1 Mormon vs 10 Christians Heated Debate

0:01 [clears throat] All right, Admiral, you can take it away. >> All right, guys. Welcome in to the digital social hour with Sean Kelly. Obviously, I'm not Sean K Kelly. I'm Justin Admiral Gibbs, and I'm here to moderate a de a debate between Hayden Carroll versus 10 Christian, uh, religious scholars, and we're going to be having a good time about it today. Uh, go ahead and introduce us, uh, to our first prompt. >> Yeah. Okay. So, the first prompt is, "The Bible is not our final authority." And I have a little introduction that I'll read just so you guys understand my position. Uh first I want to clarify that I personally believe that the Bible is highly reliable, useful, and contains many important truths about our savior Jesus Christ and valuable and prophetic teachings of his apostles and followers. Every person on the earth should read it to learn how to come closer to God. But that is not what we are debating today.

0:49 Protestants use their 66 book canon as the final standard by which they believe all Christian doctrine is to be determined. The issue is whether we can use a standard as the final court of appeals that that allow uh before we can use it as our final standard of the final court of appeals. There's a logically prior question which is in the Protestant worldview what has God revealed that enables us to identify this particular cannon of scripture. I'm happy to grant that the category of writings we call scripture are inspired. But saying scripture is inspired doesn't tell us which writings belong in the category. For example, when Paul says, "All scripture is God breathed," that tells us something about whatever qualifies as scripture. It does not by itself identify which writings belong in that category. So my first question is what is God revealed that enables us to identify these 66 books as his complete

1:36 uh canon of scripture? Uh the question is is the criterion uh apostolicity? Is it church reception, historical consensus, divine providence, uh the internal witness of the Holy Spirit? Whatever method you use, show me why that method is warranted and how it gets us these specific 66 books as the complete canon. Realize I am not demanding a verse that lists all 66 books. If you believe that the canon follows from what God has revealed by necessary inference, that's fine. I'm simply saying, show me the argument. And to close, now the interesting part of this, even if we could justify the canon boundary in the Protestant worldview, there's still one last question. What has God revealed that establishes scripture as Christianity's final doctrinal authority? Those are two different claims. Establishing that a

2:22 book is inspired does not by itself establish a complete cannon. And establishing which books belong in the cannon does not by itself establish that scripture as the final doctrinal authority for believers. So I'm asking two things for this prompt. First, show me the divine warrant for identifying these 66 books as the complete canon of scripture. And second, show me the divine warrant for treating the that cannon as Christianity's final doctrinal authority. If those conclusions do not follow from what God has revealed, either explicitly or by necessary inference, then you haven't shown that God requires Christians to accept the 66 book Protestant canon as their final doctrinal standard. And that is my argument. All right. Right on. Uh I want to make a case, two cases, and I'll use the acronym C to do so. So we have the case

3:10 for scripture as the final authority. The first thing is that it's Christc centered. So the whole scripture points to Christ. Christ comes. There's an explanation of his work. A great verse for that is Hebrews 12. I'm sorry. Hebrews 1:es 1-3 which says God formerly spoke through the prophets. Now in these last days he has spoken through his son. And so the issue with anyone who comes later is they can't trump that time. They can't be past the climax because that is the climax of Revelation. And so the C is that it's Christ centered. It's also covenant related. If you wanted to have a second C. When you have an old covenant, you have scriptures that go with it, a new covenant, scriptures that go with it. The second is apostolic witness. So for that, we have people who are eyewitnesses or who knew the eyewitnesses. Great verse for that is second Peter 1 where he says, "Yes,

3:56 we're eyewitnesses and the prophetic scripture came from men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit." That's just one verse, but you have the the right time because you got the right people. These are first century books. That's going to be related to some other issues that will come up. The third is sufficiency of scripture. The scripture declares itself as sufficient. It doesn't need something else to bolster it, to help it out, to fix it, to add on to it. God is eternal. His word endures forever. So the S is sufficiency. And the E is enduring. God's word stands forever. Isaiah 48. Peter applies that that that same principle when he speaks of the preach word. 1 Peter 1:24-25. Christ's words will not pass away. So the case for scripture has final authority is Christ centered apostolic

4:41 witness. It's sufficient and it endures. I'll let you respond, but I have some more things to say. >> Yeah. Um are you saying that scripture has to be all of those things? If if it's not, then it's not scripture. Is that what you're saying? >> Scripture has to be all of those things. Yeah. Uh when you're talking about New Covenant scriptures, you have the the complete revelation. So when you get to the Old Testament, if you wanted to change the A, it could be a prophetic witness, for example. But the idea is people were spokesman for God. So that works as well. The Book of Mormon, which is ultimately what you're trying to make space for, failed. >> Not necessarily. I'm not a Mormon. >> I'm not arguing for Mormonism today. Mormonism could be completely false and that wouldn't change what the argument is today. This is not a Mormon argument. So let me ask you a question here. >> Who came up with that criteria? You just you wrote case. Seems like you made this

