Really enjoying your videos. I think I did myself a disservice by not joining the debate team in high school. Rationally thinking about complex and controversial topics is so important in this life.
I had this thought a few years ago. I even encouraged my nephews to enroll in debate class in high school. Unfortunately to no avail. But I’m learning how to argue my positions by watching many many arguments. I’m certainly not described as someone who is good at debating but I might be able to hang in a high school debate lol. Which is to say I’ve learned a lot and have engaged in a lot of discussions where I can test these newfound skills.
I'm going to attempt to make my kids get in a debate class ASAP. Luckily, my oldest is just entering Middle school, no debate offered yet, so I'm hoping for Jr. High.
If up against a mormon brother use 2 Nephi to call them out on their racist view that black people are cursed , it goes was worse after that but, research before debates. See voddie bacham why I believe the Bible speech.
I was raised mormon. The biggest thing that brought me out of that is realizing, when I became an adult, what the good news actually is. Mormons don't believe there is a hell but Jesus died for sins and saved us. What exactly did he save us from then? I feel like it downplays the magnitude of what he went through for us. Jesus himself spoke of hell. I've had an encounter with Jesus. I'm trusting in him.
@@zoeg.232 I asked a question, in reference to something aweful in the book of mormon. Being as mormons teach that black people are cursed. So how about you don't make assumptions about people's state of being. Because many people leave that religion because of that , not the fact that the book of mormon is blasphemous.
@@FoxWest603context would go to show that this is not the case. Look at the bigger picture. There are verses saying “black” but there are all kinds symbolic words in scripture. The story in the Book of Mormon follows a family who fled Jerusalem. Thereby it would be most likely that the family is Jews. Further context would show that the descendants of these Book of Mormon people would be the native Americans of our world. Therefore not black people, but “inidian” or Native American. Therefore brown. Therefore not black. In fact regardless of the “curse” or the mark, it’s not racism. And according to the book God was the one who “cursed” them with the mark. Therefore, not racism, unless you really wanna take it that way. But then it’s God is a racist, not the people in the book. But you likely don’t even believe in the Book of Mormon so why do you care about what happens in it?
@@Zirichel_ my question wasn't to you was it....? It was to Jon whom wrote the comment. You can't read 2 Nephi? It's talking about sons of Noah. Only mormons, muslims and Jehovah's witnesses teach that black people are a curse. Why not look it up instead of trying to defend bad religious practices.
This reminds me of my various conversations with Mormons. One such where I was debating three at once (a very very bad idea since I was by myself), and this exact topic came up. 55:01 . We had been discussing translations, interpretations, subjective experiences, spiritual revelation, etc, and I said “ok. You have your subjective experiences of the Spirit, which I do not agree with, I have my subjective experiences of the Spirit which you do not agree with. So let’s get away from the subjectivity of our anecdotal experiences and get into the empirical evidences for our faith.” They agreed with that, and we proceeded from there. One of them was not very happy with that, but it ended up being much more productive because it ceased being about the subjective experiences, and became about truth, and how we know something is true, and whether or not God is capable of communicating himself clearly.
Yeah. You should only debate Mormons in formal debates or one on one. Otherwise when arguments of one in a pair of Mormon missionaries fail the other in the pair takes over.
That's a much better way to debate, I think it's also extremely important to note that we as LDS believe that these person subjective experiences can only be applied to our selves or those who are our responsibility, only the prophets can give diffinitive answers
I really wish more debates like this would be held with people who aren't Calvinist... because as a Protestant Christian, I also reject Calvinism. So the Mormons trying to prove that Calvinism is false doesn't really do anything for me. I already agree.
Why do you reject Calvanism? Does God not always succeed in saving people? Is there a reality where Paul could have continued killing Christians after God spoke to him and saved him?
@@booglywoogly566 neither of those questions lead to needing to accept Calvinism. I reject it for many, many reasons, and I'm honestly not even interested in getting into them. There are plenty of videos out there about why Calvinism is unbiblical. You can watch those if you want to know. I'm not interested in debating about it.
Im a Christian, but those LDS guys did a much better job in this debate. The Christians literally would not make any concessions and ended up looking completely obstinate and denying things that are obvious.
What you said right around @33:00 is so spot on. I am currently in school and was going for a physics degree. I fell in love with apologetics and said, "that's what I want to get my degree in instead". I looked up some schools around me for that and good grief it's expensive. I've had to kind of just keep going with the physics and learn the apologetics thing on my own but with anything "self taught" it's hard to see your blind spots or areas that you're lacking in.
@@GodsArmy00 I listen to a lot of Mike Winger (he's who got me interested and started), Voddie Baucham is really good, Robert Breaker, and finally Gene Kim. All solid biblical guys. There are few others that escape my mind but those two will get you started and you'll start to find them. Keep in mind, we have a very soft understanding of the Bible in America and as such there are going to be some things that you hear at first that may sound a little harsh but it's necessary for true growth. I don't agree with Voddie's eschatology (but that's it) but that's a secondary issue that has nothing to do with salvation, it's an interpretation of Revelation thing. Of course this channel has been valuable as well. Happy hunting. Above listening to the teachers make sure you are reading as well and practice discernment. Not everyone out there is going to be speaking truth and this goes for official schools as well.
@@SavedbyGraceAlone84 Frank Turek and Ray Comfort are the guys that caught my attention. I love their approach with people in the public and their ability to stay calm is admirable. I am also impressed with their historical knowledge from biblical times. Thank you I’ll check out the people you suggested. Respect 👊🏾
Do you ever find it odd that the Lord's anointed were never formally educated in theology? The only one of the Apostles that had formal theology training was Paul. It took almost 17 years for him to prepare for his missions. Had to unlearn lots of bad theology. You'll have a hard time finding scriptural evidence for paying for men of the world to teach you their theology.
@@HaleStorm49 I don't disagree with that at all and your comment I take as a word of encouragement. I honestly just want to go because I'm in constant wanting to learn mode. I'm not learning with any specific goal other than just wanting to learn more so I looked into it. I'm not even doing physics with a specific goal in mind. I have a career now that the Lord has provided for me and my family and I'm ok with just staying there if that is His will for me. I just really enjoy constantly learning and since I'm learning on my own (with the help of commentaries and other teachers) I thought maybe taking classes could help me even more. I hope I'm making sense in that.
As a committed Christian against Calvinism I suggest that the end of the debate showcased how ridiculous Calvinism is and emphasized how though the LDS is false the Calvinist is also has false teachings. This means an adherent to the Calvinist doctrine really has no assurance of faith and no real proof that he is one of the elect. The end showed how that interpretation can wrongly color our theology. Their refusal to admit to interpretation was the buildup meaning they have their own falsehoods to deal with. If you are a Calvinist I’m sorry but the LDS debaters gave ample information as to why the basic tenets of Calvinism or TULIP is also error. The baby analogy is perfect in exposing how soteriology is crucial to this debate. I also am not surprised given that the Christians asked if Joseph Smith was a false prophet or could he have been a false prophet. That is akin to asking if Muhammad could be a false prophet to Muslims. So I wasn’t surprised when the proverbial gloves came off
They definitely don't have assurance of their salvation. I have a friend who says he's a Christian and I've always been confused about why he often seems so insecure in himself, particularly about his salvation, wondering if he is even saved. I never really understood that... until I learned what Calvinism teaches and realized that he is a calvinist. Suddenly it made complete sense to me why he constantly struggles with that fear of not really being saved. I've tried to talk to him, as gently as I could, about how I think Calvinism is why he has this issue and that it isn't Biblical, but he just doesn't want to hear it. 😔
I think this debate was not as strong as it could have been because the Christians were more in a defense mode regarding their Calvinist viewpoint. Their answers were not as thorough and impactful as these could have been with proper Scripture references. Surprisingly the LDS guys did a good job in questioning and even regarding expounding on free will. One example at the end e.g. is that Scripture clearly teaches that God wants (it's His desire) everyone to be saved (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9b), and sadly the Christians actually contradicted Scripture in their answer due to making election an issue. Sadly not everyone will be saved even though God desires everyone to be saved, ... and in fact we read in the Bible that only a few are/will be saved (Matt. 7:14b) as many (Matt. 7:13) choose anything but Christ (the broad road) for their perceived "salvation" and therefore reject Jesus Christ as their personal Savior by not putting their faith in Him as the only Savior (Acts 4:12; John 14:6) as He's the Narrow Road.
@@TobyTalkless It's always good to read the context around a verse, perhaps the whole chapter or at least the pertaining section. These multitudes came out of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 7:13-14), "Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?" And I said to him, “Sir, you know.” So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." As stated above in Matt. 7:14 )EXB)we read, "But the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to true life. Only a few people find that road." But nevertheless the Gospel is of course very good news!!! ... and everyone has the opportunity to worship the true God and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior (Rom. 1:20).
@@scherfcom this multitude no one can number have their robes washed with the blood of the Lamb, then aren't they saved? Even in context, the context is pertaining to this very large group of people who are being described as saved. Not trying argue, trying to understand
@TobyTalkless I think you both are on the same page, cuz the multitudes could be a lot of ppl but it could also be true that it's a few when compared to all the people that have ever existed
Exactly. As a Christian who also rejects Calvinism, this whole debate was just two sides both saying "you're wrong" and me just sitting here like "correct."
@@leviwilliams9601 Because Calvinist spend so much time having to defend their Theology. These mormons are smart, they know that it will not sit well with the crowd so thats where they took the conversation and it did the Calvinist no favors.
Gosh, this got me wanting to react to your reaction! I mean that in the best way possible, it's just that it brought so many questions and much nuance to mind as I listened. I appreciate your take on this very much.
I'm listening the arguments and it seems like casual observation supports the LDS view. If everything in the Bible is the perfect word of God, then why are there literally thousands of Christian churches and debates, like this one, trying to sort out what the truth is. The position I'm hearing is that God's word is perfect, but the weaknesses in humans at time corrupts that perfect truth. Is there any one that really denies that? As I said, the very fact that so many Christians don't agree on so many points of doctrine, but they are all citing the same "perfect" bible, pretty much demonstrates this fact. What is the counter argument for this if God communicates perfectly?
The reason there are so many "interpretations" is that people don't understand or know sound hermeneutics. They don't understand the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Another reason is that the human heart is deceptive and people often will only hear what they want to hear. The majority of humanity doesn't like the fact that the Bible teaches that everyone is a sinner worthy of eternal punishment so they "reinterpret" the text to satisfy their own conscience.
@@havocsquaddropout6681 , wow, if only the billions of people on the earth that think God taught things differently than you were as smart as you. I mean you use the word "hermeneutics" instead of interpretation.
That isn’t where Mormons go wrong. It’s in the fact that the tablets he supposedly translated have never actually been found, because Moroni supposedly took them with him, and his ever changing story regarding its discovery. Additionally, many of the teachings of Mormonism quite obviously contradict scripture and violate the attributes and characteristics of God.
A body in the church inserted doctrine into the body of the church (Roman Catholics). From there, it never recovers. The only true church is the church that retains the original doctrine and practice, Orthodox Christianity. God makes victories even from the failures of Man, and even though reformed churches and protestantism and non denomination are so widespread, SOME of the message and teachings of Jesus are better than none, so they are spreading as strongly as possible since they serve as a stepping stone into Christianity for as wide a net of peoples as possible.
Please do more debates between Christians and other theists. I'd love to see you react to the Anthony Rogers Ijaz Ahmed debate on the Angel of the Lord for example
Thanks for another great video, Nate. Apologia Studio just put out a debate on perseverance of the saints vs conditional security. That one also had Daniel Constantino as one of the debaters. It would make my day to see your reaction to that one as well!
I see it all the time. I never noticed this pattern until I learned what Calivnism was. Then I started to notice that almost everybody I encounter who leaves the faith is leaving Calvinism... but sadly they think that doctrine represents Christianity accurately, and I completely disagree. Calvinism has turned so many people away from God, and I think sort of understandably so. If you believe that the God of the Bible literally decrees people to sin and decrees them to reject him, but then damns them to hell forever for doing exactly what he decreed them to do, that's horrible. It's no wonder people reject such an idea.
@CassTeaElle Totally reject this. Romans 1:20 tells us we are without excuse. There are many internal debates we have as followers of Jesus, including TULIP. The problem of evil is by far a larger point of contention among unbelievers, yet we are still without excuse.
14:15 Option 3: exactly as they stated: God communicated perfectly, and men did their best to communicate that to us. Again, the counter example is the 70,000 denominations. If the Bible was clear, there would only be one.
I am not sure why people have a problem with the Biblical argument that when God chooses to communicate directly through people, He can do that perfectly. People are making an assumption that fallible humans can 'fully' understand God perfectly. The inspired Word of God, He delivered to us exactly the way God wanted. Then you have the rest of us, the ones that God did not choose to speak through for His revelation, interpreting it. Is everyone's interpretation of the Bible 100% perfect the way God willed it? Of course not. But that that is the human side issue, not the Bible issue. Which is the key difference between Mormons and Christians. If one exegesis the Bible with Bible, almost always you will get to the correct truth. When you add in human desires, human wants, human experiences, human goals, you will get distortion, even in the major issues. That is when you get LDS, JW, major theologies of Roman Catholics etc. That does not mean protestants are not exempt as MANY MANY fall into the same 'experience' version of theology.
@danielkim672 This argument only moves the goalposts. If God was a perfect communicator, surely He could have given us a Bible so perfect that there really would be only one way to interpret it. But that's clearly not the case. So... what do we do? Assume God didn't care to make things clear enough? Heavens no. But here we are with 35k Christian denoms that all find their conflicting doctrines in the same Bible. How do we reconcile this quandary? The only possible way that doesn't diminish God, is to put the blame for the confusion on the authors of the Bible. It's that or believe God intentionally authored confusion. Do you see the problem now?
@@penguinman9837 It is not moving the goalposts IMO. You are making an assumption that it is not somehow 'crystal clear'. We are not in a perfect body so our body and mind are corrupt. IMO , when we are in our perfect bodies, everything in the Bible will be crystal clear. Did Paul know everything in Scripture perfectly? Maybe maybe not. But I would argue his knowledge of the truth the way God intended is more than almost everyone else since. There are people that get complex math and physics problems wrong and have differing ways to get at a solution. Whatever a human comes up with, does that actually alter the ultimate truth in that math or physics problem? You are making a claim that there is no way God could have wrote the Bible this way, what is the basis for your claim? IT is not He nor the authors that are making a confusion, it is sinful man. You are focusing your argument on God's view and your mind is clearly not on par with the mind of God.
@penguinman9837 I believe that you blaming sinful man who has trouble divorcing themselves from their cultural context and personal sin from the regenerative inspired scripture that heals the hearts of God's people. This argument really hinges on the idea that various demoniations are inherently a bad thing. And in addition to this many of these denominations differ in secondary issues. For example many of the protestant faiths believe that Jesus is the son of God and the only way to salvation through faith in him to sanctify us and for his death to atone for our wrongdoing. This is a core belief. But you can have different groups belive that baptism is more or less important. That doesn't mean that person is risking salvation over the disagreement. In addition to this one just has to look at the corruption of the catholic church through the middle ages to find an example of why it's not necessarily good to have one central authority over an entire religion. By having different denominations thecchurch is protected from false teachers. It's our job to go arm in arm with our brothers who we have minor secondary issue disagreement with while calling out false teaching and apostasy.
@booglywoogly566 A lot of what you're saying is very much true. There are varying degrees of truth in every different faith. God clearly allows this because each person is at a different level of readiness to accept certain levels of truth. That said, it is inescapable to conclude that exactly one church is right or none of them are. By right I mean accepted by God as His and has His true authority. The pathway of discipleship may lead us through many different faiths. But it is all in effort to find that one that is true. May your journey not stop until you have found it.
I'm a few minutes into this video, and there is a discussion of the infallibility of Scripture and the impact of the scripture-writers translation to paper and of a reader's interpretation of those written words. Debate teacher quotes 2 Timothy 3:16 and asserts that it is explicit that the scripture is infallible. I looked up 2 Timothy 3:16 in Bible Gateway, and there are dozens of different translations of that verse that are similar but with slightly different wording (e.g., "inspired by God," "God-breathed," "given by inspiration of God," "God-given and are made alive by Him," "comes from the Spirit of God," etc. that could reasonably lead to different semantic interpretations. I suppose that the version of Bible translation that one accepts as God's message could/would have an enormous impact on how it is understood.
I think it's naive to argue that the bible is 100% infallible and that the bible is as clear as it conceivably could be. I think it then means that either god is not an omnipotent communicator or that we as humans can make mistakes, negating the argument about why the holy spirit isnt always understood/interpreted the same way
Can you please acknowledge PETER ALSO TALKED ABOUT BURNING in the Bosom ? . Peter asked his fellow apostles and disciples , “did not our hearts burn within us?” You are speaking against the doctrine of the New Testament when you disbelieve people can feel a burning in the bosom .
This was fun to listen to. Great job WD! The Christian on our right sounds exactly like a member of Door of Hope That used to read at the beginning of their Bible studies. If you haven’t checked out Door of Hope Bible studies with Tim Mackie and Josh White, I highly highly highly recommend giving them a listen
The Mormons/LDS answered the question of how people’s fallibility doesn’t diminish Gods power was rather genius and elegantly stated. I expected an abysmal answer and was very surprised with their genius answer. I’d suggest listening to it again and really thinking about their answer if you disagree (I’m a Christian btw, I just thought that one answer was really good)
My problem with that is that they said that God can communicate whatever point he wants to communicate through the text clearly therefore because men wrote it and we men are very infallible then the word might be distorted and then the readers also might distort the word...but that is entirely false because that means that the bible is sometimes unreliable because you might read something and understand it but it's not how God meant it to be read because the person who wrote it maybe misunderstood God....u see now it opens a door to some messy stuff therefore the infallibility of men starts on the interpretation not the writing of the scriptures themselves
I thought that answer was horrendous. If our inability to accurately understand God’s word is called into question even when it comes to the authors of the 66 books, then it would be reasonable to say that any message you “hear” or read from God is misunderstood and you therefore have no solid ground to believe anything God says and you have no authority to say that your belief in what God “spoke” to you is true. The bedrock of the church of Latter Day Saints is following God’s divine revelation even if it bucks up against the closed canon. But how can we know in our hearts that anything God says is true when our nature of understanding is subject to fallibility? They say we use our heart and our empirical senses and our reasoning and logic but the Bible says in Jeremiah, the heart is deceitful above all things and by the Mormon’s own admission out reasoning, senses and ability to understand the world empirically is fallible, and therefore cannot be used as an accurate measure for verification. Our fallibility can’t interfere with God’s infallibility without diminishing His power. When God commanded the ocean to be full of life, does that commandment rely on the ocean’s imperfect nature in order to function? When God Commanded the Israelites to destroy Jericho, had the Israelites not done so, who would be to blame for not carrying out God’s commandment? By imposing our imperfect understand on God’s perfection, we diminish his capability. The Mormons want to have it both ways so they can refute the Bible as unreliable on the basis that it was written by fallible men. You can’t logically do that without diminishing God’s power and will. It’s either one or the other and the Christians here were right in pressing this issue for as long as they did.
