Christian and Mormon Debate! Part 1 :: Different Worldview Perspectives

Let me bring these guys in so they can introduce themselves and this is gonna be a fun discussion

What's up, fellas? How y 'all doing? Do well. Hey All right, man.

I'm pretty excited for this one, man You know, this is gonna be a outstanding discussion.

It's gonna be fun and I know you guys are just excited Jeremiah he was telling me a little nervous way.

You're excited about this. What's going on with you, man. You been Yes, sir. Excited Excited excited.

What's up, Joseph man? You excited man. You good. You ready to go for this? I'm looking forward to it. Yeah Excellent.

Excellent. So before we jump into the format of this discussion I do want to give you time to introduce yourself to the audience So Joseph, if you don't mind man, give a quick introduction yourself, man

Sure. My name is Joseph law. Wow. I'm a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day

Saints I just recently started a YouTube channel called LDS philosophy on which I kind of address philosophical issues in the church

I'm also a student in philosophy and Latin and Greek my research interests are mostly in kind of the intersection of philosophy of language metaphysics and epistemology

And then in the philosophy of religion All right, cool. Thank you once again for joining me.

All right, Jeremiah. Go ahead. Give a quick All right, Jeremiah. Go ahead get quick introduction yourself, man Hello everybody.

My name is Jeremiah nortier. I've been married to my wonderful bride for almost five years now

I served by vocationally as an elder and a youth director here in a Reformed Baptist Church in Arkansas So you can probably hear my southern accent there and I'm looking forward to starting my

Masters of Divinity Coming up here in the fall And I just want to simply say that I love my

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and I have a passion for learning the Word of God which requires a lot of studying theology apologetics and All the wonderful insight from the

Saints throughout history. So, thank you Marlon All right. All right. Thank you both for joining me here on a gospel truth man

This once again, this is gonna be a great discussion This is funny the first type of discussion like this on the gospel tree surprisingly, huh?

So let's get into this All right So we're gonna start off the debate with a 15 minute open statement from you guys then we will go to 30 minute each topic

So we're discussing five topics here, right? So the first topic would be the gospel then we go transition to the

Trinity Joseph Smith and Galatians 1 Sufficiency of Scripture and Completion of the

Canon and then we'll go to a five minute closing and then we'll go to a Q &A from the audience

That sounds good All right, I don't think we actually agreed on who gonna go first this is this is not arguing a negative or affirmative premise so Joseph you mind going first man 15 minutes opening man.

Sure. All right. Okay I got let me set you up.

Also before you go on to it once you get to that one minute point You hear this this thing? You hear that chimed.

I'll let you know you have one minute left in your opening statement And let me set you up. Let me get the time up and everything and I'll let you know when to go

Thank you. All right

Joseph you got it man for 15 minutes Thanks. Um, so obviously these five topics are pretty enormous topics.

So I don't imagine that we'll get to any sort of sufficient Exploration of any of them in the time that we have a particularly not in a 50 -minute opening statement

So my goal actually for the opening statement is just to give some preliminary remarks really just on two of the issues

So what I'm going to do is actually present a negative case first against the the sort of Exegetical methodology that I take issue with that I think underlies solo scriptura or certain types of solo scriptura

And the reason for that is it will actually set up the way that I'll approach the remainder of the questions anyway And then

I'm also going to give my case for well some of the issues that I have with the doctrine of the

Trinity So because these are two of the topics two of the big ones I'll lay out my case here and that'll help set up for the remaining of the questions

So I'll address the other three explicitly once we get to that point in the discussion. And so first I'm going to begin by Kind of laying out a subset of the propositions

Which I think are necessary for an advocate of solo scriptura to hold and this is not all the propositions you need to hold

So there these are probably necessary but not sufficient. I understand that the doctrine is not monolithic And so if Jeremiah disagrees with my formulation of anything,

I'm happy to revise it I'm also going to be dealing primarily with kind of this from a philosophical perspective

My friend Robert Boylan has a book. I think it's the only book length treatment of this topic by a

Latter -day Saint It's called Not by Scripture Alone that gets a lot more into the scriptural side of it if anyone's interested in that But I'll be dealing really with the philosophical stuff

So there are four things I think that would need to be the case for solo scriptura to be true

So first we would need some sort of infallibility or inerrancy thesis And then we need a semantic thesis a perspicuity thesis is what