5:27 up. I know other people have had similar criteria. Can you show me where God revealed that? That's like if God has scripture, where is he saying this is the criterion for scripture? Because seems like you made up your own, >> but I'm concerned about what what God has said about it. >> You think I made up my own? What makes you say that I made up my own? I quoted scriptures to you. You've quoted no scripture. >> Well, you you made this acronym case. And I don't see where scripture says that that's what scripture is. >> Well, I had to do that in order for you and the audience to remember. But I quoted scripture. What scripture did you quote in your opening? >> I I don't need a scripture for this. I'm asking you about how you establish your canon. And so let me >> argument about scripture, Hayden. >> Yes. Let me give you one example. >> You need some scripture. >> Let me give you one example. >> Sure. Let's give some scripture. >> You're saying that all scripture has to be what's the apostolic in nature or

6:13 >> apostolic witness. >> Okay. So how do you on that standard? How do you accept the book of Hebrews? Because we don't know who wrote it. No apostle affirmed it. So it seems like on that standard you would have to discard Hebrews. >> Who's mentioned in there? >> I don't know. >> Timothy's mentioned in there. Apostolic witness. So apostolic witness including for example Barnabas is called an apostle right? >> All right. Go ahead and answer. But we have no apostolic witness of that book. Like show me an an apostle >> or anyone who was with Jesus who affirmed that book because on your own standard just because it mentions an apostle that's an apostolic witness. >> Easy. >> Okay. Go ahead. all all of our New Testament examples where we have canonical books where they're put together more than just one. >> Okay? >> You know what I'm saying? Where it's not

6:58 just one. It's not just John. It's something else. Hebrews is always included in there. >> And the apostles though, >> well, if you're going to make that argument then >> it's your standard. I'm using your >> apostles. The apostles are are the ones who were right there. They're verifying things in the beginning. >> Where did they verify Hebrews? >> Where did they verify Hebrews? cuz that's your standard part of the apostolic witness in that demonstrate that for me. >> Well, I already mentioned that you got Timothy. >> No, Timothy didn't affirm it though. Timothy is mentioned, but where did he affirm it? >> And and you have the fact that it points to Christ, that it speaks to Christ, right? And you also have early church witness to to the fact and and it's interesting early church witness. >> It's interesting what it says. Maybe you don't like this one in particular because it's the most damning for your position. Hebrews 1 starts out saying,

7:44 >> "My position is >> I'm going to I'm going to finish my sentence please." >> Go ahead. >> It says that that throughout history, God has spoken through prophets, but now in these final days, he has spoken through his son. Do you deny that that's true about Hebrews? >> It doesn't mean what you think it means. >> What does it mean, Hayden? >> Well, you're asserting that God can no longer speak through prophets. Is that what you're saying? >> He speaks through prophets every day when you open up his word. That's and and you don't have any apostolic witness past the first century >> on your worldview. And I'm again I'm not here to pause anything. >> Biblical definition of an apostle is what Hayden >> if you're asking or if you're saying that the book of Hebrew closes the cannon or that there's no more divine God's not talking. I'm not sure that you can go that way because >> the son's climax of revelation closes the cannon.

8:29 >> Are you Oh, interesting. Okay. So, did Jesus Christ choose what should be in the cannon? >> Yes. >> And where did he display that for us? Well, he's he speaks directly in Revelation, doesn't he? Number one. Number two, at number two, where did Jesus Christ? >> He picked the 12. He picked the 12 as well. He picked the 70. The spirit came upon the 20. Hold on. I'm giving you an answer and you're not listening to the answer. All this is cristocentric activity. Ultimately, it's trinitarian activity. You have no such thing for the Book of Mormon. In fact, you have the opposite case. >> I will concede the opposite case that Mormonism is false for this conversation. And and so I want to I want to focus I want to focus on this prompt, right? Because anything Mormonism doesn't matter because the Catholic behind me would give the same argument. So this does not depend on Mormonism. Mormonism could not exist.