@@napechuene5601I agree that it’s wrong, I just thought it was a very powerful answer that was ignored and or misunderstood by the Christian debaters. I’m not a morman, I just don’t think they are insane like most people seem to think. But when you paint them as insane you can’t hear when they do use truth (though it may or may not be rare)
@@wapper7777 have you watched the entire debate? The Christian’s weren’t ignoring or misunderstanding the answer, they were pressing the Mormons to confront the flaw in their logic. God would either have to be dishonest in his conveyance of the Word or the Word is simply infallible, there isn’t an in between. The Mormons are claiming that our flawed agency interferes with the the truth of the word. Even though our ability to interpret the Word in fallible, you can’t affirm the fallibility of our understanding of God’s word without denying God’s infallibility. I respectfully think their answer was logically bankrupt and not powerful at all. It was worded to trick people.
"Is there anywhere in the 66 books called the Bible that we're told to obey anything outside of them?" Very clearly YES ! We are clearly commanded to obey the Spirit, as communicated via our own conscience, not a collection of writings. "Whatever is not of faith is sin." "He who knows the good he ought to do but does it not, for him it is sin."
I agree that we can obey the things outside the scripture and thefore the Bible is not the only authority....but a big "BUT" here....The scripture tells us which other things we should obey which is basically God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit which means to me atleast...when u obey the Scripture u are obeying God
What does the Bible teach about the Holy Spirit though? Nothing the Holy Spirit will do will 1) Go against what is already written in Scripture and 2) Add 'new revelation' from Scripture.
Catholic enters the chat... How do you know you have the correct list of Scriptures? How do you know you have correctly interpreted the essentials and non-essentials? You mentioned that baptism is not essential. How do you determine definitively if this is essential or not. :) I enjoyed this. It would be interesting to hear this debate but between a Catholic and Protestants on many of the questions that came up.
It’s interesting because these Calvinists would say someone who performs no “good works”, including baptism, is evidence that no true saving faith is present.
Hey Hayden, in response to this video’s critique of your position, I wanted to see if I could render the argument more clearly, what do you think of the following rendering: The first principle here is that it is their position that while an objective truth does exist, it is fundamentally true and proven that there are no infallibly authoritative ways of deriving that objective truth, especially concerning praxis and establishing compulsive authority, simply because the interpretive structure (the human brain) that translates the stream of data and stimuli (reality) into something meaningful and actionable is itself inherently flawed, and also because you cannot derive a structure for interpreting the data from the data itself. (You cannot get outputs from inputs with only the inputs themselves without first pre-supplying a function-which exists independently from the inputs-that can take the inputs and transform them into outputs) the interpretive structure of human beings contain an element of free will that is factored into the translation process, and that free will can arbitrarily shift the interpretation of any input into any output it desires. For example, someone can stub their toe and interpret it in any number of ways: “this is a sign from god that I need to get new shoes,” “I need to start traveling by car rather than foot” “I should put a band-aid on that” “this is yet another proof the universe hates me” “this is merely a trial to overcome,” etc etc. two people can receive the same message and get wildly different things out of it. God can give any message, any input, but he cannot guarantee that it will be received correctly and return the desired output because if the result of one’s free will can be determined (not merely predicted) then it isn’t free. He could force someone to understand, acknowledge, and react to the message as intended by suppressing their free will, but then he is coercing them. The only way for someone to receive such a message would be for them to subvert their own will, say “not my will but thine be done” and allow the Holy Spirit to align their will with God’s so that the interpretive function of their brain correctly translates the revelation. When one receives such witness of the spirit, they know infallibly that it is true, it is fundamentally ineffably apparent to them. (Though that witness would be exclusive and non-communicable) Now there do exist some axiomatic statements of self-evident truth that we can infallibly know are true, such as “I think therefore I am” or “2+2=4.” One of the criteria that would justify us for holding something to be self evident is whether it is ineffably apparent to us, meaning that it cannot be derived or explained (though it can be described) from some more foundational axiom, nor can it be conveyed to someone whom does not find it apparent. For example, I can say “that apple appears red to me.” I could not arrive at that statement by any course other than the experience of the fact itself: the apple appears red because the apple appears red. And if a blind person asked me what “red” is, I could not convey that concept to them without actually showing them what red is, it is ineffable. Now while we can infallibly know these things are true, it is not hard to imagine someone who is so stupid, deranged, or willfully blind that they won’t accept or confess that truth and will instead claim that 2+2=5. In this way, we can simultaneously infallibly know something to be true, while remaining a fallible and unreliable source of truth. This is also how one can receive a witness of the Holy Spirit and know fundamentally that the church is true, and then leave the church. Now imagine a math textbook that teaches the infallible axiomatic truths of mathematics. In our right minds, we can recognize the universal truths of this book. However, because that book can only be perceived and acted upon by fallible individuals in practice, it is practically fallible. Because the book was written by fallible people, it is possible for their to be typos in the math textbook even if the content is axiomatically true. A math professor may know mathmatics inside and out, but even he can make errors. Now this does not mean that students sitting in math class are in a constant state of doubt wondering whether the teacher got it right because it is technically possible for him to make a mistake and possible for us to not recognize a mistake, however we can be 99.9% certain, but that last 0.1% makes all the epistemological difference. Furthermore, let’s say someone is saved and assured of their election. We can even say they know this infallibly and are an authority on God’s word. However, because they remain a fallible person and they cannot be externally determined to be an authority rather than someone who is lying or mistaken. They therefore cannot hold any authority over anyone else because they cannot justify their authority, as their knowledge is exclusive and non-communicable. And therefore their interpretation of the Bible holds no more force than anyone else’s interpretation.
Lutheran here. A) We indeed believe that Baptism is essential, as it clothes us with Christ. B) Considering there have always been disputed books, and Athanasius, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc used a different Canon than did, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil the Great, how does Rome explain this? Thanks.
@@dave1370 Latter-Day Saints have modern day prophets and revelation that have the authority to endorse texts as canonical. Non-canonical books aren’t necessarily untrue though. Either they’ve just yet to be ruled on, or are unnecessary to add to the standard works, though they might still be helpful for individual study. Our standard works are the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The Bible is also included in the standard works as God endorsed it as the word of God, in so far as it was translated correctly (this was in the 19th century when the King James was prevalent, with the Dead Sea scrolls and modern research now showing us some of the errors in that translation, that qualifier makes more sense). In Section 91 of the Doctrine and Covenants, God says The Apocrypha contains many truths and is mostly translated correctly, but there are also many untrue interpolations from men. As such, it was not needful to add it to the canon. That’s about all there is to say about our approach to the canon.
@@dave1370 One way to explain it is without a magisterium that can definitely declare on issues it would be difficult to know which list is correct. When Protestants arose there was no longer any authority that could say this is what is correct. If it weren't for the Catholic magisterium I believe we would have lots of groups saying they have the right canon. Like lots of people say they have the correct version of faith and morals.
I know most people probably won't read this, but here goes. I think there is a certain misunderstanding about the LDS stance on the Bible. We believe the Bible, the original text as written by the prophets, was exactly as it is said in 2nd Timothy. However, when you consider the many many translations, the hundreds of different scribes, we believe that many of the truths were lost along the way. We believe that God, in his love and power, was able to preserve a great amount of that original text, but we as humans and as fallible creatures have changed things along the way. That is why our article of faith says, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as long as it has been translated correctly." There is proof of this translation deterioration when you read the original Hebrew vs the American translation. When you see the hundreds upon hundreds of different versions of the Bible. There is only ONE bible, so why are there so many different versions? Because men, in THEIR wisdom believe in translating it how they see fit and so it becomes fallible. The Bible is the word of God, but how many words survived the translations, the scribe errors, and how many parts were lost when persecutors attacked the church and destroyed parts? We believe in the infallibility of God, but Thousands of years and millions of Human interference later, we believe that human fallibility has snuck in. What's more, we don't have the original texts, we don't have the original authors here to tell us what was meant when they wrote certain things, and we don't have a perfect knowledge of the culture, history, and speech of that time in history. We have a good idea, we have parts and pieces of old versions of the Bible, but even some of those are disputed and argued over. Some of those manuscripts outright contradict each other, have timelines different to one another, or have differences in their translations. What we call the Bible today is our best guess at what the original bible said. Not only that, but what we call the Bible is only a compilation of the different books. The "Bible" is a human creation, a human compilation of God given Scriptures. I'm not saying that the Bible doesn't have the words of God in it, but we in the LDS faith believe in modern day revelation to help us understand what the scriptures mean and to find what has been lost. Also consider that this uncertainty in the full truth of the Bible may be within God's plan. If there is a certain fallibility in the translation or a certain uncertainty about the fullness of the Bible then you have to rely on faith and faith is the building blocks of your relationship with God. In the end, I think we are all Christians and we all hold a great love for God and what Christ did for us. We all muddle through this world the best we can, holding onto a faith that is dying out. In truth, my opinion is that we should hold onto each other and support one another in this tumultuous time. The world is crazy folks, and as we gear up to the second coming, it's only gonna get crazier! God is Love, God is Charity, God is life, and any man who exemplifies these things, I can only assume is of God. Let us all be brothers and sisters.If you've read this far, thanks. And if you would like to have a friendly discussion, I'm open to it. Just remember that contention is of the devil and we shouldn't be arguing but rather having a kind and loving debate!
I just watched a great video today by a pastor named Mikr Winger, here on RUclips, that you should check out. It's his playlist about how the Bible has been put together. I think part 16 is the one I'm referring to. It talks all about how the Bible has been translated. Your assessment of its inaccuracy because of the many different translations is actually the opposite... the very fact that we have so many copies, with some variants, is part of how we can know what was in the original text. Consider this analogy: Let's say I write a speech and then I ask one person to copy it. Then I destroy the original speech. If someone were to read the copied speech, how would they know if it was copied accurately? Now consider if I had had 10 people copy it, instead of 1 person. If you read all 10 of those copies, some of the variants would help you to know what might have been in the original speech. For example, if 9 of the copies have a line in it that one doesn't, we can reasonably assume that the fact that that one person missed that line was probably an error. We know that because of the other 9. So the vast amount of copies we have, along with their variants, is actually a good thing for us. And people vastly over exaggerate how many variants there are and how significant they are. Pastor Mike Winger discusses all of that in his videos as well. He goes over a bunch of the different things that people have pointed out are variants among different copies or translations, and they are all pretty insignificant. None of the really important core theological points of the Christian faith are shaken by any of those variants. God has preserved his Word. The Bible can be trusted, not just because we blindly have faith, but because of the evidence historically.
@@CassTeaElle We say the same about the Book of Mormon. It is another testament of Jesus Christ and two testimonies are better than 1 :) And I appreciate what you're saying, but I would reconsider using Mike Winger as an accurate source, especially where the LDS church is concerned. He has no idea what he's talking about. I think his most ridiculous video was the one that said that the "Pirate Bible," which is literally a Bible that has been translated into Pirate speech, was a trojan horse into mormonism.... I don't know about you, but I think that kinda shows him to be an anti-mormon nut, more than a reliable fountain of information.
You missed the point of the other comment entirely. The Book of Mormon itself HAS NO original such reference for us to assess. The Book of Mormon, Golden Plates of Moroni, etc... were taken back into Divine custody and we cannot look upon them to test the repeatability and reliability of the translations. Furthermore, other Mormon Scripture, such as the Book of Abraham, DID have physical manifestations that we can reference because of the many copies and facsimiles that exist of it, and the advances in Egyptian translation show us precisely that the Book of Abraham IS mistranslated. I would argue that Joseph Smith's work is a DIStranslation of the scrolls he obtained.
@@JakeRuzi not everyone agrees that Calvinists are brothers. How wrong do you have to be about who God is in order for someone to say you worship a false god? Because the God of Calvinism is very different than the God of non-Calvinist protestantism. So... at what point is someone's doctrine too different to be considered the same religion?
@@CassTeaElle Lol, then they’re wrong. Everything we believe is based on the Bible, verses for each and every doctrine, most theological views can’t even say that at all.
Nate, in the Bible at least two what we call extrabiblical books are quoted directly or mentioned. The book of Jasher is referenced in Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18, and 2 Timothy 3:8. The other is the book of Enoch (1 Enoch ONLY) in Genesis 5:18-24, 1 Chronicles 1:3, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5-6, Jude 1:14-15. It has also been alleged that the 1 Peter (1 Peter 3:19-20) and 2 Peter (2 Peter 2:4-5) make reference to some Enochian material. Jude was the half-brother of Jesus, and Jude quoted 1 Enoch, so this tells me that the Jesus household likely had the scribes of Enoch (which Noah would have definitely brought along in the ark).
I appreciate what the LDS guys did, from a strategy perspective. They knew that they did not perform so well that many in the audience would leave questioning their prior beliefs, so they drifted the topic into what most (myself included) perceive to be the least palatable parts of their opponents’ particular flavor of Christian theology. A lot of Calvinists and non Calvinists are ignorant of the reformed implication that God purposely sends people, including miscarriages and babies, to hell, so the debate ends with the Calvinists looking bad, and the LDS guys seeming reasonable. Since public debate is a poor (not worthless, but not good, and miles from idea) form for evaluating truth anyway, they played the meta-game for which debate actually exists: rhetorical superiority. I doubt anyone bought a Book of Mormon after this, but probably a few folks started doubting their John Piper books.
@@HaleStorm49 plenty of Bibles are given away freely. While I was deployed I received two Bibles on separate occasions. Plus the Gideons are always giving Bibles away, worldwide, for free. Evangelicals pay for specialty Bibles, such as the Amplified, the Spirit-filled Life, etc. Those are fancy Bibles, with footnotes, tailored for specific teachings, maps of various areas, Interlinear (shows original Hebrew and Greek next to the English translations), transliterations, and other types.
57:00 "Salvation is for those that endure till the end." You can have FAITH and HOPE in God's mercy and forgiveness, but we don't KNOW because we aren't the judge, God is
2 Timothy 3:16 ISN'T "scripture." It's a private letter from one disciple to another. None of the new testament is included in what it refers to as "scripture." That term & this verse refer strictly to the Jewish texts. Paul was NOT calling his own letters "scripture" & "God-breathed." The few times he does claim to be speaking God's word, he clearly makes the distinction. And yes, the gospels clearly record Jesus as saying that the Spirit is the one who reveals what is true. If we were supposed to be dependent on a bunch of writings, why didn't Jesus write anything himself?
The Calvinists lost me when they said that they would not be bothered if a 5 year old goes to Hell because they would not be part of the elect. I really don’t understand how anyone can be Calvinist.
@TheDisciple21 yes, that would be an example. Glad we’re on the same page about the whole “all have sinned” thing, not to mention our inherited sin and curse from our father Adam. Seriously though…do 5 year olds need Jesus or not? If they don’t go to hell without Jesus, then why do they need his grace?
@@casualminecrafter2174 I think you're truly asking the wrong question. I do agree that one needs Jesus to be in heaven. However, I was five once, and I did not think about Jesus. I thought about dinner, toys, food, friends, and that is it. Jesus welcomes kids into his arms and blessed them in the gospels. He did not turn one kid away and say "Sorry, my Father in Heaven never knew you." He welcomed all children that were there. So I believe there is an age of comprehension of Jesus and who He was and what He has done for all.
@@TheDisciple21 whether someone needs Jesus or not is probably the most important question to answer. That being said, you're right, 5 year olds are not mature, and their focus is not on Jesus the way it is for a mature believer. That does not excuse them from their sin and their need for the grace of God. Forget 5 year olds, my 2 year old can be diabolical at times in her 2 year old way. You're also right that Jesus welcomed all children and did not turn any away, but again, those children needed him. The question of whether they were members of the elect isn't clear first of all, but besides that, many Calvinists, myself included, believe that God does show grace to most, if not all children who die in childhood, but that grace is shown by God, out of his own free will. and because of his love for them, not because they are innocent and aren't in need of grace. I just have a problem with inserting ideas about children's innocence or lack of comprehension, because those ideas simply aren't in scripture.
Some of the Mormon audience may have thought calvinism represents the beliefs of all Christians and with that in mind, the LDS team may have placed their focus pointing out the inconsistencies of predestination to argue - look at the absurdity of Christianity
Help me understand this point. Per the Christian debaters and Nate at around minute 7:23 they both appear to be arguing that Gods infallibility supersedes man’s infallibility. therefore all Christian’s have the same beliefs, I.e Calvinista, Baptists, Methodists, all believe the exact same thing and have the exact same understanding of scripture… right?
See- in the debate structure, the Calvanist were doing a better job of staying the line. The Mormons really did tackle well theologically. They actually used 2 sources of Catholic tactics of the "you stole note", as well as a few takes from Trent Horn from what I heard in refitting argumentation for the Calvin's. Theologically, they were much more sound than the calvanist, from what I took from this.
They challenge the Christians on the veracity of the Bible but their entire religion is literallly based on emotional feelings that can't be substantiated.😂
Right?😂 I love how he said “you can’t trust the Bible bc you can’t trust man to understand what God says 100%” and that literally is what Joseph smith did, or how convenient he was the ONLY one who saw the plates and happened to understand them and write them down perfectly as recorded
@@jtbayliss1005 you don't understand what he is saying. When he says "men" he means men who are not prophets or seers. Men who have not received specific instructions to do the things they are doing but are acting on their own, and probably with the best of intentions. Smith showed the plates to around a dozen people who wrote affidavits that they had both seen and handled them. Three of the witnesses said they also spoke with the heavenly messenger that delivered the plates. Investigation _should_ come before contempt.