I'm going to call it And then we'd need some reason to think that it obtains So in terms of infallibility or inerrancy, there's kind of a sliding scale of how strong a position you can take on this

You could say that every single claim made in the Bible is literally true including minor historical claims

Total inerrancy. I think this is not a particularly popular position. I think it's very difficult to defend

So then the kind of slightly weaker formation that's more defensible would be something like With regards to matters of theology and morals that the

Bible is infallible, right? So regardless of where you fall on this scale I think there are three things that need to be affirmed for this infallibility or inerrancy thesis

First we'd have to say that the original words of the Bible are either exactly as God intended or within an acceptable range of formulations

Secondly we would need to say that as the manuscripts of the particular books of the Bible are transmitted through time

They only vary within an acceptable range And then finally we have to know that one and two are true.

We have to know that that it was As it was originally written it was within a certain acceptable range

And secondly that it didn't vary too much through time. I accept the first one

I accept that the original formulation was as God intended or within an acceptable range I I don't believe that we can prove that I think that not not to other people

I think it can come to us as individuals the second one. I don't accept And I think it would also be very difficult to prove empirically

So particularly in the case of the Old Testament where the manuscripts we have are just simply not old enough I think to make any really very plausible claims about this.

So I think that's a that's a problem for a solo scriptura Secondly, I think we need a semantic thesis and this would be something like There is one objective meaning to a passage of scripture or a set of meanings

And I would accept this I think this thesis It would be denied by a sort of relativist about meaning or about like a quinean.

Quine was a philosopher last century who said that Meaning is indeterminate so you could challenge soloscriptura on these grounds and I won't

Thirdly, we need a perspicuity thesis So we have to say that we have reliable knowledge producing access to the semantic content of the

Bible So we have to know what it says and Secondly, we have to have a reliable method for determining which propositions in the

Bible are true and which are false if we don't accept the strong inerrancy thesis So the first one of these two is actually the one

I'll be I'll be addressing in a moment I'll be giving some philosophical reason to think that that's not the case on certain formulations

And then lastly we need some justification. We need some reason to think that soloscriptura is true And I actually don't think we have this either. I don't think we have good reason to think the soloscriptura is true

And we can discuss that more extensively kind of at the exegetical level once we get into the discussion

So I want to focus on the first part of the perspicuity thesis that we need reliable Knowledge producing access to the semantic content of the

Bible. The problem I see with this is ambiguity So there are different types of ambiguity There's lexical and syntactic ambiguity lexical is a level of words syntactic at the level of sentence structure so like a good example a funny example of Syntactic ambiguity called amphiboly is the famous Groucho Marx line.

I shot an elephant in my pajamas How he got in my pajamas. I don't know right so it's a this sort of Syntactic ambiguity kind of lends itself to that sort of humor because in my pajamas, you know

We expect it to be a modifying I but then the joke is that it's modifying the elephant, right? So because of the structure of the sentence we have some ambiguity

These both of these sorts of lexical and syntactic ambiguity exist in the Bible But I think they don't generally pose a problem for soloscriptura.

They're not generally related to really heavily theological passages So I think the sort of ambiguity that is problematic for this idea that scripture alone is sufficient is

Well, really two sorts semantic and theological ambiguity So semantic is like the semantic content of a passage theological would be the theological propositions we can derive from the passage

I'll kind of conflate them for the sake of this argument So I'll give a specific example and then set up a little bit of the philosophical framework for raising this objection

So Lorenzo snow who was the fifth president of the restored church has this famous line

He says as man is sorry as man now is God once was and as God now is man may be so this is often taken as support for the idea that Latter -day

Saints believe that God is an exalted man and that we can become just like God is and many Latter -day

Saints do believe that but the problem that I see with with this sort of kind of linear view of interpretation is that This statement as it is as it stands there is compatible with an orthodox

Christian framework interpreted a different way So as man now is God once was that would just be the incarnation of Christ And as God now is man may be that would be some sort of theosis

It can be more limited than the LDS view So if you think about a passage like Hebrews 12 9 10 talk about becoming partakers of God's holiness

I think that that could allow someone to assent to the statement as God now as man may be so It's a fairly straightforward statement seemingly we all understand it

But in terms of passing what the semantic and theological content of the statement is it's not so straightforward I think

I think the reason for this is the distinction between semantic reference and speaker reference So this is a distinction due to Saul Kripke who's probably the biggest philosopher of language of the last 200 years

But it's also a very natural way to think about language. So Semantic reference is just set by the linguistic conventions of a language.