9:14 >> What do you mean the same argument? >> He he would argue that you have no way to justify your canon, right? >> Which point would the Catholic argue against Hayden? >> The Catholic would say that you have no ability or no adjudication rule for determining what is canon. And that's what I'm showing right now. So can I finish out of the four points I get? Oh yeah sorry. >> Out of the four points I gave, where would the Catholic disagree with me? I I >> the Catholics the Catholics. I agree. >> The Catholics ultimately would probably say that is it is the binding teaching authority that is that is vested in the magisterium that gives them the ability to determine what is scripture. And you don't have anything like that. >> Which of my four points would they disagree with? >> So what you're left with is Protestants making up their own criteria that they didn't get from God that may have been shared by some of the early church. One of the major issues with that is that if

10:01 you look at early church fathers, they have a different canon than you and they may have different criteria than you. So I'm asking the Protestants, the evangelicals, where do you get your criteria from? And it again, it seems like you're just making it up. And then when I point out that there's a particular book in the Bible that doesn't fit your criteria, you're going to special plead and say, "Well, it mentions Titus, therefore that's apostolic witness." >> Just for a little quick house, you could see the little gray box over there. Um uh hidden you're kind of like >> which one? >> Well, those box are boxes are competing. >> Yeah, you might be switch. Go ahead and respond. I apologize. >> Which one of these points would the Catholic disagree with? >> I mean, it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant. >> Well, if you brought it up, so >> I'll concede. I'm not arguing for Catholicism. >> Okay. So, let me interact with your points here. Okay. Let me interact with

10:47 you. >> Yeah. >> You do something I find distasteful and trying to pit people against each other who are not present right now. It's you and I talking. You're acting as you just said the Catholic would disagree. >> Well, no. Hayden, I need to finish my thoughts, please. I I'm literally not even saying much. >> Go ahead. >> You pit people against each other who are not here. Then when you're asked to show where they would disagree with one of my four points, you don't have anything outside of this. You're just saying something additionally they would add. No, that's not a good response. Now, you are it's not a response that you like. >> Now, you are a Mormon. And so, the issue you have is Joseph Smith affirmed our canon except for the Song of Solomon when he published the Joseph Smith translation. So, guess what? stuck with our cannon. >> Joseph No, that's not true at all. I mean, >> wait, wait. Sorry. Go ahead. >> I I need to follow up with that because

11:33 did Joseph Smith publish did he publish the Joseph Smith translation with all 65 books except >> I I will say if Joseph Smith is not a prophet, this argument still works. >> No, I will concede. So, I'm using him against I will concede to keep us on topic that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. I'm okay for this debate. I will say that. >> Notice what a Mormon has to do to defend basic Protestant arguments. give up his whole notice what Vocab is doing. He's totally uh projecting and saying that if I don't provide a standard that therefore maybe his standard is maybe the only one. >> That's not my argument at all. >> Okay, I'm trying to understand then. Why does it matter what I believe? >> My argument is twofold. >> Or why does it matter what the Catholics believe? >> I gave you Well, you brought up the Catholics, not I, sir. >> You gave the criteria and I held your criteria to the biblical standard and it failed. >> You never mentioned >> and you also didn't tell us where God

12:19 gave the standard. >> Never mentioned one Bible verse. I have done >> multiple Bible verses. So don't call your case biblical. Here's the issue. Nothing in the Bible can establish your cannon. That's your major issue. Can you show me anywhere in the canon >> where scripture is is is problem for you because your prophet >> verifies 65 of 66 books. Number one. Number two, it can't be your book because you've taken out whole sections specifically the seven lectures on faith. >> Notice what vocab is doing. >> Let me let me finish the argument against >> this has nothing to do with the prompt. The prompt has nothing to do with Mormon versus Christians. >> The prompt is the Bible is not our final authority. >> And it's Mormon versus Christian. >> The the prompt is the Bible's not our final authority. >> The title What's the title of the two

13:04 deb? It doesn't require what's the title of the prompt. We [clears throat] are talking about the first prompt. The prompt is the Bible's not the final authority. I guess the title title I think Sean has posted it as uh Mormon versus Are you a Mormon? Where does the prompt talk about Mormonism? Are you a Mormon? Okay. The prompt does not talk about >> the debate title does. We have four prompts under Mormon versus Christians. >> Are you a Mormon? >> And none of these rely on Mormonism to be true. That's what I'm trying to say. >> Then why are you the Mormon? Why aren't you the atheist? >> I I have my religious reasons for believing what I believe, but that's not what we're talking about. >> Yes, it is. Because your whole move >> Are we going to Are we going to talk about the prompt or are we going to >> So the reason it is is because you're trying to make space for the Book of Mormon. >> No, I'm not. I'm just saying your worldview is is I would say your