The Christian’s are like “ur saying God can’t speak clearly.. and then LDS is like no he can we just can’t understand it properly, then Christian’s are like “then God can’t deliver properly” bruh Jesus gives a parable and literally says “not all can see or understand my words yet” God reveals line upon line
There isn't a single passage in any of the books of the Bible where you can find the claim that everything written in them is "the word of God." They only claim to contain the words of God, not be them. The authors always make a clear distinction whenever presenting the word of God, that distinction wouldn't exist if it was all God's word.
(39:29) The extended LDS answer would go something like this. Anything which is true or from God will have multiple witnesses. One of those witnesses is that of the spirit to our hearts. A second witness would be revelation through scripture or prophets. Another witness would be rational understanding through our own experience or study. There could be any number of witnesses or evidence for anything which is true. Just like in order for scientists to prove a Law requires multiple verifiable and repeatable experiments to witness that is true.
Right, each successive witness increasing confidence, but never reaching infallibility. Even our most well tested scientific theories are not infallible, we constantly hold them to the standard of falsification and have falsified many previous theories that way.
Calling LDS, LDS, but the Calvinists, Christians, is the main issue here. Both are antithetical to scripture. I’ve debated many LDS. I tell you they have more “fruits” than most Calvinist.
TBH, I can't agree with your analysis. As Sam Shamoun points out, the Mormons steel-manned the Presup/Sola Scriptura position in their presentation, showing how it seriously lacks any depth. The Christians just double-downed in the cross examination.
My Christian brothers, when someone asks if you believe the Bible is true, answer more clearly. “Yes, I believe the Bible is true because it is a collection of historical documents written by eyewitness, in the lifetime of other eyewitness. It records supernatural events in fulfillment of specific prophecies and the authors claim that these are God’s words, not man’s.” (Voddie Baucham)
Hm. I’m certainly not LDS but I disagree with your decision on this one. I agree that the LDS guys went off topic at the end. Aside from that, they were very articulate and quick on their feet. You said that the Christians were asking great questions, however, if you had not paused the video and explained their questions, I would have missed their point. Which says to me that they are not great questions (or perhaps great questions asked poorly). On the other hand, you rarely paused the video to explain the LDS questions yet I understood most of their lines of reasoning. Also, both sides avoided answering the questions clearly but I think the Christians avoided it more and unnecessarily (“Do you interpret the Bible?” “Um, well, uhhhhhhh…” If I included your comments then I would agree that the Christians won. Otherwise I’d give it to the LDS. Still, another great video. Looking forward to more in this series!
I mean, I got the Reformed points but they did have a bit more theological and intellectual depth. I don't think that's surprising because it comes from a place of thousands of years of philosophy and scholarship, whereas Mormonism comes from a less than two centuries old tradition where the primary focus has been suppression of information for the sake of promoting faith.
@@rocio8851 do you realize the problem with that? The debate was supposed to be about Sola Scriptura. Possibly the easiest Sola to defend. So instead the slimy LDS team decided to go on emotional rants about "if god powerful, why happen bad thing??". Despite the LDS intentionally switching to a new, emotionally fraught topic, the Calvinists held up really well.
@@FalconOfStorms Of course, LDS guys committed a few logical fallacies. They were wrong. On the other hand, Calvinists held to an irrational system, Calvinism as a whole. The debate was over right at the beginning: "God determines our false beliefs."
Some of their theology is a bit out there, but they definitely have the more biblical view on this topic & dominated this debate (although they kinda threw that last line of questions I thought).
@@JJ-yc2sv They have the more biblical view when they rarely used actual Scripture to deliver their answers? They value feelings, emotions and personal revelations and intertwines how they view Scripture.
I am not a Mormon but I understood where they were coming from... The Author of the Bible is God (YHWH) who is Divine (Spirit) in Nature, Immortal, Perfect, Omnipotent (all-powerful/almighty), and Infallible (error-free)... We have only One BIBLE (Word of God) given to Mankind to be written down, therefore, we should have ONE BIBLICAL TRUTH... Question #1... How come we have more than THOUSANDS of Biblical TRUTH around the World? ... Question #2... Did the Bible say, "Only the WISE will understand the Biblical TRUTH and not ALL?... (ref. Daniel 12) Question #3... All Churches, Protestants and Evangelicals claimed they have the Biblical TRUTH for the Holy Spirit is with them... Do they claim correctly right? In conclusion (in my humble opinion)... The Word of God (Holy Scriptures/Bible) is INFALLIBLE (error-free) for God in OMNIPOTENT (facts and truth)... but the RECIPIENT of the Bible which is Mankind who was still in the state of FALLIBILITY (imperfectness/flesh weakness) due to their FALL (Sin against God)... One reason why Christ Jesus needs to come back again is to UNITE His Spiritual Church/Temple into One Biblical TRUTH only... From the start, God sends HIS messengers such as the Angels, Prophets, His Only Begotten Son (Christ Jesus), and finally, the HOLY SPIRIT to Rightfully and Correctly INTERPRET the Word of God (Scripture/Bible) for us (Humans)... but many Living SOULS have CLOSE "Hearts and Mind" that they tried to listen and listen but their EARS are CLOSE to HEAR (understand and comprehend) the Biblical TRUTH that instead, they RELY on their own intelligence of interpretation that caused more divisions among the Body of Christ (Temple/Church) instead of UNITY... They all claimed they are guided by the Holy Spirit but in reality, they are NOT... (only God knows) The reasons why there are so many Christian Churches and Protestant/Evangelical denominations around the world who disagree with each other's Biblical Interpretations... Many Believers (Christians), even used the Name of God (Lord, Lord) to Prophesy, Perform Miracles/Signs/Wonders to heal the sick, the blind can see, the mute can talk, the cripple can walk, etc., and Drive out Evil Spirits (demons), but Christ Jesus said, "I never knew you, away from me you, EVILDOERS." (ref. Matthew 7) The fact is that God had strictly commanded us (Christians) to TEST each/every SPIRIT whether they are from God or not because of the INFALLIBILITY of Mankind to interpret the the Biblical TRUTH without COMPROMISE, for many False Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, and Preachers had already come out... (ref. 1 John 4). On the Last Days/End times, God will pour out His Spirit (Holy Spirit) for ALL FLESH (no exceptions) to be able to PROPHESY and know the BIBLICAL TRUTH... (ref. Acts 2). All Glory, Praise, and Thanksgiving belong only to God through Christ Jesus' Name... Amen and Amen...
A question about 46:00. I know the Bible warns about false teachers, but how do we know which books were part of the original cannon. I honestly collect books outside of the cannon because I’m confused myself on this. I’m not catholic, but I keep a catholic Bible. I also have things such as the book of Enoch.
The answer you’d often get is that a consistent precedent has emerged across history. So basically, people have generally (though arbitrarily) agreed on what the canon is for a long time. As a Latter-Day Saint, I find this unsatisfactory, and would like to have a prophetic authority on record declaring what is canonical. Which is what we have with the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. By the way, have you read the Book of Moses? It’s the Latter-Day Saints’ version of the book of Enoch, I would recommend adding it to your collection, it can be found in the Pearl of Great Price. Of course, I would also recommend all Latter-Day Saint scriptures, primarily the Book of Mormon.
@@KnuttyEntertainment It is not just consistent precedent, that is just one of the things as back then there were a lot of fake prophets and writings out there but for the nation of Israel, it was easy for them to know what was true and what is not due to the Scripture telling them and us what is canon. The Word of God of the Old Testament is given to us by the Prophets of God. The Bible is clear in the old testament how to determine who is a real prophet and who is not. That eliminates probably 99.9% of people that claimed to be Prophets and thus, any books that were written. Not all true God appointed Prophets wrote books. And that is by design. God spoke through the Prophets He wanted to. The last Prophet of the Old Testament is Malachi. There is none revealed until John the Baptist. That is the reason why no Old Testaments books are written and nothing new in the BIble until the birth of Christ. In the New Testament, those books were written by people that knew Jesus directly, experienced Him, lived and learned from Him. John closes the end of Revelation Chapter 22 with a warning on adding to the Word of God 18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and [i]from the holy city, which are written in this book. Now if you find this reasoning inadequate, you have to provide a book from the Old Testament you feel fit this and then provide support for it. I am more than happy to discuss. As for the book of Moses, The Doctrine of Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Who wrote these things? I assume it was Josepth Smith? Josepth Smith was clearly not a Prophet as defined in the Old Testament as he made MANY predicitions attributing them to God Almighty and it was wrong. The Bible clearly says that even if the Prophet is wrong once, he or she is a false prophet. Joseph Smith also does not fit the writers of the New Testament as he has no direct relationship with Jesus while Jesus was on Earth. So who gives authority to Josepth Smith but himself?
@@KnuttyEntertainment I have not read that book! I will have to get it and add it to my collection. I don’t know much about later day saints so I would love to study the work eventually.
@@chandlerking6438 What’s interesting about the Book of Moses is that it was written before any of the books of Enoch were discovered, and yet there are still key similarities.
11:26 no. This is not a rejection of Tim. It's an understanding of the objective reality that God Himself did not physically write a single word in the Bible. Men did. Men inspired by God, sure. But still men.
I’m a Latter Day Saint, allow me to try to explain what they’re getting at. (I am not them, but here’s how I would render my argument going along the same lines.) The first principle here is that it is their position that while an objective truth does exist, it is fundamentally true and proven that there are no infallibly authoritative ways of deriving that objective truth, especially concerning praxis and establishing compulsive authority, simply because the interpretive structure (the human brain) that translates the stream of data and stimuli (reality) into something meaningful and actionable is itself inherently flawed, and also because you cannot derive a structure for interpreting the data from the data itself. (You cannot get outputs from inputs with only the inputs themselves without first pre-supplying a function-which exists independently from the inputs-that can take the inputs and transform them into outputs) the interpretive structure of human beings contain an element of free will that is factored into the translation process, and that free will can arbitrarily shift the interpretation of any input into any output it desires. For example, someone can stub their toe and interpret it in any number of ways: “this is a sign from god that I need to get new shoes,” “I need to start traveling by car rather than foot” “I should put a band-aid on that” “this is yet another proof the universe hates me” “this is merely a trial to overcome,” etc etc. two people can receive the same message and get wildly different things out of it. God can give any message, any input, but he cannot guarantee that it will be received correctly and return the desired output because if the result of one’s free will can be determined (not merely predicted) then it isn’t free. He could force someone to understand, acknowledge, and react to the message as intended by suppressing their free will, but then he is coercing them. The only way for someone to receive such a message would be for them to subvert their own will, say “not my will but thine be done” and allow the Holy Spirit to align their will with God’s so that the interpretive function of their brain correctly translates the revelation. When one receives such witness of the spirit, they know infallibly that it is true, it is fundamentally ineffably apparent to them. (Though that witness would be exclusive and non-communicable) Now there do exist some axiomatic statements of self-evident truth that we can infallibly know are true, such as “I think therefore I am” or “2+2=4.” One of the criteria that would justify us for holding something to be self evident is whether it is ineffably apparent to us, meaning that it cannot be derived or explained (though it can be described) from some more foundational axiom, nor can it be conveyed to someone whom does not find it apparent. For example, I can say “that apple appears red to me.” I could not arrive at that statement by any course other than the experience of the fact itself: the apple appears red because the apple appears red. And if a blind person asked me what “red” is, I could not convey that concept to them without actually showing them what red is, it is ineffable. Now while we can infallibly know these things are true, it is not hard to imagine someone who is so stupid, deranged, or willfully blind that they won’t accept or confess that truth and will instead claim that 2+2=5. In this way, we can simultaneously infallibly know something to be true, while remaining a fallible and unreliable source of truth. This is also how one can receive a witness of the Holy Spirit and know fundamentally that the church is true, and then leave the church. Now imagine a math textbook that teaches the infallible axiomatic truths of mathematics. In our right minds, we can recognize the universal truths of this book. However, because that book can only be perceived and acted upon by fallible individuals in practice, it is practically fallible. Because the book was written by fallible people, it is possible for their to be typos in the math textbook even if the content is axiomatically true. A math professor may know mathmatics inside and out, but even he can make errors. Now this does not mean that students sitting in math class are in a constant state of doubt wondering whether the teacher got it right because it is technically possible for him to make a mistake and possible for us to not recognize a mistake, however we can be 99.9% certain, but that last 0.1% makes all the epistemological difference. Furthermore, let’s say someone is saved and assured of their election. We can even say they know this infallibly and are an authority on God’s word. However, because they remain a fallible person and they cannot be externally determined to be an authority rather than someone who is lying or mistaken. They therefore cannot hold any authority over anyone else because they cannot justify their authority, as their knowledge is exclusive and non-communicable. And therefore their interpretation of the Bible holds no more force than anyone else’s interpretation.
Did you quote this from a lecture? I am not sure what you are really saying here. IF the source of something is infallible, even a fallible person wrote the words of an infallible person down, you believe the written word is automatically fallible? Your math example is a bad example as you are reverting back to people and not an infallible God, an infallible Source. In infallible God can indeed direct even fallible people to write things exactly the way He wanted, why? He is Infallible! There is literally no reason to think an infallible God can not direct a fallible person to produce and infallible product. The Bible is written by people but because it is directed by God the Word of God is infallible. The Bible clearly teaches this, so did JEsus. As for your last paragraph. In a way that is true. No one is beholden to other humans on the truth of God. Their is no authority from that standpoint like there is in LDS or Cathollic Church. It is called a Walk with God and we are on that path individually as we are called to have a directly Relationship with God, with Jesus. When we try to understand the BIble, the only way for us to truly 'interpret' it is with the Bible itself. That is the only clear way for us to get at the 'truth'. You are talking about truth from a human's point of view. There are many variations. Using Scripture to prove Scripture is the only fail proof way. And even in that way, we might not get every answer. But just because every answer we want under the sun is not there, does not mean the Bible is infallible.
@@danreich4320 “Why are Mormons obsessed with authority?” Because without a proper authority in place, anyone can feel justified going out and doing whatever they want according to their own model of morality. It is the difference between being a church and playing church, the way children play house. Without authority, we cannot work in the name of Jesus and build up his kingdom. We would just be a Jesus fan club, not his agents on earth. It is the difference between working as a college professor and giving out degrees, and making video commentaries on RUclips. If you are baptized by one who is not authorized to baptize, you have been baptized incorrectly. Your membership certificate in God’s church is a counterfeit. If you die, that certificate won’t keep you out of torments. It won’t grant you access to paradise.
I found this debate very poor on the Christian side. It struck me as two guys who don't fully understand pressup too far past the talking points they've heard from their heroes. Refusing to answer simple questions, repeating every question they're asked like it's a dumb question to delay answering it, getting all excited and screaming "next question!" wthout allowing their opponent to answer... it made me cringe.
The baby argument is so silly. Even if a mother kills her child in the womb, God knows whether that baby would've been a believer or not. Secondly, babies don't sin so they don't have to believe in the forgiveness of their sin for their sins to be forgiven.
You shouldn’t have called the other side “Christian”. 1. We Latter-Day Saints consider ourselves Christian. 2. As your own subscribers have pointed out, “the Mormons destroyed Calvinism, not Christianity.” (Well duh, we aren’t trying to destroy Christianity, just false creeds not rooted in the Bible.)
As a rebuttal to the “perfectly clear” argument the LDS guys were trying to nail home, I would’ve responded by pointing out that academic reviews and studies that have come to complete consensus on a particular issue, such as the fact that gravity exists and is tied to matter/mass; well, those reviews and studies ARE perfectly clear, however if you’re not very knowledgeable on scientific principles and lingo, the odds of you properly understanding the issue on your own are pretty slim. Because now the onus is on YOU to study and research and boost your own contextual knowledge to then be able to properly understand the papers. Same thing with a more hands on skill, you can research all you want on how a skill is performed, but until you put the gloves on and start doing the work yourself, your practical understanding of the activity might as well be counted as zero. This ties into your point on Bible Study Nate! Not everyone will fully or whatsoever grasp the historical and cultural context behind certain metaphors, stories, lessons, etc in the Bible.
Over all I disagree with your judgement and think that the supposed "Christians" were demolished. By the Way the LDS are Christian, just not Protestant. So more properly the title should read LDS vs Protestant or Calvinist, not Christian.
I'm LDS and it's strange to see a title to a RUclips video say "Christians vs Mormons." (I know Evangelicals and other Christians don't consider us Christian.)
I do like that he says, in the beginning of his video here, that we prefer to be called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not that Mormon is insulting or anything, but it does create space between our Christian cousins and us.
If I have learned anything about myself in the last day after discovering your channel, it is that I have a lot of studying and reflecting to do because I found myself angry at the Mormons. I grew up in Utah and have has them talk circles around me and throw me off my path before. 😮
Am I right or wrong in saying that "do you believe you interpret the bible?" is (1) an intentionally incomplete question; or (2) an intentionally deceptive question. And it is for this very word "believe" that there is something else being asked other than the obvious question of right interpretation. If the question was "how do you know you have interpreted it correctly?" there would be no problem.
The foundational question is not if they interpret the Bible correctly, it’s if they interpret it at all. Outside of the debate, our opponents have told us that they don’t interpret scripture but rather scripture interprets scripture.
Man, I was really hoping that the Christians would satisfactorily answer the question regarding how you can know you're saved. They basically just ignored the point: If someone else makes the exact same claim you are making now, that they know certainly, according to the Bible, that they are saved, and yet they stray from the faith later in life, how can you have assurance you won't also stray away later on in life? To an outside viewer, you both are identical in claim. So what is inside you that allows you to know for certain that you are saved?
Another debate that shows being a Calvinist is not wise. A fundamental tip for debate teachers: fight your biases. Don't be like Nate. P.S. I'm not a Mormon.
It was kind of interesting to me that Nate would approach this as a “debate teacher” and then do nothing to hide his bias. It might have been more effective for him to say “Calvinist debate teacher”
LDS spanked them handedly. Their rhetorical weakness is a result of their flawed theology. That's why they're stumbling over their arguments. Sola scripture is circular reasoning which means it's self-refuting.