So the way words are used determines what a statement is actually saying Speaker reference is those conventions plus context plus intent?

So it's not what the words mean, but what the speaker means by using those words So one example that Kripke gives he says imagine two people are robbing a bank

And then one of them says the cops are around the corner, right? At the semantic level all right semantic reference.

He just means the cops are around the corner, but at the speaker reference level He's really saying something like, you know, we need to get out of here, right?

So what he meant by using those words was not literally what the words are saying So I think we have More or less good access to semantic reference in passages of Scripture But that still leaves a wide range of options even at the semantic level but particularly at the level of speaker reference

I think we can't definitively determine the semantic or theological content of a given passage So I think this is particularly

An acute problem in the case of the Trinity. So if you look at passages like Acts 5 Which is kind of the proof text for saying that the

Holy Ghost is is God and we can deal with this case Specifically when we get to that point, I think it can be interpreted different ways only one of which actually would lead us to think that the

Holy Ghost is God in a way that Trinitarians need that passage to be saying I don't think we have any strong reason to prefer that reading

So I want to say I'm not a pessimist or a relativist about interpretation I just don't think simply reading and studying is sufficient to give definitive answers

I think to alleviate or solve this exegetical problem We need one of three types of things

So the first type of thing would be a witness of the spirit To interpret and provide justification for the belief about what a particular passage is saying this can make for a consistent worldview internally

But it will know not really do any good in a debate the fact that I feel I've had a witness about a particular passage

Won't convince anyone else because they may feel that they have a conflicting witness. And so that leaves us really with two other sorts of Alleviating Institutions for this exegetical problem one would be an interpretive authority

So something like the Catholic Magisterium, which is meant to infallibly interpret passages or in the case of Latter -day

Saints I think modern -day prophets can serve as an authority to interpret and then Thirdly, we could imagine that the presence of further scripture

Would provide more data points and potentially a more clear layout doctrine So that there's less of a problem at the semantic and theological ambiguity level so I think the

Book of Mormon is is an instance of this it allows us to more confidently interpret passages even in the absence of the other two and it also means that we can argue for the interpretation of certain passages provided that we

Can independently verify this interpretive authority or the further scripture? The final problem that I kind of have with That I'll talk about for the

Doctrine of Sola Scriptura would be the exclusion of certain books from the canon so the apocryphal books I think pose a serious problem and I just want to raise that now touch on it so that we

Can talk about that in the discussion portion because I think it has some serious implications for the doctrine Okay, so quickly.

I just want to cover now some of the problems I have with the doctrine of Trinity So for one, I think it's very hard at the philosophical level to reconcile with the doctrine of divine simplicity

So most Orthodox Christians, and I want to make sure before we discuss this that Jeremiah does

Affirm that God has no parts, right? That's that's in a creed So that seems difficult when you look at passages like Christ saying not my will but thine be done to the father so That the presence of multiple wills would seem to constitute a distinction

But there can be no real distinctions within within the the triune God on the Orthodox view And so, you know people like Duns Scotus have tried to give answers by saying there are different types of distinctions

Some are real and some are only formal But I think talking about distinctions of wills would constitute a real sort of distinction that poses a real problem for this

So on the LDS view, I think in principle It's possible for the Father and the Son to have diverging wills

But in practice it will never be the case because they're united in will but for the Orthodox view. I don't think that's true

I think it can't even be in principle They would diverge in will because that would constitute a real distinction in the

Trinity and violate divine simplicity And so passages like this I think pose a real problem.