13:50 worldview doesn't allow for an adjudication of scripture. That's all I'm saying. I'm not positing Mormonism. I'm not positing Catholicism. I'm saying if your worldview is true, you have no way to determine what is scripture other than Well, I mean, we could talk about this. Do you would I don't know if you would say this. Would you say that the church was led by the spirit or or by God to to recognize the canon? Like good question. Would you say the church was led by the spirit when it removed the seven lectures on faith in 1921 out of the doctrine and covenants? >> Yes or no? >> I'm not going to talk about Mormonism. You're a Mormon. You have to talk about it. >> Has nothing to do with the prompt. So, let me just ask this then. >> This is crazy. >> Well, hold on. Let me just ask this to you then. Uh because you are connecting the it seems the Mormonism to the first prompt specifically. The Bible is not the final authority. Uh like so in this way, why if he's not going to argue it

14:37 as a Mormon, how would you how would you argue against that? Let's just say hypothetically it's a how would you argue in that manner? >> Yeah, that's why I laid out the case. He just asked me a question. Can I answer the question he asked me? My goodness. >> All right. Okay. >> So, the debate has multiple prompts, but the title was Mormon versus Christian. I mean, it's two competing worldviews. What Hayden tries to do is play the role essentially of of like an ancient Greek uh skeptic where he's just asking questions without defending any position. Yet, the title of the debate that will actually be on the thumbnail is one woman versus two Christian. >> That's fine. If you were the one person sitting here You'd be able. >> Was your church led when they removed the seven letters of faith that Joseph Smith put in there? >> I'm not going to engage cuz Joseph Smith has nothing to do with this. >> Joseph Smith has nothing to do with a Mormon. You sing a song to him. All praise to the man. >> Mr.

15:22 >> If you were sitting in this chair and you were doing one Calvinist versus 10 Mormons or whatever, you'd be able to pick the prompts and you would be able to dissect or try to dissect our worldview. And that's the privilege that you get as the one person in the chair. So again, I am not here to even necessarily posit an alternative worldview because there are many. All I'm saying, >> which one are you defending? >> All I'm say I All I'm saying is that your worldview gives no adjudication for scripture and we've seen that. I mean, just rewind the video and and show me where God has given you criteria for what the canon is, and you just haven't given it to us. Now, you want to know where you got your cannon from? >> You got it from tradition. You got it from the Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Church. And then in the Reformation in the 16th century, hold on, I'm still

16:07 going. >> In the Reformation, you well, Martin Luther amongst others decided that particular books that were in the canon that were accepted as scripture that were used in the liturgy were not scripture. Now, by what standard, I don't exactly know. >> Probably because it wasn't used by the Jews at that time, which is fine. But my question for Martin Luther is if the church has the authority, which I guess you would reject. I don't know your position on the Catholic Church, then what gives Martin Luther or anyone else, including yourself, the ability to take out what the church had been led to >> uh in in the scriptural cannon? And so you still haven't justified it? >> What would give a prophet the right to take out the Song of Solomon from the Bible? >> I'm I'm not arguing for that. >> Would a prophet have the right I'm asking you is would a prophet have the

16:53 right to take out? >> I don't know. Why did your prophet take the song of Solomon out of the Bible? >> Are we going to talk about >> answer his question though? Cuz you you answered his question with a question. >> Yeah. You you answered his question with a question. Why don't you answer his question, >> right? What I'm showing is how you can't answer your own questions. >> I I have a worldview that adjudicates scripture. >> Well, so I guess what he's asking >> but I'm not going to engage because that's not the prompt. >> You won't engage with your Mormonism. >> I won't engage something that's outside of the prompt. I won't let you red herring. Sorry. >> Let me just ask this. So I guess I guess in this sense I just to be one of y'all could clarify. I'm not really sure who who all would be on this one. You keep bringing up uh Josiah the Smith the Mormon prophet, right? >> Would you argue that Luther was a prophet for Christians in in a sense or would you say no? >> No, he's a reformer on a >> reformer. Okay. So I guess his question

17:38 his question to you is then basically uh like what's the difference and why I >> great question because according to Joseph Fielding Smith the Mormon church quote stands or falls with Joseph Smith and here it says that in the plan of salvation as it was made known to >> come on moderators the world there are nothing to do with the >> he's grandstanding I guess I guess you are not though I like but all right so if okay I just play like just to kind of like I don't know steal man what he's saying the whole whole issue there is right if if the Bible is not the final authority then I guess that would grant other religions of possibility being true right so like what is your argument without using Mormonism as your example of it being the final authority because it could be a Muslim over here it could