Choosing to protect your own isn't bondage as the Mormon states. If that were the case, I'd be putting my kids in bondage by choosing to care for them. Also, St. Peter says that Baptism saves you. This is because it clothes you with Christ and HIS righteousness.
@@danielkim672 I’m not sure I understand your question. I feel like the free will part of the Mormonism argument is not wrong though. Doctrinally they aren’t Christian’s so I disagree with them on doctrine.
@@ChristinaBiasca but if you take the Mormonism theology in terms of free will, you feel that is supported by Christian doctrine? Am I having the right view on your assumption? The LDS in this panel 'FEEL' like you feel but their Scripture support falls apart when directly asked about Election. They are only focused on Feelings. Not saying you are as well but you answered with 'i feel'. Where in Scripture do you know this to be true and how do you use Scripture to support absolute free Will when it comes to salvation when faced with election and being Choosen by God through the Old and New Testaments?
I just don't see how anyone can say the Bible is infallible? Do you know every person who participated in the translation? Do you have all the original texts? Anyone who speaks a second language understands that some things simply do not translate well. The failure of the Calvinists is that they do not understand that the greatest gift God gave us was agency. This in turn led to the need for Christ to atone for that which we could not. The Bible is not clear (especially not in all things). If it were we wouldn't have thousands of Christian denominations. Watch the whole debate. Tbh the LDS cleaned the Calvinists clocks. Even other Protestant commentators pointed this out.
I thought the LDS won because of all the circular reasoning they used to claim The Bible as the only word of God. If God's message is infallible, why are there more books that are not in The Bible? Why the need for so many prophets in The Bible? Writing down different interactions with different groups would naturally give more information and clarity. Also if we are all predetermined to go to Heaven or Hell what good is our free agency?
@ Andrew Krauth A few issues with your response... 1. If God's message is infallible, why are there more books that are not in The Bible? (Why not just have Genesis and be done with it? Your question doesn't validate or invalidate the books in the canonical Bible, but just, 'the number is wrong'. As though that number is wrong. Why not add commentary books about scripture in the canonical Bible? Why not add Dr. Seuss books into the canonical Scripture? Your question is too open ended, with no goal in mind. Simply to cast doubt.) 2. Why the need for so many prophets in The Bible? (Same as the first question. This is too open ended. Why have even ONE prophet? Why not 1,000 prophets? If it isn't 'x' amount of prophets, than Scripture 'must be wrong', according to you, it seems. It's too open ended with no ability to validate or invalidate the prophets in the canonical Bible. You just have an issue with there being a 'number of prophets', regardless of the number.) 3. Also if we are all predetermined to go to Heaven or Hell what good is our free agency? (Finally, a solid question with a specific end in mind. Your RELATIONSHIP with God's truth, is everything. To presume you know any one particular person is definitely hell bound or heaven bound comes down to, "You have not, because you ask not." (James 4:2) But even Jesus was denied the cup to be lifted from Him (the cross). "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matthew 26:39) It is FOOLISHNESS, other than God to know the exact outcome for who is hell bound and who is heaven bound. We are called to ACT and seek Him. Because unlikely people are saved, by those who ACT, preaching and sharing the gospel. We are COMMANDED to lean on Christ, not our own understanding. Seek HIS ways, not our own. Which means He is in control of EVERYTHING, that is WHY we ask Him to change the circumstances. But in His perfect plan we can not see, but foolishly judge Him for not revealing to us, unrighteous creatures, as though ANYTHING can be demanded from Him, except for what He first promised us.)
@@FabledNarrative my point was the Bible is not a closed cannon. There are more sources of Christ's teachings like The Gospel of Thomas or The Dead Sea Scrolls etc. The Book of Mormon gives more insight on what the Bible starts us off with. So the comparison between the Bible and The Book of Mormon is like someone arguing which Gospel is the right one, Mark, Luke, John? The standard should be the same between the two. The Gospel according to Mormon, same concept.
Hello! Fairly young in my faith here so I have a question about the babies topic. The Christian said that he doesn’t believe all babies that die are to go to heaven but I thought it said something like “all babies DO go to heaven because they aren’t touched by sin due to their innocence” someone shoot me their thoughts! Great video!
Yes im confused by this ,i have always believed in the age of understanding that the bible speaks of ...meaning all babies go to heaven beacause they have no understanding of God.
Since you are young in your faith, it is very important to know that this video should really be titled mormons vs calvinists, not mormons vs christians. Calvinism is (in my opinion and the opinion of many others) not at all Biblical Christianity. There's a RUclips channel called "Great Light Studios" that has some information about why Calvinism is not Biblical Christianity. Leighton Flowers is also a good person to look up. As a Christian who is not a Calvinist (or a Catholic, because they differ on this too) I believe in an age of accountability, and I do not believe that babies are just inherently guilty of sin because of some kind of "original sin" passed down from their parents or previous generations. Babies are innocent. People aren't guilty of sin just because they're human. They are guilty of sin when they sin, and babies have obviously not sinned yet.
Yes, you’re right it is a good video. I’ve listened to a lot of on line bBible teachers. Most do believe that the babies and children will go to heaven, including aborted babies. I wast he pastor Gary Hamricks Q&Zak from 12/31. He’s built a mega Calvary Church (Chuck Smith). That question was asked and answered. He did three services of Q&A so it was a long video. I enjoyed it. He’s also a very good Bible teacher along with Jack Hibbs, Skip Heitzig & Tom Hughes. They all believe Babis and children who are not at the age of accountability.
Bahaha!! You lost a ton of credibility with this one. The LDS destroyed their opponents in this debate. You’re attempt to rehabilitate their failures was both ineffective and showing that you’re tribalism overpowers your objectivity. Truth is important big guy
WOW...TBT - it's been a yr and my first time watching! ! I an sure you won't reply after so long ..( Thoe as for me I only feel obligated to respond to others that comment..It only helps us Grow, because I am no better then my fellow Breatren!! THIS IS LONG BUT I'D LOVE TO SHARE AFTER ASKEDA SIMULAR QUESTION..( NOTE THIS IS CLOSE TO MIRACULOUS I AM ABLE TO EVEN SPEAK !! 📣. I WAS JUST ASKED THIS QUESTION -"What do I want from reading the Bible "? I didn't expect to get so emotional 😭.. "This was my response"- I want to have a better understanding of the Context of Scripture .I want to Really know God, So I can "Truly love him completely " with all my mind ,heart and Soul..I want his will for me,his heart !! I want to be able to do Apologetics with God's truth when speaking to the lost ! I want EVERYTHING and ALL that is absolutely the truth of God ! I want the words on my lips to Speak with truth and wisdom that only comes from God ..I want For the Lost and EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT IS SEEKING GOD - To know him and his Love ..I want all that is of my Lord and my Savior !! I want the World to know his love and perfect truth and righteousness ,with understanding of who our Father truly is ! To know that he is so so very real !! " To know that even when we have fallen in life, Jesus is always there pulling us back ..Never forsaking us, Until our eyes are completely open and we are fully ready to trust in him !!!! Realizing he has NEVER left our side .."There is no real meaning in life without him in it "!!!! He is the joy ,the love ,hope,peace,strength ,and Comfort that gives life meaning !!! In him we persevere!! I know what life is like when we become complacent and forget he is there ! When the light fades and darkness creeps in ! When that peace and joy becomes a mere memory! Becoming so lost in our own feelings and having confusion in our mind and heart !! Empty inside,lost ,numb and never satisfied! ! Having only temporary Peace,joy and what we call happiness !! It's like a never ending roller coaster only repeating the ups and downs ! A never ending cycle ! But it's a" FACADE" ,and it is temporary!! I Promise you it is only in JESUS(YESHUA-YHVH) we find true Joy and Peace that transcends, anything We can ever know and feel as what we believe happiness to be! - In Our own perception and understanding of our emotions and the knowledge that we obtain,- Can we ever within ourselves alone,Know The most purest true perfect meaning of Peace,love and happiness ! "NOT UNTIL WE KNOW THE LOVE OF CHRIST JESUS"* ! He is my life and the Oxygen I need to breathe ! I need him ,I want him ,and I desire him EVERY second of the day !! I want the world to know him and his love 😢 . . I promise there is"NOTHING" In this LIFETIME ON EARTH THAT CAN EVER ,EVER COMPARE TO KNOWING AND SEEKING GODS HEART AND WILL !!!! I want all of him in every single step I take in life !!!!! He is my heart and all that I seek !! ( Oh wow as I began typing this I couldn't stop the tears from flowing!!😭 ) I believe I Love,love ,love Jesus with all my being ! I only pray this is confirmation by my tears to truly be what is my heart's Love for God and for all people in the World!!! My life is in God's hands And I know this to be true ! Please, Please, Seek God with all your being ,because I promise you will find him !!!!! He isn't a myth or Fairytale ,or Someone not in our Reach ....He is real,he is here in our very Midst , wanting us to know him ,to just reach out our hand for him to take hold of !! We are his image ,everything we consider honest and good is all of God !!! Godbless you all and may you know his Love and Peace !!! ✝️🕊️❤️. 🚨*( ? Let me ask you ,why do you want to know the Bible? Do not think just Start answering this question without edit seeing what comes from the heart ,and see what you may discover as I did 🙏)*🚨. ( Please Follow and subscribe to my up coming RUclips channel - ONFIRE4JESUSAPOLOGETIC-(TsChicago4God) as we discover together all the Beauty in the Word of God if you also are onfire❤️🔥4Jesus ! ) Much love to all of you out there ❣️🕊️✝️❤️🔥
LDS FTW. When we talk about the bible could we please get some context on which bible we are talking about? According to Wikipedia there are over 3,300 different variations/translations currently in 2023.
I thought the point of this video was that you were judging the debate not the underlying theology of the debate? Your responses to the LDS points shows a lack of awareness or necessary context behind the LDS belief as well as the same failing on part of the debaters. In other words you and the "Christian" debaters have not taken the time to investigate the context of our beliefs or you would recognize how very appropriate their responses are.
God. God is the final authority. The scriptures are the words of God transcribed by fallible men The priesthood is the power of God wielded by fallible men. God is the author and finisher of it all.
What happened to Mose about striking or talking to the rock to get water, wasn't God clearly told him how to do things? Than, why he chose to act differently?
The Christians side had me cringed 😅 they just need to elaborate a bit more about in their answers and give more reasons why they believe the word of God is true. Bless yous
Love the video Nate. I see more than the two options on 2Tim 3:16. The clear communication of a message to a recipient does not equal the proper receipt of the message. The true meaning of God’s Word is perfect. But, many of us come to contradicting interpretations, so some error had to be introduced and that must be our interpretation of God’s infallible word. Now, if there is an infallible interpreter I can close that gap in the communication equation to know exactly what God meant to communicate. I believe the infallible interpreter in Christ’s Church on Earth, and that is the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit protects that Church from going awry.
@@dartheli7400 Partly through just walking through the logic of God’s plan. The other part is evaluating the different interpretations of Christ messages such as the Holy Spirit will be sent to guide them until the second coming and the gates of Hell shall not overcome them. Ultimately, the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant reality has proven that Scripture does not interpret itself. One, that makes no sense because printed words don’t have a mind and a mind is needed to interpret. Two, we all share at least 66 writings and we don’t agree on what they mean. It follows that if Christ wanted unity then he would have needed to provide at least one person, group, or institution to the special ability to know what the proper teachings were without error. Now because of free will, people were still free to sin and ignore that infallible teacher, but for those that did follow it they could be assured that they would not be led astray.
@@IRISHBee4 I see. However, it doesn‘t automatically follow from your arguments that the Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter of scripture. I agree with you, that at least one group of people knows the proper interpretation and teachings of scripture. But how do you know that it‘s the Catholic Church that fulfills this role? Can you provide (a) concrete example(s)?
@@dartheli7400 Whoever the interpreter is they have to have an unbroken connection from the apostles since Pentecost. The interpreter couldn’t have come about centuries later. This would mean that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only ones that can even be considered. They are the only churches that can trace their origins back to the apostles. Then the Orthodox can be eliminated with a couple arguments. I am no expert, but it is my understanding that some Orthodox churches allow for divorce and remarriage. Christ condemns this and it is a non-Christian teaching. They obviously deny the pope’s authority starting with Peter, so depending on the different interpretations of the passages that indicate Peter was given primacy and an established office that would be another teaching. Lastly, Christ asked that his followers be unified, and it is my understanding that some Orthodox Churches are not in communion with other Orthodox Churches. This would point to Orthodox Churches failing to maintain the unity Christ’s Church protected by the Holy Spirit would have. Finally, the breadth of the Catholic Church is evidence it is Christ’s Church. Christ commanded that his apostles go and make disciples of all nations. Well, the Catholic Church is basically present it every nation of the Earth. It has grown and grown ever since the beginning (generally speaking) so that today there are over a billion Catholics united under the Pope’s authority. There really isn’t any other ecclesial group in the world that has done that. These would be the pieces of evidence that I would point to.
At the 10min mark. Nate brings up some good points but I'd have asked two different questions or at least additional. First, if the Bible is not infallible then logically it can't be the Final Authority for Faith & Practice, correct? Secondly, what is your Final Authority for Faith & Practice? If they say the Book of Mormon then the follow up would be "wasn't it written by a man"? If they say the Priesthood of Elders then the follow up would be "So you don't accept the Bible because it was written by men but you accept the word of men?"
We don't have complete infallibility. Christians like to make a lot of hay over this, but even if you have an infallible source, it gets interpreted by fallible humans. So unless you can claim complete infallibility in your interpretation, fallibility is introduced at some point either way.
@@lukehanson_ The question though is where the infallibility surface. Always at the interpretation. I have no doubt Jesus would interpret Scriptue perfectly from the way it was written. Could an infallible being use fallible beings to produce infallible teachings? I say yes.
@@danielkim672 He could. He could also make everyone incapable of non-infallible interpretation. At least the God of the debaters could. But this demand for infallibility is odd, and the demand that only the Bible and not spiritual witness from God is infallible is odder still.
@@lukehanson_ I am not familiar with 'God of the debaters'. Can you expand on that thought? I actually dont find it odd to say the complete inspired Word directly from God is in the Bible we have today and it is complete. Nothing new has been added. I am not arguing people do not have direct revelation from God today, but it would never contradict nor add to the Bible. If you are in the world thinking that new directly revelations can happen through spiritual witness from God, how do you know it was actually from God and not completely made up, or from a hallucination? That to me is the odd part when there is no basis, foundation for when someone says "GOD REVEALED THIS TO ME". The direct instructions in the Bible is to test every Spirit , and we do that with Scripture. We test Scripture and Godly truth with Scripture.
Really enjoying your videos. I think I did myself a disservice by not joining the debate team in high school. Rationally thinking about complex and controversial topics is so important in this life.
Bro I feel the same way!! It's probably also never too late to learn. We all need to provide a reasoned defense for our faith. Be encouraged brother
I had this thought a few years ago. I even encouraged my nephews to enroll in debate class in high school. Unfortunately to no avail. But I’m learning how to argue my positions by watching many many arguments. I’m certainly not described as someone who is good at debating but I might be able to hang in a high school debate lol. Which is to say I’ve learned a lot and have engaged in a lot of discussions where I can test these newfound skills.
I'm going to attempt to make my kids get in a debate class ASAP. Luckily, my oldest is just entering Middle school, no debate offered yet, so I'm hoping for Jr. High.
If up against a mormon brother use 2 Nephi to call them out on their racist view that black people are cursed , it goes was worse after that but, research before debates. See voddie bacham why I believe the Bible speech.
I was raised mormon. The biggest thing that brought me out of that is realizing, when I became an adult, what the good news actually is. Mormons don't believe there is a hell but Jesus died for sins and saved us. What exactly did he save us from then? I feel like it downplays the magnitude of what he went through for us. Jesus himself spoke of hell. I've had an encounter with Jesus. I'm trusting in him.
It wasn't the blatant racism in 2 Nephi? Really?
@@FoxWest603 Yo, everyone has a different experience. Relax
@@zoeg.232 I asked a question, in reference to something aweful in the book of mormon. Being as mormons teach that black people are cursed. So how about you don't make assumptions about people's state of being. Because many people leave that religion because of that , not the fact that the book of mormon is blasphemous.
@@FoxWest603context would go to show that this is not the case. Look at the bigger picture. There are verses saying “black” but there are all kinds symbolic words in scripture. The story in the Book of Mormon follows a family who fled Jerusalem. Thereby it would be most likely that the family is Jews. Further context would show that the descendants of these Book of Mormon people would be the native Americans of our world. Therefore not black people, but “inidian” or Native American. Therefore brown. Therefore not black. In fact regardless of the “curse” or the mark, it’s not racism. And according to the book God was the one who “cursed” them with the mark. Therefore, not racism, unless you really wanna take it that way. But then it’s God is a racist, not the people in the book. But you likely don’t even believe in the Book of Mormon so why do you care about what happens in it?
@@Zirichel_ my question wasn't to you was it....? It was to Jon whom wrote the comment. You can't read 2 Nephi? It's talking about sons of Noah. Only mormons, muslims and Jehovah's witnesses teach that black people are a curse. Why not look it up instead of trying to defend bad religious practices.
This reminds me of my various conversations with Mormons. One such where I was debating three at once (a very very bad idea since I was by myself), and this exact topic came up. 55:01 .
We had been discussing translations, interpretations, subjective experiences, spiritual revelation, etc, and I said “ok. You have your subjective experiences of the Spirit, which I do not agree with, I have my subjective experiences of the Spirit which you do not agree with. So let’s get away from the subjectivity of our anecdotal experiences and get into the empirical evidences for our faith.” They agreed with that, and we proceeded from there. One of them was not very happy with that, but it ended up being much more productive because it ceased being about the subjective experiences, and became about truth, and how we know something is true, and whether or not God is capable of communicating himself clearly.
Yeah. You should only debate Mormons in formal debates or one on one. Otherwise when arguments of one in a pair of Mormon missionaries fail the other in the pair takes over.
That's a much better way to debate, I think it's also extremely important to note that we as LDS believe that these person subjective experiences can only be applied to our selves or those who are our responsibility, only the prophets can give diffinitive answers
I would love to see a video of the debate teacher engaging a formal debate.