I think there are other exegetical problems So passages like in John 17 Where Christ says that we can be one with him as he is with the

Father on Its face that passage would seem to be saying that in the same way that the

Father and the Son are one we can be one with the Son but that's not possible in a

Trinitarian view and so I Think when you take passages like John 1 that says that the word was

God that the Trinitarians used to support their position What you have to say is that that is the interpretive text

It's the framework through which we interpret other texts and then we have to interpret John 17 in light of that Of course the non -trinitarian would say that John 17 is the framework and that John 1 is the one that would be interpreted within that framework

We would kind of accommodate it To the view that we can be one with the Son in the same way that the

Son is one with the Father And so I think there's no Good methodological principle because of the the semantic and theological ambiguities that I raised about problems with semantic and theological ambiguities that I raised above To prefer one interpretive framework over the other except independently of Scripture I think that Scripture itself cannot in principle settle that question

So I think that's a problem obviously for for all sorts of doctrines and for the sufficiency of Scripture itself

But specifically in the case of the Trinity, I think it's an acute problem finally So The Trinity when we talk about the

Trinity, right there are different ways of talking about it A common one is to say that there are three persons and one being right? When we use the word person ordinarily,

I think it entails the meaning of the term kind of loosely I don't I'm not really fond of like strict analyticity in philosophy

But it kind of includes the concept of only being one being one person is equivalent to one being for ordinary in ordinary

Settings and so when we say that there are three persons in one being we mean something

Different than what we ordinarily mean by person and this isn't I don't think particularly controversial. It's um

It's famously associated with with Thomas Aquinas the solution is the doctrine of analogy So we have univocal uses of terms and I'll explain this

I don't really have a lot of time now in the in the conversation univocal uses equivocal uses of terms and then analogical so different but related uses

Basically, I think my primary problem is that we can't really fill out the content of analogical uses of terms

So this is really really acutely Noticed in the case of divine simplicity So because they can be no distinctions between God and his attributes

God is identical to his being is identical to his goodness is identical to his knowledge is identical to his benevolence, right?

But that also means that the attributes God's knowledge, for example must be Identical to each other so to to benevolence so knowledge and benevolence are the same thing in God, and I think that's kind of a

Contentless statement. I can't make sense of that. I can't fill in any concept there And so the doctrine of analogy is an attempted way to say that we can talk about God But it seems to me that it really leaves us with a totally non -literal way of talking about God That I think is a problem for ideas like salvific doctrines

I mean even I think some theological statements serve as like grounds for worship worthiness, but also we want to say that God loves us

And I'll explain this a little bit further. I think it when we get to the discussion portion, but If it's just analogical love,

I think we're really going against what strip scripture actually says about the nature of God I there's nowhere in scriptures. It says God loves us in some

Analogical totally alien way to the way that we love it seems very counterintuitive to me. So that's my opening statement

All right, thank you Joe so very very well done. All right, mr. Jeremiah notes here. You got it for 15 minutes

Let me set the time up and I'll let you know when I go All right All right, you got it 15 minutes, brother

All right. Thank you Marlon. Thank you Joseph for having this Dialogue with me just to kind of also reemphasize what was already said me and Joseph when we were talking about what what in the world?

should we you know debate and dialogue about we learned really quickly that he has an area mainly in philosophy and where I'm coming from is mainly

Theological so we wanted to pick a broad enough topic where both of those could overlap with one another

So that's why when we went ahead and went with the topic different worldview perspectives

So naturally we'll talk about philosophy the nature of scripture and how we and we interpret the world around us

So my three major points today I want to talk about what a worldview actually is my second major point will be the

Transcendental necessity of the Christian worldview and number three Finally, I want to talk about the triune

God's gospel of grace and so most philosophers and theologians agree that the three major pillars of a worldview are

Ontology it's asking questions about what actually exists and number two is epistemology the study of knowledge how we know

What we know and number three a worldview is made up of value We talked about things that are ethical how we should relate to one another

And live in this life. And so all these categories are profoundly dependent on one another

And we ask the question, how should we live our lives? The question assumes that we exist other people exist in a world that actually exists

And so we must have knowledge to some degree to even be able to ask that question And so that involves epistemology

Having an answer to that question involves a proper framework of these things in the end. The answer will be ethical

This assumes a standard of right and wrong of what we ought to do and what we ought not to do

So my position is that there is one worldview that can consistently Test for everything account for everything and justify everything including itself

The worldview of the triune God of Christianity is self -attesting itself

Authenticating in the 66 books of the Bible. So like Joseph already brought out.

