saying that, or did you reject that? See, here is where it's not clear to me what it means to, given to the

Father by the Son, right? I mean, this is, the language that you get in scriptures, at least in the

English version of this, right, is not very precise about what it means. And there's all sorts of more precise philosophical claims that would be consistent with that language.

I mean, all over in the New Testament, in this particular case, there will be ambiguities with respect to, because there are so many metaphors used, with respect to what it's supposed to, literally, what does this mean for our lives, right?

Literally, what does it mean? So is it your assertion that the words of Jesus, if we begin, just look at John chapter 6, and we make a conscious, clear effort to follow grammar and syntax and context, that the words of Jesus in John chapter 6 would be less or more clear than your presentation on logical syllogism that we saw in your presentation?

I actually think that the words that were written in those, that are in those texts, those

Greek texts, which I believe are written by people often who were witnesses of Jesus, but I question the idea that they got the words exactly right.

I don't know if you've ever watched a, you know, I'm sure you have, that's a negative way of putting it, but I'm sure you've watched testimony in a courtroom, and people don't get things exactly the same.

So we're not talking about the words of Jesus, we're talking about the words that people remember Jesus having said, first of all.

That's important. But the second point is that I don't think that these people had precise philosophical or theological claims that they were making.

I think they were making much more pragmatic, everyday kinds of claims that you hear, you hear in the

LDS faith all the time, but I hear it all the time in, I attend a Presbyterian USA church pretty much every

Sunday as well as an LDS church, because I have a friend who's a minister there, and I just like to hear his sermons, and I hear the same kinds of claims made there, where these claims are claims like this, we need

Jesus, we need Jesus in our life. Or they're claims like, we should respond to the call, right, we should hearken to the gospel, to the good word.

Those kinds of claims are not philosophical or theological claims, and those claims are central to Christianity When we turn them into some sort of philosophical or theological doctrine, that's fine, that's what

I do, I actually consider different philosophical or theological doctrines, but we're going beyond what's essential to Christianity when we do that, and, in addition, not only are we going beyond what's essential to Christianity, but then we put ourselves in a position where we need to make sure that what we say is philosophically rational, and I'm arguing that for every passage that you're talking about, there's an

Arminian interpretation of it, and, in other words, those passages, at face value,

I'll accept those passages, and I'll say that those things are true, but as soon as you make the precise philosophical claim, that is like a

Calvinist claim or an Arminian claim, I'm going to say, okay, now we're doing philosophy, we're no longer talking about the essentials of Christianity anymore, we're just doing philosophy, and there, in order for me to accept that claim as the right translation and interpretation of that, not only do

I have to see that it fits well with the text, but I also have to see that it is philosophically reasonable, and I don't see that about Calvinism.

Well, when everything you just said was based upon, for example, these are not the words of Jesus, they're someone's recollection, what did

Paul say when he said, what did Paul mean when he said to Timothy, all scripture is theanustos, it is

God -breathed? What did Paul mean by that, and would you not agree that his view was consistent with every other scripture writer's view of the nature of scripture?

I don't think God thinks in Greek, and so when it says God -breathed, I mean, what

I think it means is that the overall, I mean, this is just a conjecture, I'm not certain about this, because, again,

I'm not a scriptural theologian, but what it means by God -breathed is that this text, the way it is, what makes this text a revealed document from God is the way it will affect the people who read it, the way it will motivate them, and not because it gives them answers to really difficult scholarly and academic questions.

But, sir, if you say that God does not think in Greek, are you saying God can't speak Greek? I'm sure he can speak

Greek, but I don't think he thinks in Greek, so I think that to say that these are

God's words, this is God -breathed, is to limit God, or to limit his thought in that sense.

But are you saying that theionistos does not mean God -breathed, or are you just saying that, from your perspective, you would not hold that view?

Well, okay, obviously God -breathed is a metaphor, and metaphors are very, very, you can't put metaphors into a precise philosophical or theological statement.

Metaphors are metaphorical, and as soon as you start interpreting them in some particular literal way, you've gone beyond, you've made it possible for someone to come along and say, well, no, that's not what the intention of the metaphor was, here's another different literal interpretation, and there's always going to be that, there's always going to be another interpretation.

Well, so is it your assertion that all interpretations of scripture are equally valid? No, it's not my assertion that all scriptural interpretations...

Well, I think that you have to pay careful attention to the language, like you do, and like I'm unable to do.

I think you have to pay careful attention to the language. I think that you have to pay careful attention to the social context. I think you have to also take a broad understanding of the scriptures as a whole, and interpret them in a broad way that takes into account all of the things that are said, and not just focus on a specific passage in a specific place, and think that you can interpret that independent of all the other passages.

And I also think something, I also think, in addition to that, that we'll learn probably more about the way

God is, and the nature of the atonement, and these sorts of theological claims.

If we look at the way God acts in the scriptures, and we look at the way He interacts with people, rather than attempt to insert precise philosophical claims into what people like Paul and other writers of the

New Testament have written, who were not philosophers, but importantly they were ministers, and not philosophers.