100%
Dude- your channel is so excellent. Thank you for your faithfulness
I really wish more debates like this would be held with people who aren't Calvinist... because as a Protestant Christian, I also reject Calvinism. So the Mormons trying to prove that Calvinism is false doesn't really do anything for me. I already agree.
Calvinist are Protestant … if it was t for Calvin and Luther , you wouldn’t have Protestantism
Why do you reject Calvanism? Does God not always succeed in saving people? Is there a reality where Paul could have continued killing Christians after God spoke to him and saved him?
@@booglywoogly566 neither of those questions lead to needing to accept Calvinism. I reject it for many, many reasons, and I'm honestly not even interested in getting into them. There are plenty of videos out there about why Calvinism is unbiblical. You can watch those if you want to know. I'm not interested in debating about it.
Alright, you're welcome to do that.
Amen !! It should be labeled calvinism vs mormonism instead because tge vast majority of Christians reject calvinism to begin with .
Im a Christian, but those LDS guys did a much better job in this debate. The Christians literally would not make any concessions and ended up looking completely obstinate and denying things that are obvious.
I thought they did well. There were some missed opportunities, for sure, but I don't think I saw any major errors
What you said right around @33:00 is so spot on. I am currently in school and was going for a physics degree. I fell in love with apologetics and said, "that's what I want to get my degree in instead". I looked up some schools around me for that and good grief it's expensive. I've had to kind of just keep going with the physics and learn the apologetics thing on my own but with anything "self taught" it's hard to see your blind spots or areas that you're lacking in.
If you find anything online that is beneficial for those that are interested in becoming apologetics please share
@@GodsArmy00 I listen to a lot of Mike Winger (he's who got me interested and started), Voddie Baucham is really good, Robert Breaker, and finally Gene Kim. All solid biblical guys. There are few others that escape my mind but those two will get you started and you'll start to find them. Keep in mind, we have a very soft understanding of the Bible in America and as such there are going to be some things that you hear at first that may sound a little harsh but it's necessary for true growth. I don't agree with Voddie's eschatology (but that's it) but that's a secondary issue that has nothing to do with salvation, it's an interpretation of Revelation thing. Of course this channel has been valuable as well. Happy hunting. Above listening to the teachers make sure you are reading as well and practice discernment. Not everyone out there is going to be speaking truth and this goes for official schools as well.
@@SavedbyGraceAlone84 Frank Turek and Ray Comfort are the guys that caught my attention. I love their approach with people in the public and their ability to stay calm is admirable. I am also impressed with their historical knowledge from biblical times. Thank you I’ll check out the people you suggested.
Respect 👊🏾
Do you ever find it odd that the Lord's anointed were never formally educated in theology? The only one of the Apostles that had formal theology training was Paul. It took almost 17 years for him to prepare for his missions. Had to unlearn lots of bad theology.
You'll have a hard time finding scriptural evidence for paying for men of the world to teach you their theology.
@@HaleStorm49 I don't disagree with that at all and your comment I take as a word of encouragement. I honestly just want to go because I'm in constant wanting to learn mode. I'm not learning with any specific goal other than just wanting to learn more so I looked into it. I'm not even doing physics with a specific goal in mind. I have a career now that the Lord has provided for me and my family and I'm ok with just staying there if that is His will for me. I just really enjoy constantly learning and since I'm learning on my own (with the help of commentaries and other teachers) I thought maybe taking classes could help me even more. I hope I'm making sense in that.
As a committed Christian against Calvinism I suggest that the end of the debate showcased how ridiculous Calvinism is and emphasized how though the LDS is false the Calvinist is also has false teachings. This means an adherent to the Calvinist doctrine really has no assurance of faith and no real proof that he is one of the elect. The end showed how that interpretation can wrongly color our theology. Their refusal to admit to interpretation was the buildup meaning they have their own falsehoods to deal with. If you are a Calvinist I’m sorry but the LDS debaters gave ample information as to why the basic tenets of Calvinism or TULIP is also error. The baby analogy is perfect in exposing how soteriology is crucial to this debate. I also am not surprised given that the Christians asked if Joseph Smith was a false prophet or could he have been a false prophet. That is akin to asking if Muhammad could be a false prophet to Muslims. So I wasn’t surprised when the proverbial gloves came off
They definitely don't have assurance of their salvation. I have a friend who says he's a Christian and I've always been confused about why he often seems so insecure in himself, particularly about his salvation, wondering if he is even saved. I never really understood that... until I learned what Calvinism teaches and realized that he is a calvinist. Suddenly it made complete sense to me why he constantly struggles with that fear of not really being saved.
I've tried to talk to him, as gently as I could, about how I think Calvinism is why he has this issue and that it isn't Biblical, but he just doesn't want to hear it. 😔
Im apart of the LDS faith, its clear you an I don't agree on many things.... buts also clear we both agree that calvanism is just terrible
Love your format. I learn every time I watch one of your vids.
I think this debate was not as strong as it could have been because the Christians were more in a defense mode regarding their Calvinist viewpoint. Their answers were not as thorough and impactful as these could have been with proper Scripture references. Surprisingly the LDS guys did a good job in questioning and even regarding expounding on free will.
One example at the end e.g. is that Scripture clearly teaches that God wants (it's His desire) everyone to be saved (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9b), and sadly the Christians actually contradicted Scripture in their answer due to making election an issue. Sadly not everyone will be saved even though God desires everyone to be saved, ... and in fact we read in the Bible that only a few are/will be saved (Matt. 7:14b) as many (Matt. 7:13) choose anything but Christ (the broad road) for their perceived "salvation" and therefore reject Jesus Christ as their personal Savior by not putting their faith in Him as the only Savior (Acts 4:12; John 14:6) as He's the Narrow Road.
Only surprising to people unfamiliar with LDS theology.
Revelation 7:9.
A multitude that no one could number.
That's more than a few who will be saved. The gospel is good news
@@TobyTalkless It's always good to read the context around a verse, perhaps the whole chapter or at least the pertaining section. These multitudes came out of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 7:13-14), "Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?" And I said to him, “Sir, you know.” So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
As stated above in Matt. 7:14 )EXB)we read, "But the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to true life. Only a few people find that road."
But nevertheless the Gospel is of course very good news!!! ... and everyone has the opportunity to worship the true God and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior (Rom. 1:20).
@@scherfcom this multitude no one can number have their robes washed with the blood of the Lamb, then aren't they saved? Even in context, the context is pertaining to this very large group of people who are being described as saved.
Not trying argue, trying to understand
@TobyTalkless I think you both are on the same page, cuz the multitudes could be a lot of ppl but it could also be true that it's a few when compared to all the people that have ever existed
I love how educational these videos are! I get to defend the faith while also formulate better approaches
Under what circumstances would you engage in a debate? That would be a delight to witness.
I absolutely love these debates!!! I learn so much and I enjoy your commentary! Keep bringing these videos to us. ✝️
The Mormons didn’t destroy Christianity, they destroyed Calvinism. 🙌🏻
Exactly. As a Christian who also rejects Calvinism, this whole debate was just two sides both saying "you're wrong" and me just sitting here like "correct."
Cringe.
Catching this live, what a treat!
If you watch the entire debate, the LDS guys completely dominated these Calvinists
I watched it and the LDS did to a good job as debators. Not so much regarding the topic of the debate though.
How?
@@leviwilliams9601 Because Calvinist spend so much time having to defend their Theology. These mormons are smart, they know that it will not sit well with the crowd so thats where they took the conversation and it did the Calvinist no favors.
It's an easy thing to do. Calvinist are a blight on Christianity. Too bad it's taking almost every church in some way, it seems.
They in fact didn’t. And if you watched the rest of this video, you’ll find out that Mormons have a lot to answer for.
Gosh, this got me wanting to react to your reaction! I mean that in the best way possible, it's just that it brought so many questions and much nuance to mind as I listened. I appreciate your take on this very much.
I'm listening the arguments and it seems like casual observation supports the LDS view. If everything in the Bible is the perfect word of God, then why are there literally thousands of Christian churches and debates, like this one, trying to sort out what the truth is. The position I'm hearing is that God's word is perfect, but the weaknesses in humans at time corrupts that perfect truth. Is there any one that really denies that? As I said, the very fact that so many Christians don't agree on so many points of doctrine, but they are all citing the same "perfect" bible, pretty much demonstrates this fact. What is the counter argument for this if God communicates perfectly?
The reason there are so many "interpretations" is that people don't understand or know sound hermeneutics. They don't understand the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Another reason is that the human heart is deceptive and people often will only hear what they want to hear. The majority of humanity doesn't like the fact that the Bible teaches that everyone is a sinner worthy of eternal punishment so they "reinterpret" the text to satisfy their own conscience.
@@havocsquaddropout6681 , wow, if only the billions of people on the earth that think God taught things differently than you were as smart as you. I mean you use the word "hermeneutics" instead of interpretation.
That isn’t where Mormons go wrong. It’s in the fact that the tablets he supposedly translated have never actually been found, because Moroni supposedly took them with him, and his ever changing story regarding its discovery.
Additionally, many of the teachings of Mormonism quite obviously contradict scripture and violate the attributes and characteristics of God.
Amos 3:7
A body in the church inserted doctrine into the body of the church (Roman Catholics). From there, it never recovers. The only true church is the church that retains the original doctrine and practice, Orthodox Christianity.
God makes victories even from the failures of Man, and even though reformed churches and protestantism and non denomination are so widespread, SOME of the message and teachings of Jesus are better than none, so they are spreading as strongly as possible since they serve as a stepping stone into Christianity for as wide a net of peoples as possible.
Please do more debates between Christians and other theists. I'd love to see you react to the Anthony Rogers Ijaz Ahmed debate on the Angel of the Lord for example
Christians headquartered in Salt Lake City don’t get to debate other Christians?
Thanks for another great video, Nate. Apologia Studio just put out a debate on perseverance of the saints vs conditional security. That one also had Daniel Constantino as one of the debaters. It would make my day to see your reaction to that one as well!
Sadly I think that Christians like these are why people leave the faith. They answered horribly, and it was such a blood bath
If their faith relies on the debate responses of other men, then they were never of us anyway
I see it all the time. I never noticed this pattern until I learned what Calivnism was. Then I started to notice that almost everybody I encounter who leaves the faith is leaving Calvinism... but sadly they think that doctrine represents Christianity accurately, and I completely disagree.
Calvinism has turned so many people away from God, and I think sort of understandably so. If you believe that the God of the Bible literally decrees people to sin and decrees them to reject him, but then damns them to hell forever for doing exactly what he decreed them to do, that's horrible. It's no wonder people reject such an idea.
@CassTeaElle Totally reject this. Romans 1:20 tells us we are without excuse. There are many internal debates we have as followers of Jesus, including TULIP. The problem of evil is by far a larger point of contention among unbelievers, yet we are still without excuse.
@@lazzzzze1 nothing I said was a rejection of Romans 1:20.
Yeah, I just got to where they said the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. Had pause and read the comments for a minute. That was rough.
14:15 Option 3: exactly as they stated: God communicated perfectly, and men did their best to communicate that to us. Again, the counter example is the 70,000 denominations. If the Bible was clear, there would only be one.
I am not sure why people have a problem with the Biblical argument that when God chooses to communicate directly through people, He can do that perfectly. People are making an assumption that fallible humans can 'fully' understand God perfectly. The inspired Word of God, He delivered to us exactly the way God wanted.
Then you have the rest of us, the ones that God did not choose to speak through for His revelation, interpreting it. Is everyone's interpretation of the Bible 100% perfect the way God willed it? Of course not. But that that is the human side issue, not the Bible issue. Which is the key difference between Mormons and Christians. If one exegesis the Bible with Bible, almost always you will get to the correct truth. When you add in human desires, human wants, human experiences, human goals, you will get distortion, even in the major issues. That is when you get LDS, JW, major theologies of Roman Catholics etc. That does not mean protestants are not exempt as MANY MANY fall into the same 'experience' version of theology.
@danielkim672 This argument only moves the goalposts. If God was a perfect communicator, surely He could have given us a Bible so perfect that there really would be only one way to interpret it. But that's clearly not the case. So... what do we do? Assume God didn't care to make things clear enough? Heavens no. But here we are with 35k Christian denoms that all find their conflicting doctrines in the same Bible. How do we reconcile this quandary? The only possible way that doesn't diminish God, is to put the blame for the confusion on the authors of the Bible. It's that or believe God intentionally authored confusion. Do you see the problem now?
@@penguinman9837 It is not moving the goalposts IMO. You are making an assumption that it is not somehow 'crystal clear'. We are not in a perfect body so our body and mind are corrupt. IMO , when we are in our perfect bodies, everything in the Bible will be crystal clear. Did Paul know everything in Scripture perfectly? Maybe maybe not. But I would argue his knowledge of the truth the way God intended is more than almost everyone else since.
There are people that get complex math and physics problems wrong and have differing ways to get at a solution. Whatever a human comes up with, does that actually alter the ultimate truth in that math or physics problem?
You are making a claim that there is no way God could have wrote the Bible this way, what is the basis for your claim? IT is not He nor the authors that are making a confusion, it is sinful man. You are focusing your argument on God's view and your mind is clearly not on par with the mind of God.
@penguinman9837 I believe that you blaming sinful man who has trouble divorcing themselves from their cultural context and personal sin from the regenerative inspired scripture that heals the hearts of God's people. This argument really hinges on the idea that various demoniations are inherently a bad thing. And in addition to this many of these denominations differ in secondary issues. For example many of the protestant faiths believe that Jesus is the son of God and the only way to salvation through faith in him to sanctify us and for his death to atone for our wrongdoing. This is a core belief. But you can have different groups belive that baptism is more or less important. That doesn't mean that person is risking salvation over the disagreement. In addition to this one just has to look at the corruption of the catholic church through the middle ages to find an example of why it's not necessarily good to have one central authority over an entire religion. By having different denominations thecchurch is protected from false teachers. It's our job to go arm in arm with our brothers who we have minor secondary issue disagreement with while calling out false teaching and apostasy.
@booglywoogly566 A lot of what you're saying is very much true. There are varying degrees of truth in every different faith. God clearly allows this because each person is at a different level of readiness to accept certain levels of truth. That said, it is inescapable to conclude that exactly one church is right or none of them are. By right I mean accepted by God as His and has His true authority. The pathway of discipleship may lead us through many different faiths. But it is all in effort to find that one that is true. May your journey not stop until you have found it.
I'm a few minutes into this video, and there is a discussion of the infallibility of Scripture and the impact of the scripture-writers translation to paper and of a reader's interpretation of those written words. Debate teacher quotes 2 Timothy 3:16 and asserts that it is explicit that the scripture is infallible. I looked up 2 Timothy 3:16 in Bible Gateway, and there are dozens of different translations of that verse that are similar but with slightly different wording (e.g., "inspired by God," "God-breathed," "given by inspiration of God," "God-given and are made alive by Him," "comes from the Spirit of God," etc. that could reasonably lead to different semantic interpretations. I suppose that the version of Bible translation that one accepts as God's message could/would have an enormous impact on how it is understood.
I think it's naive to argue that the bible is 100% infallible and that the bible is as clear as it conceivably could be. I think it then means that either god is not an omnipotent communicator or that we as humans can make mistakes, negating the argument about why the holy spirit isnt always understood/interpreted the same way
Can you please acknowledge PETER ALSO TALKED ABOUT BURNING in the Bosom ? . Peter asked his fellow apostles and disciples , “did not our hearts burn within us?”
You are speaking against the doctrine of the New Testament when you disbelieve people can feel a burning in the bosom .
This was fun to listen to. Great job WD!
The Christian on our right sounds exactly like a member of Door of Hope That used to read at the beginning of their Bible studies. If you haven’t checked out Door of Hope Bible studies with Tim Mackie and Josh White, I highly highly highly recommend giving them a listen
The Mormons/LDS answered the question of how people’s fallibility doesn’t diminish Gods power was rather genius and elegantly stated. I expected an abysmal answer and was very surprised with their genius answer. I’d suggest listening to it again and really thinking about their answer if you disagree (I’m a Christian btw, I just thought that one answer was really good)
My problem with that is that they said that God can communicate whatever point he wants to communicate through the text clearly therefore because men wrote it and we men are very infallible then the word might be distorted and then the readers also might distort the word...but that is entirely false because that means that the bible is sometimes unreliable because you might read something and understand it but it's not how God meant it to be read because the person who wrote it maybe misunderstood God....u see now it opens a door to some messy stuff therefore the infallibility of men starts on the interpretation not the writing of the scriptures themselves
I thought that answer was horrendous. If our inability to accurately understand God’s word is called into question even when it comes to the authors of the 66 books, then it would be reasonable to say that any message you “hear” or read from God is misunderstood and you therefore have no solid ground to believe anything God says and you have no authority to say that your belief in what God “spoke” to you is true. The bedrock of the church of Latter Day Saints is following God’s divine revelation even if it bucks up against the closed canon. But how can we know in our hearts that anything God says is true when our nature of understanding is subject to fallibility? They say we use our heart and our empirical senses and our reasoning and logic but the Bible says in Jeremiah, the heart is deceitful above all things and by the Mormon’s own admission out reasoning, senses and ability to understand the world empirically is fallible, and therefore cannot be used as an accurate measure for verification.
Our fallibility can’t interfere with God’s infallibility without diminishing His power. When God commanded the ocean to be full of life, does that commandment rely on the ocean’s imperfect nature in order to function? When God Commanded the Israelites to destroy Jericho, had the Israelites not done so, who would be to blame for not carrying out God’s commandment?
By imposing our imperfect understand on God’s perfection, we diminish his capability. The Mormons want to have it both ways so they can refute the Bible as unreliable on the basis that it was written by fallible men. You can’t logically do that without diminishing God’s power and will. It’s either one or the other and the Christians here were right in pressing this issue for as long as they did.