We're gonna talk about why 66 books of the Bible my position is that there's no more and no less

So please do not hear me say that the Bible is true merely because it says it's true

Rather what I'm saying is that the triune God of Scripture produces a necessary view of reality

The universe that we truly live in and experience is the way that it is because the triune

God of Scripture Exists and I believe that can be demonstrated and you may be thinking well, wait a minute preacher boy

You can't just assert something to be necessarily true and that be the case and I agree with you

I believe that we can demonstrate something to be necessarily true if by trying to disprove that thing

We have to borrow from it in order to disprove it that would show that our position is self -refuting and the thing that we borrow

From is true necessarily This is also known as the transcendental necessity that can be proven by the impossibility to the contrary

So I'm going to give you a couple of examples of what I'm talking about and relate this to a broader worldview perspective

If someone's gonna say that I don't believe words are necessary for communication

Whether that be verbal or by sign language, right? You see the problem that this person is going to run into because in order to make their case that words aren't necessary They're gonna have to borrow words in order to make their case and it's going to prove that words are essentially necessary for communication

So that's a that's a very rudimentary Example, so I want to I want to bring it up a level when we start talking about the laws of logic

The one that we're most familiar with is the law of non -contradiction the laws of logic are true by Necessity right with how we live our lives and how we think and how we relate to one another one good example of this

Showing how we live within the laws of logic not changing if we go to the bank and we ask the teller

Can I please have a hundred dollars and they say sure and they hand us a one dollar bill We're gonna look at them like they're crazy or they you know, sadly mistaken because we asked for a specific thing and which negates all of its opposites and things that do not

Ascribe to that and so the point is is that we are logical human beings or at least we try to be rational and logical

But if we tried to argue that the laws of logic do not exist and we don't have to obey them

Well in order to make that case you will have to borrow from the laws of logic

It just is the the way that we live and interact with people in our everyday lives.

And so this is important the principle I'm wanting you to hang on to is that in order for something to be necessarily true

Try to disprove it and in by disproving it if you have to borrow from that thing

Well, then your position is self -refuting and the thing you're arguing against is true by necessity

So I believe that there is a worldview so thorough so comprehensive in laying the foundation

For why the universe is the way that it is and so to argue against this comprehensive worldview

You will have to borrow principles from it in order to make your case Therefore proving its necessity.

So when I ask a question what worldview justifies why? Reasonable moral humans exist in this profoundly unified in diverse universe

We got to be able to have a worldview to account for that What worldview also accounts for and tells us where we get our knowledge from and where our knowledge comes from and if it's trustworthy

What worldview explains how we should interact with other people? What how do we know what is right and wrong and how we should interact and live our lives with other people?

I believe that there is one worldview that can consistently provide a foundation for why

Everything is the way that it is When we start when our ultimate starting point is with the triune

God of scripture then we can have justified true belief that we exist because God has eternally existed and Created created us within time and space and he has revealed this truth to us in his

Word We can know that we are reasonable moral beings because we are made in the triune

God's image. God is perfect He possesses all knowledge and he's the standard of righteousness

So temporally we reflect the light of God in many ways as finite creatures

We live in a wonderfully craft a world that tells us many things about our Creator About how he is this world is diverse and unified in a profound way

This reflects the reality of the tri unity of its Creator One being of God that is fully shared in three divine persons

We also our epistemology is couched within a worldview that tells us the fear of God the fear of Yahweh is

The beginning of knowledge. So when we start with God's infallible Word who knows all things

Reveals to us that his Word is truth that no lies of the truth and that he himself cannot lie

Then we can have the greatest degree of certainty to answer the hard questions. How should we live our lives?

We can know for certain that it's to glorify God and to enjoy him forever Human beings have knowledge about many things in this creative world

But that is because our thinking and our knowledge Reflects the triune God's image that we bear who has perfect knowledge and is the standard of logical thinking however, most people present an incoherent worldview that says we can't know anything for certain and that would be

Self -refuting or you got a lot of people that say that you can know some things for certain But it's just a brute fact

It is the way that it is and I don't have to give you any justification That would simply demonstrate that they are suppressing the truth in their sin and they are unwilling to give worship

Honor and thanks to their Creator and this is revealed to us in Romans chapter 1 the triune

God of Christianity's worldview is so thorough and comprehensive in providing the preconditions of our

Intelligible experiences and also tells us why reality is the way that it is So here's my big point in order to argue against the

Christian worldview you would have to borrow the Christian worldviews principles in order to make your case a

Person would have to act like an image bearer of the triune God to think in one in many Categories to relate to other people in a logical and reasonable way and to live with the assumption that the future