@@napechuene5601I agree that it’s wrong, I just thought it was a very powerful answer that was ignored and or misunderstood by the Christian debaters. I’m not a morman, I just don’t think they are insane like most people seem to think. But when you paint them as insane you can’t hear when they do use truth (though it may or may not be rare)
@@TimeGallonagain, I do not agree with them but I thought it was a very good answer
@@wapper7777 have you watched the entire debate? The Christian’s weren’t ignoring or misunderstanding the answer, they were pressing the Mormons to confront the flaw in their logic. God would either have to be dishonest in his conveyance of the Word or the Word is simply infallible, there isn’t an in between. The Mormons are claiming that our flawed agency interferes with the the truth of the word. Even though our ability to interpret the Word in fallible, you can’t affirm the fallibility of our understanding of God’s word without denying God’s infallibility. I respectfully think their answer was logically bankrupt and not powerful at all. It was worded to trick people.
"Is there anywhere in the 66 books called the Bible that we're told to obey anything outside of them?"
Very clearly YES !
We are clearly commanded to obey the Spirit, as communicated via our own conscience, not a collection of writings.
"Whatever is not of faith is sin."
"He who knows the good he ought to do but does it not, for him it is sin."
I agree that we can obey the things outside the scripture and thefore the Bible is not the only authority....but a big "BUT" here....The scripture tells us which other things we should obey which is basically God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit which means to me atleast...when u obey the Scripture u are obeying God
What does the Bible teach about the Holy Spirit though? Nothing the Holy Spirit will do will 1) Go against what is already written in Scripture and 2) Add 'new revelation' from Scripture.
Catholic enters the chat...
How do you know you have the correct list of Scriptures?
How do you know you have correctly interpreted the essentials and non-essentials?
You mentioned that baptism is not essential. How do you determine definitively if this is essential or not.
:)
I enjoyed this. It would be interesting to hear this debate but between a Catholic and Protestants on many of the questions that came up.
It’s interesting because these Calvinists would say someone who performs no “good works”, including baptism, is evidence that no true saving faith is present.
Hey Hayden, in response to this video’s critique of your position, I wanted to see if I could render the argument more clearly, what do you think of the following rendering:
The first principle here is that it is their position that while an objective truth does exist, it is fundamentally true and proven that there are no infallibly authoritative ways of deriving that objective truth, especially concerning praxis and establishing compulsive authority, simply because the interpretive structure (the human brain) that translates the stream of data and stimuli (reality) into something meaningful and actionable is itself inherently flawed, and also because you cannot derive a structure for interpreting the data from the data itself. (You cannot get outputs from inputs with only the inputs themselves without first pre-supplying a function-which exists independently from the inputs-that can take the inputs and transform them into outputs) the interpretive structure of human beings contain an element of free will that is factored into the translation process, and that free will can arbitrarily shift the interpretation of any input into any output it desires.
For example, someone can stub their toe and interpret it in any number of ways: “this is a sign from god that I need to get new shoes,” “I need to start traveling by car rather than foot” “I should put a band-aid on that” “this is yet another proof the universe hates me” “this is merely a trial to overcome,” etc etc. two people can receive the same message and get wildly different things out of it.
God can give any message, any input, but he cannot guarantee that it will be received correctly and return the desired output because if the result of one’s free will can be determined (not merely predicted) then it isn’t free. He could force someone to understand, acknowledge, and react to the message as intended by suppressing their free will, but then he is coercing them. The only way for someone to receive such a message would be for them to subvert their own will, say “not my will but thine be done” and allow the Holy Spirit to align their will with God’s so that the interpretive function of their brain correctly translates the revelation. When one receives such witness of the spirit, they know infallibly that it is true, it is fundamentally ineffably apparent to them. (Though that witness would be exclusive and non-communicable)
Now there do exist some axiomatic statements of self-evident truth that we can infallibly know are true, such as “I think therefore I am” or “2+2=4.” One of the criteria that would justify us for holding something to be self evident is whether it is ineffably apparent to us, meaning that it cannot be derived or explained (though it can be described) from some more foundational axiom, nor can it be conveyed to someone whom does not find it apparent. For example, I can say “that apple appears red to me.” I could not arrive at that statement by any course other than the experience of the fact itself: the apple appears red because the apple appears red. And if a blind person asked me what “red” is, I could not convey that concept to them without actually showing them what red is, it is ineffable.
Now while we can infallibly know these things are true, it is not hard to imagine someone who is so stupid, deranged, or willfully blind that they won’t accept or confess that truth and will instead claim that 2+2=5. In this way, we can simultaneously infallibly know something to be true, while remaining a fallible and unreliable source of truth. This is also how one can receive a witness of the Holy Spirit and know fundamentally that the church is true, and then leave the church.
Now imagine a math textbook that teaches the infallible axiomatic truths of mathematics. In our right minds, we can recognize the universal truths of this book. However, because that book can only be perceived and acted upon by fallible individuals in practice, it is practically fallible. Because the book was written by fallible people, it is possible for their to be typos in the math textbook even if the content is axiomatically true. A math professor may know mathmatics inside and out, but even he can make errors. Now this does not mean that students sitting in math class are in a constant state of doubt wondering whether the teacher got it right because it is technically possible for him to make a mistake and possible for us to not recognize a mistake, however we can be 99.9% certain, but that last 0.1% makes all the epistemological difference.
Furthermore, let’s say someone is saved and assured of their election. We can even say they know this infallibly and are an authority on God’s word. However, because they remain a fallible person and they cannot be externally determined to be an authority rather than someone who is lying or mistaken. They therefore cannot hold any authority over anyone else because they cannot justify their authority, as their knowledge is exclusive and non-communicable. And therefore their interpretation of the Bible holds no more force than anyone else’s interpretation.
Lutheran here.
A) We indeed believe that Baptism is essential, as it clothes us with Christ.
B) Considering there have always been disputed books, and Athanasius, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc used a different Canon than did, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil the Great, how does Rome explain this?
Thanks.
@@dave1370 Latter-Day Saints have modern day prophets and revelation that have the authority to endorse texts as canonical. Non-canonical books aren’t necessarily untrue though. Either they’ve just yet to be ruled on, or are unnecessary to add to the standard works, though they might still be helpful for individual study.
Our standard works are the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The Bible is also included in the standard works as God endorsed it as the word of God, in so far as it was translated correctly (this was in the 19th century when the King James was prevalent, with the Dead Sea scrolls and modern research now showing us some of the errors in that translation, that qualifier makes more sense). In Section 91 of the Doctrine and Covenants, God says The Apocrypha contains many truths and is mostly translated correctly, but there are also many untrue interpolations from men. As such, it was not needful to add it to the canon.
That’s about all there is to say about our approach to the canon.
@@dave1370 One way to explain it is without a magisterium that can definitely declare on issues it would be difficult to know which list is correct. When Protestants arose there was no longer any authority that could say this is what is correct. If it weren't for the Catholic magisterium I believe we would have lots of groups saying they have the right canon. Like lots of people say they have the correct version of faith and morals.
Totally biased review. Any outsider can see the LDS were more clear, prepared, and persuasive.
James white vs Tim Stratton please!!
If you want to see White just embarrass someone in cross, watch the debate against Peter Stravinskas
I know most people probably won't read this, but here goes. I think there is a certain misunderstanding about the LDS stance on the Bible. We believe the Bible, the original text as written by the prophets, was exactly as it is said in 2nd Timothy. However, when you consider the many many translations, the hundreds of different scribes, we believe that many of the truths were lost along the way. We believe that God, in his love and power, was able to preserve a great amount of that original text, but we as humans and as fallible creatures have changed things along the way. That is why our article of faith says, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as long as it has been translated correctly." There is proof of this translation deterioration when you read the original Hebrew vs the American translation. When you see the hundreds upon hundreds of different versions of the Bible. There is only ONE bible, so why are there so many different versions? Because men, in THEIR wisdom believe in translating it how they see fit and so it becomes fallible. The Bible is the word of God, but how many words survived the translations, the scribe errors, and how many parts were lost when persecutors attacked the church and destroyed parts? We believe in the infallibility of God, but Thousands of years and millions of Human interference later, we believe that human fallibility has snuck in. What's more, we don't have the original texts, we don't have the original authors here to tell us what was meant when they wrote certain things, and we don't have a perfect knowledge of the culture, history, and speech of that time in history. We have a good idea, we have parts and pieces of old versions of the Bible, but even some of those are disputed and argued over. Some of those manuscripts outright contradict each other, have timelines different to one another, or have differences in their translations. What we call the Bible today is our best guess at what the original bible said. Not only that, but what we call the Bible is only a compilation of the different books. The "Bible" is a human creation, a human compilation of God given Scriptures. I'm not saying that the Bible doesn't have the words of God in it, but we in the LDS faith believe in modern day revelation to help us understand what the scriptures mean and to find what has been lost. Also consider that this uncertainty in the full truth of the Bible may be within God's plan. If there is a certain fallibility in the translation or a certain uncertainty about the fullness of the Bible then you have to rely on faith and faith is the building blocks of your relationship with God. In the end, I think we are all Christians and we all hold a great love for God and what Christ did for us. We all muddle through this world the best we can, holding onto a faith that is dying out. In truth, my opinion is that we should hold onto each other and support one another in this tumultuous time. The world is crazy folks, and as we gear up to the second coming, it's only gonna get crazier! God is Love, God is Charity, God is life, and any man who exemplifies these things, I can only assume is of God. Let us all be brothers and sisters.If you've read this far, thanks. And if you would like to have a friendly discussion, I'm open to it. Just remember that contention is of the devil and we shouldn't be arguing but rather having a kind and loving debate!
I just watched a great video today by a pastor named Mikr Winger, here on RUclips, that you should check out. It's his playlist about how the Bible has been put together. I think part 16 is the one I'm referring to. It talks all about how the Bible has been translated. Your assessment of its inaccuracy because of the many different translations is actually the opposite... the very fact that we have so many copies, with some variants, is part of how we can know what was in the original text.
Consider this analogy:
Let's say I write a speech and then I ask one person to copy it. Then I destroy the original speech. If someone were to read the copied speech, how would they know if it was copied accurately?
Now consider if I had had 10 people copy it, instead of 1 person. If you read all 10 of those copies, some of the variants would help you to know what might have been in the original speech. For example, if 9 of the copies have a line in it that one doesn't, we can reasonably assume that the fact that that one person missed that line was probably an error. We know that because of the other 9.
So the vast amount of copies we have, along with their variants, is actually a good thing for us. And people vastly over exaggerate how many variants there are and how significant they are. Pastor Mike Winger discusses all of that in his videos as well. He goes over a bunch of the different things that people have pointed out are variants among different copies or translations, and they are all pretty insignificant. None of the really important core theological points of the Christian faith are shaken by any of those variants. God has preserved his Word. The Bible can be trusted, not just because we blindly have faith, but because of the evidence historically.
@@CassTeaElle We say the same about the Book of Mormon. It is another testament of Jesus Christ and two testimonies are better than 1 :) And I appreciate what you're saying, but I would reconsider using Mike Winger as an accurate source, especially where the LDS church is concerned. He has no idea what he's talking about. I think his most ridiculous video was the one that said that the "Pirate Bible," which is literally a Bible that has been translated into Pirate speech, was a trojan horse into mormonism.... I don't know about you, but I think that kinda shows him to be an anti-mormon nut, more than a reliable fountain of information.
You missed the point of the other comment entirely. The Book of Mormon itself HAS NO original such reference for us to assess. The Book of Mormon, Golden Plates of Moroni, etc... were taken back into Divine custody and we cannot look upon them to test the repeatability and reliability of the translations.
Furthermore, other Mormon Scripture, such as the Book of Abraham, DID have physical manifestations that we can reference because of the many copies and facsimiles that exist of it, and the advances in Egyptian translation show us precisely that the Book of Abraham IS mistranslated. I would argue that Joseph Smith's work is a DIStranslation of the scrolls he obtained.
Being a non-reformed christian I have to say I was cheering for the Mormons at the end
Same. I mean, they're both wrong, but I honestly felt like the Mormons made some better points.
Hatred for Calvinism on full display, lol. You actually root for a cult in opposition to brothers, that’s crazy.
Guys… really? The Calvinists are brothers and the Mormons literally worship a false god…
@@JakeRuzi not everyone agrees that Calvinists are brothers. How wrong do you have to be about who God is in order for someone to say you worship a false god? Because the God of Calvinism is very different than the God of non-Calvinist protestantism. So... at what point is someone's doctrine too different to be considered the same religion?
@@CassTeaElle Lol, then they’re wrong. Everything we believe is based on the Bible, verses for each and every doctrine, most theological views can’t even say that at all.
Nate, in the Bible at least two what we call extrabiblical books are quoted directly or mentioned. The book of Jasher is referenced in Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18, and 2 Timothy 3:8. The other is the book of Enoch (1 Enoch ONLY) in Genesis 5:18-24, 1 Chronicles 1:3, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5-6, Jude 1:14-15. It has also been alleged that the 1 Peter (1 Peter 3:19-20) and 2 Peter (2 Peter 2:4-5) make reference to some Enochian material.
Jude was the half-brother of Jesus, and Jude quoted 1 Enoch, so this tells me that the Jesus household likely had the scribes of Enoch (which Noah would have definitely brought along in the ark).
I appreciate what the LDS guys did, from a strategy perspective.
They knew that they did not perform so well that many in the audience would leave questioning their prior beliefs, so they drifted the topic into what most (myself included) perceive to be the least palatable parts of their opponents’ particular flavor of Christian theology.
A lot of Calvinists and non Calvinists are ignorant of the reformed implication that God purposely sends people, including miscarriages and babies, to hell, so the debate ends with the Calvinists looking bad, and the LDS guys seeming reasonable.
Since public debate is a poor (not worthless, but not good, and miles from idea) form for evaluating truth anyway, they played the meta-game for which debate actually exists: rhetorical superiority.
I doubt anyone bought a Book of Mormon after this, but probably a few folks started doubting their John Piper books.
I'm a non-Calvinist, and I have to admit I had no idea they were teaching people that babies and miscarriages are sent to hell. THAT is blasphemy!
Book of Mormons are given away for free, but that probably lowers the demand since evangelicals are accustomed to paying.
@@HaleStorm49 plenty of Bibles are given away freely. While I was deployed I received two Bibles on separate occasions. Plus the Gideons are always giving Bibles away, worldwide, for free. Evangelicals pay for specialty Bibles, such as the Amplified, the Spirit-filled Life, etc. Those are fancy Bibles, with footnotes, tailored for specific teachings, maps of various areas, Interlinear (shows original Hebrew and Greek next to the English translations), transliterations, and other types.
@@Pecos1 I'm aware. Mostly referring to how many Christian _influencers_ are Hocking products, study guides, merchandise etc.
@HaleStorm49 ahh, ok. I don't watch "Christian influencers". I didn't realize there was such a thing, to be frank.
The false claims of calvinism are such a hindrance to Christianity and this debate is proof .
Agreed
57:00 "Salvation is for those that endure till the end." You can have FAITH and HOPE in God's mercy and forgiveness, but we don't KNOW because we aren't the judge, God is
Thank you for directing viewers to the problem of the criterion, it deserves more attention
Oh man that age old question about the baby and the boiling water. Is it always wrong to pour boiling water on a frozen baby?
2 Timothy 3:16 ISN'T "scripture." It's a private letter from one disciple to another. None of the new testament is included in what it refers to as "scripture." That term & this verse refer strictly to the Jewish texts. Paul was NOT calling his own letters "scripture" & "God-breathed." The few times he does claim to be speaking God's word, he clearly makes the distinction.
And yes, the gospels clearly record Jesus as saying that the Spirit is the one who reveals what is true. If we were supposed to be dependent on a bunch of writings, why didn't Jesus write anything himself?
It was kinda fun seeing James White smiling away after a few of the Mormon answers..
we all watch the debate on how this 2 Mormon schooled the other 2 of their own history.
The Calvinists lost me when they said that they would not be bothered if a 5 year old goes to Hell because they would not be part of the elect. I really don’t understand how anyone can be Calvinist.
Well 5 year olds are sinners so…
@@casualminecrafter2174 yeah how dare they take another kid’s toy!
@TheDisciple21 yes, that would be an example. Glad we’re on the same page about the whole “all have sinned” thing, not to mention our inherited sin and curse from our father Adam. Seriously though…do 5 year olds need Jesus or not? If they don’t go to hell without Jesus, then why do they need his grace?
@@casualminecrafter2174 I think you're truly asking the wrong question. I do agree that one needs Jesus to be in heaven. However, I was five once, and I did not think about Jesus. I thought about dinner, toys, food, friends, and that is it.
Jesus welcomes kids into his arms and blessed them in the gospels. He did not turn one kid away and say "Sorry, my Father in Heaven never knew you." He welcomed all children that were there. So I believe there is an age of comprehension of Jesus and who He was and what He has done for all.
@@TheDisciple21 whether someone needs Jesus or not is probably the most important question to answer. That being said, you're right, 5 year olds are not mature, and their focus is not on Jesus the way it is for a mature believer. That does not excuse them from their sin and their need for the grace of God. Forget 5 year olds, my 2 year old can be diabolical at times in her 2 year old way.
You're also right that Jesus welcomed all children and did not turn any away, but again, those children needed him. The question of whether they were members of the elect isn't clear first of all, but besides that, many Calvinists, myself included, believe that God does show grace to most, if not all children who die in childhood, but that grace is shown by God, out of his own free will. and because of his love for them, not because they are innocent and aren't in need of grace. I just have a problem with inserting ideas about children's innocence or lack of comprehension, because those ideas simply aren't in scripture.
Love your content you open my eyes so much Think you may Our lord bless you .
Some of the Mormon audience may have thought calvinism represents the beliefs of all Christians and with that in mind, the LDS team may have placed their focus pointing out the inconsistencies of predestination to argue - look at the absurdity of Christianity
Help me understand this point. Per the Christian debaters and Nate at around minute 7:23 they both appear to be arguing that Gods infallibility supersedes man’s infallibility.
therefore all Christian’s have the same beliefs, I.e Calvinista, Baptists, Methodists, all believe the exact same thing and have the exact same understanding of scripture… right?
See- in the debate structure, the Calvanist were doing a better job of staying the line.
The Mormons really did tackle well theologically. They actually used 2 sources of Catholic tactics of the "you stole note", as well as a few takes from Trent Horn from what I heard in refitting argumentation for the Calvin's.
Theologically, they were much more sound than the calvanist, from what I took from this.
They challenge the Christians on the veracity of the Bible but their entire religion is literallly based on emotional feelings that can't be substantiated.😂
Like what?
They are trying to bring Christianity down to their level to make their position not look as weird
@@ethankeating1644 up to their level. You can't go down from evangelicalism to find LDS doctrine or standards. Can.not.
Right?😂 I love how he said “you can’t trust the Bible bc you can’t trust man to understand what God says 100%” and that literally is what Joseph smith did, or how convenient he was the ONLY one who saw the plates and happened to understand them and write them down perfectly as recorded
@@jtbayliss1005 you don't understand what he is saying. When he says "men" he means men who are not prophets or seers. Men who have not received specific instructions to do the things they are doing but are acting on their own, and probably with the best of intentions.
Smith showed the plates to around a dozen people who wrote affidavits that they had both seen and handled them. Three of the witnesses said they also spoke with the heavenly messenger that delivered the plates.
Investigation _should_ come before contempt.
The Christian’s are like “ur saying God can’t speak clearly.. and then LDS is like no he can we just can’t understand it properly, then Christian’s are like “then God can’t deliver properly” bruh Jesus gives a parable and literally says “not all can see or understand my words yet” God reveals line upon line
I had no relationship with God until the day I heard his voice! Our God is awesome!
Amen! Praise God for calling you home!❤🙏
There isn't a single passage in any of the books of the Bible where you can find the claim that everything written in them is "the word of God." They only claim to contain the words of God, not be them. The authors always make a clear distinction whenever presenting the word of God, that distinction wouldn't exist if it was all God's word.
(39:29) The extended LDS answer would go something like this. Anything which is true or from God will have multiple witnesses. One of those witnesses is that of the spirit to our hearts. A second witness would be revelation through scripture or prophets. Another witness would be rational understanding through our own experience or study. There could be any number of witnesses or evidence for anything which is true. Just like in order for scientists to prove a Law requires multiple verifiable and repeatable experiments to witness that is true.
Right, each successive witness increasing confidence, but never reaching infallibility. Even our most well tested scientific theories are not infallible, we constantly hold them to the standard of falsification and have falsified many previous theories that way.
Well said
The comparison to scripture is why LDS teachings are false.
Calling LDS, LDS, but the Calvinists, Christians, is the main issue here.
Both are antithetical to scripture.
I’ve debated many LDS. I tell you they have more “fruits” than most Calvinist.
It's not "fruit" if there's no faith in the true Christ.
TBH, I can't agree with your analysis. As Sam Shamoun points out, the Mormons steel-manned the Presup/Sola Scriptura position in their presentation, showing how it seriously lacks any depth. The Christians just double-downed in the cross examination.
My Christian brothers, when someone asks if you believe the Bible is true, answer more clearly.
“Yes, I believe the Bible is true because it is a collection of historical documents written by eyewitness, in the lifetime of other eyewitness. It records supernatural events in fulfillment of specific prophecies and the authors claim that these are God’s words, not man’s.”
(Voddie Baucham)
Hm. I’m certainly not LDS but I disagree with your decision on this one. I agree that the LDS guys went off topic at the end. Aside from that, they were very articulate and quick on their feet. You said that the Christians were asking great questions, however, if you had not paused the video and explained their questions, I would have missed their point. Which says to me that they are not great questions (or perhaps great questions asked poorly). On the other hand, you rarely paused the video to explain the LDS questions yet I understood most of their lines of reasoning. Also, both sides avoided answering the questions clearly but I think the Christians avoided it more and unnecessarily (“Do you interpret the Bible?” “Um, well, uhhhhhhh…”
If I included your comments then I would agree that the Christians won. Otherwise I’d give it to the LDS. Still, another great video. Looking forward to more in this series!
I mean, I got the Reformed points but they did have a bit more theological and intellectual depth. I don't think that's surprising because it comes from a place of thousands of years of philosophy and scholarship, whereas Mormonism comes from a less than two centuries old tradition where the primary focus has been suppression of information for the sake of promoting faith.
Nate is biased. Calvinism got roasted.
@@rocio8851 do you realize the problem with that?
The debate was supposed to be about Sola Scriptura. Possibly the easiest Sola to defend. So instead the slimy LDS team decided to go on emotional rants about "if god powerful, why happen bad thing??".
Despite the LDS intentionally switching to a new, emotionally fraught topic, the Calvinists held up really well.
@@FalconOfStorms
You missed the point. Do you believe Calvinists can be wrong in their interpretation of scripture?
@@FalconOfStorms Of course, LDS guys committed a few logical fallacies. They were wrong. On the other hand, Calvinists held to an irrational system, Calvinism as a whole. The debate was over right at the beginning: "God determines our false beliefs."
Wise Disciple, l love your comments and insights. Thanks.
After watching this entire debate, the LDS theology makes much more sense to me. Interesting
I’m a Latter-day Saint theology student if you want to talk about it.
Some of their theology is a bit out there, but they definitely have the more biblical view on this topic & dominated this debate (although they kinda threw that last line of questions I thought).
It makes much more sense...and has better explanations than rival faiths.
@@JJ-yc2sv They have the more biblical view when they rarely used actual Scripture to deliver their answers? They value feelings, emotions and personal revelations and intertwines how they view Scripture.
@@HaleStorm49 In what way does LDS have a better explanation?
I am not a Mormon but I understood where they were coming from... The Author of the Bible is God (YHWH) who is Divine (Spirit) in Nature, Immortal, Perfect, Omnipotent (all-powerful/almighty), and Infallible (error-free)... We have only One BIBLE (Word of God) given to Mankind to be written down, therefore, we should have ONE BIBLICAL TRUTH...
Question #1... How come we have more than THOUSANDS of Biblical TRUTH around the World? ...
Question #2... Did the Bible say, "Only the WISE will understand the Biblical TRUTH and not ALL?... (ref. Daniel 12)
Question #3... All Churches, Protestants and Evangelicals claimed they have the Biblical TRUTH for the Holy Spirit is with them... Do they claim correctly right?
In conclusion (in my humble opinion)... The Word of God (Holy Scriptures/Bible) is INFALLIBLE (error-free) for God in OMNIPOTENT (facts and truth)... but the RECIPIENT of the Bible which is Mankind who was still in the state of FALLIBILITY (imperfectness/flesh weakness) due to their FALL (Sin against God)... One reason why Christ Jesus needs to come back again is to UNITE His Spiritual Church/Temple into One Biblical TRUTH only...
From the start, God sends HIS messengers such as the Angels, Prophets, His Only Begotten Son (Christ Jesus), and finally, the HOLY SPIRIT to Rightfully and Correctly INTERPRET the Word of God (Scripture/Bible) for us (Humans)... but many Living SOULS have CLOSE "Hearts and Mind" that they tried to listen and listen but their EARS are CLOSE to HEAR (understand and comprehend) the Biblical TRUTH that instead, they RELY on their own intelligence of interpretation that caused more divisions among the Body of Christ (Temple/Church) instead of UNITY... They all claimed they are guided by the Holy Spirit but in reality, they are NOT... (only God knows)
The reasons why there are so many Christian Churches and Protestant/Evangelical denominations around the world who disagree with each other's Biblical Interpretations... Many Believers (Christians), even used the Name of God (Lord, Lord) to Prophesy, Perform Miracles/Signs/Wonders to heal the sick, the blind can see, the mute can talk, the cripple can walk, etc., and Drive out Evil Spirits (demons), but Christ Jesus said, "I never knew you, away from me you, EVILDOERS." (ref. Matthew 7)
The fact is that God had strictly commanded us (Christians) to TEST each/every SPIRIT whether they are from God or not because of the INFALLIBILITY of Mankind to interpret the the Biblical TRUTH without COMPROMISE, for many False Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, and Preachers had already come out... (ref. 1 John 4).
On the Last Days/End times, God will pour out His Spirit (Holy Spirit) for ALL FLESH (no exceptions) to be able to PROPHESY and know the BIBLICAL TRUTH... (ref. Acts 2).
All Glory, Praise, and Thanksgiving belong only to God through Christ Jesus' Name... Amen and Amen...
A question about 46:00. I know the Bible warns about false teachers, but how do we know which books were part of the original cannon. I honestly collect books outside of the cannon because I’m confused myself on this. I’m not catholic, but I keep a catholic Bible. I also have things such as the book of Enoch.
The answer you’d often get is that a consistent precedent has emerged across history. So basically, people have generally (though arbitrarily) agreed on what the canon is for a long time.
As a Latter-Day Saint, I find this unsatisfactory, and would like to have a prophetic authority on record declaring what is canonical. Which is what we have with the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
By the way, have you read the Book of Moses? It’s the Latter-Day Saints’ version of the book of Enoch, I would recommend adding it to your collection, it can be found in the Pearl of Great Price. Of course, I would also recommend all Latter-Day Saint scriptures, primarily the Book of Mormon.
@@KnuttyEntertainment It is not just consistent precedent, that is just one of the things as back then there were a lot of fake prophets and writings out there but for the nation of Israel, it was easy for them to know what was true and what is not due to the Scripture telling them and us what is canon. The Word of God of the Old Testament is given to us by the Prophets of God. The Bible is clear in the old testament how to determine who is a real prophet and who is not. That eliminates probably 99.9% of people that claimed to be Prophets and thus, any books that were written. Not all true God appointed Prophets wrote books. And that is by design. God spoke through the Prophets He wanted to.
The last Prophet of the Old Testament is Malachi. There is none revealed until John the Baptist. That is the reason why no Old Testaments books are written and nothing new in the BIble until the birth of Christ. In the New Testament, those books were written by people that knew Jesus directly, experienced Him, lived and learned from Him. John closes the end of Revelation Chapter 22 with a warning on adding to the Word of God
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and [i]from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Now if you find this reasoning inadequate, you have to provide a book from the Old Testament you feel fit this and then provide support for it. I am more than happy to discuss.
As for the book of Moses, The Doctrine of Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Who wrote these things? I assume it was Josepth Smith? Josepth Smith was clearly not a Prophet as defined in the Old Testament as he made MANY predicitions attributing them to God Almighty and it was wrong. The Bible clearly says that even if the Prophet is wrong once, he or she is a false prophet. Joseph Smith also does not fit the writers of the New Testament as he has no direct relationship with Jesus while Jesus was on Earth. So who gives authority to Josepth Smith but himself?
Catholics put together the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ. Church history proves this.
@@KnuttyEntertainment I have not read that book! I will have to get it and add it to my collection. I don’t know much about later day saints so I would love to study the work eventually.
@@chandlerking6438 What’s interesting about the Book of Moses is that it was written before any of the books of Enoch were discovered, and yet there are still key similarities.
11:26 no. This is not a rejection of Tim. It's an understanding of the objective reality that God Himself did not physically write a single word in the Bible. Men did. Men inspired by God, sure. But still men.
I’m a Latter Day Saint, allow me to try to explain what they’re getting at. (I am not them, but here’s how I would render my argument going along the same lines.)
The first principle here is that it is their position that while an objective truth does exist, it is fundamentally true and proven that there are no infallibly authoritative ways of deriving that objective truth, especially concerning praxis and establishing compulsive authority, simply because the interpretive structure (the human brain) that translates the stream of data and stimuli (reality) into something meaningful and actionable is itself inherently flawed, and also because you cannot derive a structure for interpreting the data from the data itself. (You cannot get outputs from inputs with only the inputs themselves without first pre-supplying a function-which exists independently from the inputs-that can take the inputs and transform them into outputs) the interpretive structure of human beings contain an element of free will that is factored into the translation process, and that free will can arbitrarily shift the interpretation of any input into any output it desires.
For example, someone can stub their toe and interpret it in any number of ways: “this is a sign from god that I need to get new shoes,” “I need to start traveling by car rather than foot” “I should put a band-aid on that” “this is yet another proof the universe hates me” “this is merely a trial to overcome,” etc etc. two people can receive the same message and get wildly different things out of it.
God can give any message, any input, but he cannot guarantee that it will be received correctly and return the desired output because if the result of one’s free will can be determined (not merely predicted) then it isn’t free. He could force someone to understand, acknowledge, and react to the message as intended by suppressing their free will, but then he is coercing them. The only way for someone to receive such a message would be for them to subvert their own will, say “not my will but thine be done” and allow the Holy Spirit to align their will with God’s so that the interpretive function of their brain correctly translates the revelation. When one receives such witness of the spirit, they know infallibly that it is true, it is fundamentally ineffably apparent to them. (Though that witness would be exclusive and non-communicable)
Now there do exist some axiomatic statements of self-evident truth that we can infallibly know are true, such as “I think therefore I am” or “2+2=4.” One of the criteria that would justify us for holding something to be self evident is whether it is ineffably apparent to us, meaning that it cannot be derived or explained (though it can be described) from some more foundational axiom, nor can it be conveyed to someone whom does not find it apparent. For example, I can say “that apple appears red to me.” I could not arrive at that statement by any course other than the experience of the fact itself: the apple appears red because the apple appears red. And if a blind person asked me what “red” is, I could not convey that concept to them without actually showing them what red is, it is ineffable.
Now while we can infallibly know these things are true, it is not hard to imagine someone who is so stupid, deranged, or willfully blind that they won’t accept or confess that truth and will instead claim that 2+2=5. In this way, we can simultaneously infallibly know something to be true, while remaining a fallible and unreliable source of truth. This is also how one can receive a witness of the Holy Spirit and know fundamentally that the church is true, and then leave the church.
Now imagine a math textbook that teaches the infallible axiomatic truths of mathematics. In our right minds, we can recognize the universal truths of this book. However, because that book can only be perceived and acted upon by fallible individuals in practice, it is practically fallible. Because the book was written by fallible people, it is possible for their to be typos in the math textbook even if the content is axiomatically true. A math professor may know mathmatics inside and out, but even he can make errors. Now this does not mean that students sitting in math class are in a constant state of doubt wondering whether the teacher got it right because it is technically possible for him to make a mistake and possible for us to not recognize a mistake, however we can be 99.9% certain, but that last 0.1% makes all the epistemological difference.
Furthermore, let’s say someone is saved and assured of their election. We can even say they know this infallibly and are an authority on God’s word. However, because they remain a fallible person and they cannot be externally determined to be an authority rather than someone who is lying or mistaken. They therefore cannot hold any authority over anyone else because they cannot justify their authority, as their knowledge is exclusive and non-communicable. And therefore their interpretation of the Bible holds no more force than anyone else’s interpretation.
Did you quote this from a lecture? I am not sure what you are really saying here. IF the source of something is infallible, even a fallible person wrote the words of an infallible person down, you believe the written word is automatically fallible? Your math example is a bad example as you are reverting back to people and not an infallible God, an infallible Source. In infallible God can indeed direct even fallible people to write things exactly the way He wanted, why? He is Infallible! There is literally no reason to think an infallible God can not direct a fallible person to produce and infallible product. The Bible is written by people but because it is directed by God the Word of God is infallible. The Bible clearly teaches this, so did JEsus.
As for your last paragraph. In a way that is true. No one is beholden to other humans on the truth of God. Their is no authority from that standpoint like there is in LDS or Cathollic Church. It is called a Walk with God and we are on that path individually as we are called to have a directly Relationship with God, with Jesus. When we try to understand the BIble, the only way for us to truly 'interpret' it is with the Bible itself. That is the only clear way for us to get at the 'truth'. You are talking about truth from a human's point of view. There are many variations. Using Scripture to prove Scripture is the only fail proof way. And even in that way, we might not get every answer. But just because every answer we want under the sun is not there, does not mean the Bible is infallible.
Why are Mormons obsessed with authority?
@@danreich4320 “Why are Mormons obsessed with authority?”
Because without a proper authority in place, anyone can feel justified going out and doing whatever they want according to their own model of morality.
It is the difference between being a church and playing church, the way children play house. Without authority, we cannot work in the name of Jesus and build up his kingdom. We would just be a Jesus fan club, not his agents on earth. It is the difference between working as a college professor and giving out degrees, and making video commentaries on RUclips.
If you are baptized by one who is not authorized to baptize, you have been baptized incorrectly. Your membership certificate in God’s church is a counterfeit. If you die, that certificate won’t keep you out of torments. It won’t grant you access to paradise.
Love your videos! This is a great review...
I found this debate very poor on the Christian side. It struck me as two guys who don't fully understand pressup too far past the talking points they've heard from their heroes. Refusing to answer simple questions, repeating every question they're asked like it's a dumb question to delay answering it, getting all excited and screaming "next question!" wthout allowing their opponent to answer... it made me cringe.
And, in fairness, I think the biggest offender is the hispanic guy, not the black dude.
I agree with you!
Why am I not hearing anyone say that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things?
I believe Scripture is inspired and true but the Christians response is very hollow.
The baby argument is so silly. Even if a mother kills her child in the womb, God knows whether that baby would've been a believer or not. Secondly, babies don't sin so they don't have to believe in the forgiveness of their sin for their sins to be forgiven.
You shouldn’t have called the other side “Christian”.
1. We Latter-Day Saints consider ourselves Christian.
2. As your own subscribers have pointed out, “the Mormons destroyed Calvinism, not Christianity.”
(Well duh, we aren’t trying to destroy Christianity, just false creeds not rooted in the Bible.)
lol just started watching and I'm already glad I clicked on this video. That expression from Dr White is sure to keep anybody watching
Great analysis!
Side note: I think you meant 2 Peter 1:21 at 17:25
As a rebuttal to the “perfectly clear” argument the LDS guys were trying to nail home, I would’ve responded by pointing out that academic reviews and studies that have come to complete consensus on a particular issue, such as the fact that gravity exists and is tied to matter/mass; well, those reviews and studies ARE perfectly clear, however if you’re not very knowledgeable on scientific principles and lingo, the odds of you properly understanding the issue on your own are pretty slim. Because now the onus is on YOU to study and research and boost your own contextual knowledge to then be able to properly understand the papers. Same thing with a more hands on skill, you can research all you want on how a skill is performed, but until you put the gloves on and start doing the work yourself, your practical understanding of the activity might as well be counted as zero.
This ties into your point on Bible Study Nate! Not everyone will fully or whatsoever grasp the historical and cultural context behind certain metaphors, stories, lessons, etc in the Bible.
Over all I disagree with your judgement and think that the supposed "Christians" were demolished.
By the Way the LDS are Christian, just not Protestant. So more properly the title should read LDS vs Protestant or Calvinist, not Christian.