Will be like the past So to deny the triune God of the scripture whether in what you say or what you do would actually

Demonstrate your dependence on him to deny the triune God of Scripture in word or practice is like a little child

Sitting in their father's lap slapping him in the face The child is being held up by his father even to be able to act like this manner

And so this is often the case with most human beings We live and move and have our being because we live in God's created world

But we often slap him in the face, even though he's been so wonderful so gracious and so loving to us and so I want to I want to shift to my my last and third major point is since The God of Christianity is trying in and distinct from all other systems of thought and all other worldly religions

I believe the method of salvation the gospel is also uniquely different and so the message of Christianity is a gospel of Grace and what me and Joseph will definitely talk about the emphasis of grace there and number two

This gospel is a Trinitarian work The Bible teaches us that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God the wages of our sin

Earns us eternal punishment because sin is ultimately against the eternal God who is just Therefore the punishment will fit the crime

The Bible goes on to teach us that man has a sin nature that desires evil It's bent towards the bad and not towards the good

In fact man is hostile to God for the unregenerate man does not submit to God's law

Indeed he cannot so God being rich in mercy grace and love

Humbled himself by taking on the form of a servant being born in the likeness of men

This is God the Son who became flesh and Jesus Christ both being truly

God and truly man He fulfilled Old Testament prophecies that foretold of the Messiah's coming

Jesus Christ accomplished something that no sinful man was capable of doing he fulfilled the law of God Which is holy and righteous and good and this is key

Jesus was perfectly obedient to the commandments and was without sin Jesus proceeded to fulfill messianic scripture of Psalm 16

Psalm 22 Isaiah 53 Zechariah 12 Which tells us that the Savior coming was to purchase redemptious redemption by bearing our sin guilt

Jesus's hands and feet were pierced He suffered and died on the cross of Calvary to fully satisfy the wrath of God for sin

And this is the reality Jesus died the death that we all deserve Jesus Christ did not remain dead like a lot of other major religious figures

But he defeated sin and death by resurrecting from the grave three days later Proving that he truly is

Lord and God and so please don't miss this This is the gospel truth that you can have all of your sins

Forgiven if you repent and put your faith in the only Savior Jesus Christ the

Son of God By trusting in Jesus all of your sin will be put on the cross of Calvary and will be paid for in full and in Exchange you will receive the righteousness of Jesus Christ credited to your account

God the Father will see you now as his child covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ The Bible makes no mistake about this in 2nd

Corinthians 5 21 We read for our sake the Father made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin

So that in him we might become the righteousness of God This is known as the great exchange when you look to Jesus and love him in repentant faith

Then you're seeing it's put on the cross and in exchange you get his perfect righteousness his perfect obedience and so the

Apostle Paul calls this message the gospel of the grace of God and that is because Salvation is a hundred percent accomplished by God in him alone.

The Bible teaches us right before Jesus died on the cross He said to tell us that it is finished

This is a legal term meaning that everything is paid for in full and the reason why this is so important to understand is that Jesus fulfilled the righteous requirement of the law.

He did all the works necessary for salvation Therefore when we look to Jesus for salvation in repentance and faith

We cannot bring our own works to add to what Jesus accomplished The Bible is explicit on this point for by grace you have been saved through faith

And this is not your own doing it is the gift of God not a result of works so that nobody may boast

Romans 4 clearly defines that we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ apart from works

And so Paul is making the case that our justification is by faith alone meaning faith apart from works

And I love how the book of James Is that there is a difference in a person that merely says with their mouth that they have faith

But they deny the faith with how they live their lives the person that has true living faith and is justified before God Will certainly live differently because of a work that God has done in their life in this evidence that God has worked in their heart

Will vindicate others will be vindicated in the sight of others because they will look at that person's professed faith and say yes

That is true that is why James chapter 2 says faith by itself if it does not have works is dead a

Mere profession of faith that is cold towards God and cold towards people is no faith at all and here's the main point

Repentance and faith is internal and of the heart. It's not external works

And so lastly this gospel of grace guarantees our salvation Because it's very origin is from God the

Father before the foundation of the world who chose a people to give a bride to the Son the gospel is accomplished by Jesus Christ being a perfect Savior to all that the

Father has given him and the Holy Spirit Applies the gospel regenerates hearts seals people to the day of redemption