Yes. Latter-day Saints are Christians.
I'm LDS and it's strange to see a title to a RUclips video say "Christians vs Mormons."
(I know Evangelicals and other Christians don't consider us Christian.)
I do like that he says, in the beginning of his video here, that we prefer to be called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not that Mormon is insulting or anything, but it does create space between our Christian cousins and us.
If I have learned anything about myself in the last day after discovering your channel, it is that I have a lot of studying and reflecting to do because I found myself angry at the Mormons. I grew up in Utah and have has them talk circles around me and throw me off my path before. 😮
Am I right or wrong in saying that "do you believe you interpret the bible?" is (1) an intentionally incomplete question; or (2) an intentionally deceptive question. And it is for this very word "believe" that there is something else being asked other than the obvious question of right interpretation. If the question was "how do you know you have interpreted it correctly?" there would be no problem.
The foundational question is not if they interpret the Bible correctly, it’s if they interpret it at all. Outside of the debate, our opponents have told us that they don’t interpret scripture but rather scripture interprets scripture.
@Hayden Carroll Right. Which is why there aren't 45,000 denominations. Crystal. Clear. 🥴👌
Man, I was really hoping that the Christians would satisfactorily answer the question regarding how you can know you're saved. They basically just ignored the point: If someone else makes the exact same claim you are making now, that they know certainly, according to the Bible, that they are saved, and yet they stray from the faith later in life, how can you have assurance you won't also stray away later on in life?
To an outside viewer, you both are identical in claim. So what is inside you that allows you to know for certain that you are saved?
Good on the mormans (and the Christians here) for being formal in this debate.
That's what praying is:
God communicating, in most cases, privily and individually with us.
I’m an exMormon now Roman Catholic, so I love when Christians debate!
I'm an ex-Catholic and there are things you need to know. ruclips.net/video/utIAnY5I8CU/видео.html
Glad to hear to became a Catholic!!
I’m an Ex Mormon now Christian. Glad that you’re a Christian now
Huh? Out of the frying pan and into the fire???
I appreciate that the Christians had a Starbucks on their table, let me see who was who in the thumbnail 🤣
Another debate that shows being a Calvinist is not wise.
A fundamental tip for debate teachers: fight your biases. Don't be like Nate.
P.S. I'm not a Mormon.
It was kind of interesting to me that Nate would approach this as a “debate teacher” and then do nothing to hide his bias. It might have been more effective for him to say “Calvinist debate teacher”
@@thekolobsociety Exactly! 👍
LDS spanked them handedly. Their rhetorical weakness is a result of their flawed theology. That's why they're stumbling over their arguments. Sola scripture is circular reasoning which means it's self-refuting.
Sounded to me like the "christians" ended up sounding ridiculous and contradictory so I would say the LDS won.
So are we to believe the donkey was infallible in numbers 22??😂😂
Choosing to protect your own isn't bondage as the Mormon states. If that were the case, I'd be putting my kids in bondage by choosing to care for them.
Also, St. Peter says that Baptism saves you. This is because it clothes you with Christ and HIS righteousness.
No
UGH this is the problem with calvinism. Even Mormons can see the logical fallacies.
Calvinism has issues for sure IMO, but what part of the LDS argument you felt was not wrong in calvinism from a Scripture standpoint?
@@danielkim672 I’m not sure I understand your question. I feel like the free will part of the Mormonism argument is not wrong though. Doctrinally they aren’t Christian’s so I disagree with them on doctrine.
@@ChristinaBiasca but if you take the Mormonism theology in terms of free will, you feel that is supported by Christian doctrine? Am I having the right view on your assumption? The LDS in this panel 'FEEL' like you feel but their Scripture support falls apart when directly asked about Election. They are only focused on Feelings. Not saying you are as well but you answered with 'i feel'. Where in Scripture do you know this to be true and how do you use Scripture to support absolute free Will when it comes to salvation when faced with election and being Choosen by God through the Old and New Testaments?
Yep
I’m guessing you’re also a Calvinist
No he isn't
I just don't see how anyone can say the Bible is infallible? Do you know every person who participated in the translation? Do you have all the original texts? Anyone who speaks a second language understands that some things simply do not translate well. The failure of the Calvinists is that they do not understand that the greatest gift God gave us was agency. This in turn led to the need for Christ to atone for that which we could not. The Bible is not clear (especially not in all things). If it were we wouldn't have thousands of Christian denominations. Watch the whole debate. Tbh the LDS cleaned the Calvinists clocks. Even other Protestant commentators pointed this out.
I thought the LDS won because of all the circular reasoning they used to claim The Bible as the only word of God. If God's message is infallible, why are there more books that are not in The Bible? Why the need for so many prophets in The Bible? Writing down different interactions with different groups would naturally give more information and clarity. Also if we are all predetermined to go to Heaven or Hell what good is our free agency?
@ Andrew Krauth
A few issues with your response...
1. If God's message is infallible, why are there more books that are not in The Bible?
(Why not just have Genesis and be done with it? Your question doesn't validate or invalidate the books in the canonical Bible, but just, 'the number is wrong'. As though that number is wrong. Why not add commentary books about scripture in the canonical Bible? Why not add Dr. Seuss books into the canonical Scripture? Your question is too open ended, with no goal in mind. Simply to cast doubt.)
2. Why the need for so many prophets in The Bible?
(Same as the first question. This is too open ended. Why have even ONE prophet? Why not 1,000 prophets? If it isn't 'x' amount of prophets, than Scripture 'must be wrong', according to you, it seems. It's too open ended with no ability to validate or invalidate the prophets in the canonical Bible. You just have an issue with there being a 'number of prophets', regardless of the number.)
3. Also if we are all predetermined to go to Heaven or Hell what good is our free agency?
(Finally, a solid question with a specific end in mind. Your RELATIONSHIP with God's truth, is everything. To presume you know any one particular person is definitely hell bound or heaven bound comes down to, "You have not, because you ask not." (James 4:2) But even Jesus was denied the cup to be lifted from Him (the cross). "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matthew 26:39) It is FOOLISHNESS, other than God to know the exact outcome for who is hell bound and who is heaven bound. We are called to ACT and seek Him. Because unlikely people are saved, by those who ACT, preaching and sharing the gospel. We are COMMANDED to lean on Christ, not our own understanding. Seek HIS ways, not our own. Which means He is in control of EVERYTHING, that is WHY we ask Him to change the circumstances. But in His perfect plan we can not see, but foolishly judge Him for not revealing to us, unrighteous creatures, as though ANYTHING can be demanded from Him, except for what He first promised us.)
@@FabledNarrative my point was the Bible is not a closed cannon. There are more sources of Christ's teachings like The Gospel of Thomas or The Dead Sea Scrolls etc. The Book of Mormon gives more insight on what the Bible starts us off with. So the comparison between the Bible and The Book of Mormon is like someone arguing which Gospel is the right one, Mark, Luke, John? The standard should be the same between the two. The Gospel according to Mormon, same concept.
Hello! Fairly young in my faith here so I have a question about the babies topic.
The Christian said that he doesn’t believe all babies that die are to go to heaven but I thought it said something like “all babies DO go to heaven because they aren’t touched by sin due to their innocence” someone shoot me their thoughts!
Great video!
Yes im confused by this ,i have always believed in the age of understanding that the bible speaks of ...meaning all babies go to heaven beacause they have no understanding of God.
Since you are young in your faith, it is very important to know that this video should really be titled mormons vs calvinists, not mormons vs christians. Calvinism is (in my opinion and the opinion of many others) not at all Biblical Christianity.
There's a RUclips channel called "Great Light Studios" that has some information about why Calvinism is not Biblical Christianity. Leighton Flowers is also a good person to look up.
As a Christian who is not a Calvinist (or a Catholic, because they differ on this too) I believe in an age of accountability, and I do not believe that babies are just inherently guilty of sin because of some kind of "original sin" passed down from their parents or previous generations. Babies are innocent. People aren't guilty of sin just because they're human. They are guilty of sin when they sin, and babies have obviously not sinned yet.
Yes, you’re right it is a good video. I’ve listened to a lot of on line bBible teachers. Most do believe that the babies and children will go to heaven, including aborted babies. I wast he pastor Gary Hamricks Q&Zak from 12/31. He’s built a mega Calvary Church (Chuck Smith). That question was asked and answered. He did three services of Q&A so it was a long video. I enjoyed it. He’s also a very good Bible teacher along with Jack Hibbs, Skip Heitzig & Tom Hughes. They all believe Babis and children who are not at the age of accountability.
Bahaha!! You lost a ton of credibility with this one. The LDS destroyed their opponents in this debate. You’re attempt to rehabilitate their failures was both ineffective and showing that you’re tribalism overpowers your objectivity. Truth is important big guy
WOW...TBT
- it's been a yr and my first time watching! ! I an sure you won't reply after so long ..( Thoe as for me I only feel obligated to respond to others that comment..It only helps us Grow, because I am no better then my fellow Breatren!! THIS IS LONG BUT I'D LOVE TO SHARE AFTER ASKEDA SIMULAR QUESTION..( NOTE THIS IS CLOSE TO MIRACULOUS I AM ABLE TO EVEN SPEAK !! 📣. I WAS JUST ASKED THIS QUESTION -"What do I want from reading the Bible "? I didn't expect to get so emotional 😭.. "This was my response"- I want to have a better understanding of the Context of Scripture .I want to Really know God, So I can "Truly love him completely " with all my mind ,heart and Soul..I want his will for me,his heart !! I want to be able to do Apologetics with God's truth when speaking to the lost ! I want EVERYTHING and ALL that is absolutely the truth of God ! I want the words on my lips to Speak with truth and wisdom that only comes from God ..I want For the Lost and EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT IS SEEKING GOD - To know him and his Love ..I want all that is of my Lord and my Savior !! I want the World to know his love and perfect truth and righteousness ,with understanding of who our Father truly is ! To know that he is so so very real !! " To know that even when we have fallen in life, Jesus is always there pulling us back ..Never forsaking us, Until our eyes are completely open and we are fully ready to trust in him !!!! Realizing he has NEVER left our side .."There is no real meaning in life without him in it "!!!! He is the joy ,the love ,hope,peace,strength ,and Comfort that gives life meaning !!! In him we persevere!! I know what life is like when we become complacent and forget he is there ! When the light fades and darkness creeps in ! When that peace and joy becomes a mere memory! Becoming so lost in our own feelings and having confusion in our mind and heart !! Empty inside,lost ,numb and never satisfied! ! Having only temporary Peace,joy and what we call happiness !! It's like a never ending roller coaster only repeating the ups and downs ! A never ending cycle ! But it's a" FACADE" ,and it is temporary!! I Promise you it is only in JESUS(YESHUA-YHVH) we find true Joy and Peace that transcends, anything We can ever know and feel as what we believe happiness to be! - In Our own perception and understanding of our emotions and the knowledge that we obtain,- Can we ever within ourselves alone,Know The most purest true perfect meaning of Peace,love and happiness ! "NOT UNTIL WE KNOW THE LOVE OF CHRIST JESUS"* ! He is my life and the Oxygen I need to breathe ! I need him ,I want him ,and I desire him EVERY second of the day !! I want the world to know him and his love 😢 . . I promise there is"NOTHING" In this LIFETIME ON EARTH THAT CAN EVER ,EVER COMPARE TO KNOWING AND SEEKING GODS HEART AND WILL !!!! I want all of him in every single step I take in life !!!!! He is my heart and all that I seek !! ( Oh wow as I began typing this I couldn't stop the tears from flowing!!😭 ) I believe I Love,love ,love Jesus with all my being ! I only pray this is confirmation by my tears to truly be what is my heart's Love for God and for all people in the World!!! My life is in God's hands And I know this to be true ! Please, Please, Seek God with all your being ,because I promise you will find him !!!!! He isn't a myth or Fairytale ,or Someone not in our Reach ....He is real,he is here in our very Midst , wanting us to know him ,to just reach out our hand for him to take hold of !! We are his image ,everything we consider honest and good is all of God !!! Godbless you all and may you know his Love and Peace !!! ✝️🕊️❤️. 🚨*( ? Let me ask you ,why do you want to know the Bible? Do not think just Start answering this question without edit seeing what comes from the heart ,and see what you may discover as I did 🙏)*🚨. ( Please Follow and subscribe to my up coming RUclips channel - ONFIRE4JESUSAPOLOGETIC-(TsChicago4God) as we discover together all the Beauty in the Word of God if you also are onfire❤️🔥4Jesus ! ) Much love to all of you out there ❣️🕊️✝️❤️🔥
LDS FTW. When we talk about the bible could we please get some context on which bible we are talking about? According to Wikipedia there are over 3,300 different variations/translations currently in 2023.
the point on GOD picking who is saved ....its because GOD knows all time ...HE seesc the future of whom is saved ,,,so in fact HE knows who is HIS'
I thought the point of this video was that you were judging the debate not the underlying theology of the debate? Your responses to the LDS points shows a lack of awareness or necessary context behind the LDS belief as well as the same failing on part of the debaters. In other words you and the "Christian" debaters have not taken the time to investigate the context of our beliefs or you would recognize how very appropriate their responses are.
God. God is the final authority. The scriptures are the words of God transcribed by fallible men
The priesthood is the power of God wielded by fallible men.
God is the author and finisher of it all.
The LDS dude commented on this video. Man has no self-awareness.
Hi! How did you come to this conclusion?
What happened to Mose about striking or talking to the rock to get water, wasn't God clearly told him how to do things? Than, why he chose to act differently?
Great review. Sam Shamounian did a debate review as well in case you want to hear his thoughts. ruclips.net/video/yRuVkvPW-W4/видео.html
Here is a much better condensed version of Sam’s review:
ruclips.net/video/F6xTDVMQKic/видео.html
The Christians side had me cringed 😅 they just need to elaborate a bit more about in their answers and give more reasons why they believe the word of God is true. Bless yous
Love the video Nate. I see more than the two options on 2Tim 3:16. The clear communication of a message to a recipient does not equal the proper receipt of the message. The true meaning of God’s Word is perfect. But, many of us come to contradicting interpretations, so some error had to be introduced and that must be our interpretation of God’s infallible word. Now, if there is an infallible interpreter I can close that gap in the communication equation to know exactly what God meant to communicate. I believe the infallible interpreter in Christ’s Church on Earth, and that is the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit protects that Church from going awry.
How did you come to know that the Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter of scripture?
@@dartheli7400 Partly through just walking through the logic of God’s plan. The other part is evaluating the different interpretations of Christ messages such as the Holy Spirit will be sent to guide them until the second coming and the gates of Hell shall not overcome them.
Ultimately, the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant reality has proven that Scripture does not interpret itself. One, that makes no sense because printed words don’t have a mind and a mind is needed to interpret. Two, we all share at least 66 writings and we don’t agree on what they mean. It follows that if Christ wanted unity then he would have needed to provide at least one person, group, or institution to the special ability to know what the proper teachings were without error. Now because of free will, people were still free to sin and ignore that infallible teacher, but for those that did follow it they could be assured that they would not be led astray.
@@IRISHBee4 I see. However, it doesn‘t automatically follow from your arguments that the Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter of scripture.
I agree with you, that at least one group of people knows the proper interpretation and teachings of scripture. But how do you know that it‘s the Catholic Church that fulfills this role? Can you provide (a) concrete example(s)?
@@dartheli7400 Whoever the interpreter is they have to have an unbroken connection from the apostles since Pentecost. The interpreter couldn’t have come about centuries later. This would mean that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only ones that can even be considered. They are the only churches that can trace their origins back to the apostles. Then the Orthodox can be eliminated with a couple arguments. I am no expert, but it is my understanding that some Orthodox churches allow for divorce and remarriage. Christ condemns this and it is a non-Christian teaching. They obviously deny the pope’s authority starting with Peter, so depending on the different interpretations of the passages that indicate Peter was given primacy and an established office that would be another teaching. Lastly, Christ asked that his followers be unified, and it is my understanding that some Orthodox Churches are not in communion with other Orthodox Churches. This would point to Orthodox Churches failing to maintain the unity Christ’s Church protected by the Holy Spirit would have. Finally, the breadth of the Catholic Church is evidence it is Christ’s Church. Christ commanded that his apostles go and make disciples of all nations. Well, the Catholic Church is basically present it every nation of the Earth. It has grown and grown ever since the beginning (generally speaking) so that today there are over a billion Catholics united under the Pope’s authority. There really isn’t any other ecclesial group in the world that has done that. These would be the pieces of evidence that I would point to.
@@IRISHBee4 Can you define „unbroken form“? What do you mean by that?
At the 10min mark. Nate brings up some good points but I'd have asked two different questions or at least additional. First, if the Bible is not infallible then logically it can't be the Final Authority for Faith & Practice, correct? Secondly, what is your Final Authority for Faith & Practice?
If they say the Book of Mormon then the follow up would be "wasn't it written by a man"? If they say the Priesthood of Elders then the follow up would be "So you don't accept the Bible because it was written by men but you accept the word of men?"
100%
We don't have complete infallibility. Christians like to make a lot of hay over this, but even if you have an infallible source, it gets interpreted by fallible humans. So unless you can claim complete infallibility in your interpretation, fallibility is introduced at some point either way.
@@lukehanson_ The question though is where the infallibility surface. Always at the interpretation. I have no doubt Jesus would interpret Scriptue perfectly from the way it was written. Could an infallible being use fallible beings to produce infallible teachings? I say yes.
@@danielkim672 He could. He could also make everyone incapable of non-infallible interpretation. At least the God of the debaters could. But this demand for infallibility is odd, and the demand that only the Bible and not spiritual witness from God is infallible is odder still.
@@lukehanson_ I am not familiar with 'God of the debaters'. Can you expand on that thought? I actually dont find it odd to say the complete inspired Word directly from God is in the Bible we have today and it is complete. Nothing new has been added. I am not arguing people do not have direct revelation from God today, but it would never contradict nor add to the Bible. If you are in the world thinking that new directly revelations can happen through spiritual witness from God, how do you know it was actually from God and not completely made up, or from a hallucination? That to me is the odd part when there is no basis, foundation for when someone says "GOD REVEALED THIS TO ME". The direct instructions in the Bible is to test every Spirit , and we do that with Scripture. We test Scripture and Godly truth with Scripture.