18:25 be you know I don't know a scientologist or something I guess but like why why would why is it specifically is the final authority >> it has nothing to do with it he's he's just trying to write a hearing to get points what your >> when when the when it says Mormon versus Christian, it's not a red herring. >> It is. >> I just I just want to what is Can I ask you what is the prompt? Now, let me answer what's the prompt what he said. It's a great question to say then what is it? And that's the reason why I'm engaging with the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as a foundation because since he's a Mormon that means he would identify the replacement or the restoration as he was nothing to do with the prompt >> the restoration I'm answering his question. The restoration as the Book of Mormon. So he's his ultimate argument is the Bible is not the final authority. The final authority is found in the Mormon church restored by Joseph Smith

19:12 and now found in our prophets even though they disagree with each other. >> I understand what you're saying. However, like okay, I'm just as the moderator. Once again, I I I'm like I would come from a different like I don't know what Protestant branch you are, right? However, you know, I I I I don't understand how your argument is that it's like >> the reason he's doing it is because he has no answer. So, he has to stick it to the problem. >> Hayden, I gave multiple answers at the beginning, but but here here's what I'll do. Here's what I'll do. >> Should we get someone else? Cuz he obviously doesn't want to talk about the problem. >> I'm a little quickly here. I'm just going to let you try to reattach here. Let's just just let's try to focus specific. >> Amazing. A Mormon doesn't want to defend Mormonism. But here, let's do this then, Hayden. I I find this entirely cowardly of you. I'm ashamed that you would run to the moderator. I would never do this

19:58 if I had >> Sorry for sticking to the promise. >> But now when it says Mormon versus Christians, you're not. So when you look at 2 Corinthians 1:20, it says all of God's promises find their yes in Christ. That means everything from the old covenant on into the new finds their yes in Christ. Therefore, what would you need past Christ if all of God's promises find their yes and amen in Christ per second Corinthians 12? >> I'm going to let you answer and then we're going to do one minute close. >> But notice how I'm doing Bible now. So, I'm going to deal with them more like an atheist now. >> Notice that he's presupposing the authority of the Bible and he has established it. That's I mean, listen to the two questions I'm asking you. And you have done nothing to establish these in the Bible, the word of God. It isn't the final authority. Just listen for a

20:43 second. Final authority. He said, "First, show me the divine warrant for identifying uh identifying your particular 66 books." You haven't done that. And second, show me the divine warrant for treating the canon as Christianity's final doctrine of authority. Let me let me just finish this. If you're saying that, well, Jesus is the final revelation. That doesn't make any sense at all because he called apostles after he ascended and the apostles called new apostles after he ascended. So to say that >> uh the apostles called Mias >> and you're saying that because of that >> no I'm saying that you're kind of making this case that like oh we just need Jesus and I'm I'm saying no even on your own standard >> that's not true. >> My case is not we just need Jesus answer maybe I misunderstand what you were saying >> then you never finish you never you

21:29 never really answer the question at all. >> Okay go ahead. The point is if you have the climax of revelation which I've given you multiple scriptures for another one could be Luke 24 where Jesus says that all the law and the prophets including the psalms that they culminate in me or John 5:39 where he says how do you dude >> you're a 539 no you do not agree with them Mormons pay lip service to scripture then >> I don't agree with your interpretation then why can I not >> that's a little different >> than they argue you like atheists John 5:39 says the scriptures testify testify about Christ. This is why in the Book of Mormon they added in 1981 another testament of Jesus Christ. It didn't even always say that. Now coming back to the scripture, if Revelation climaxes in Jesus, would you agree with that? Yes or no? >> I don't know what you mean by that. And

22:15 that's not even that's not even in the scriptures. I don't know what you mean. >> Wait, wait. What do you mean it's not in the scriptures? It says in Hebrews 1, Christ is these last days. Now, in these last days, he has spoken to us through his son. >> Totally. I'm okay with that. Let me jump in here. That has nothing to do with the cannon. >> We are We are running close on time. >> Yes, they do because they're sitting around. >> Let me just jump in here real quick. We are close on time. I'm going to let you have one minute closing. Go ahead and wrap it up with one minute and then I'll have you respond and then we'll go to the next question. >> Okay, I won't interrupt. Go ahead, >> Hayden. Uh, again, it's a shame that not only will you not defend what you're trying to confuse people into believing, which is the Book of Mormon and the Salt Lake City branch's ongoing authority supposedly, you literally will not even take the time to defend it for one iota. Not only that, when you are presented

23:02 with the case for scriptures authority, you don't listen, you don't understand intentionally, and then you accuse people of not being able to defend it. You have not given scripture here, Hayden, at all. And the prompt was not is the Bible the word of God, which you just change it to when you said, notice how he assumes it's the final authority, assuming your prompt, your prompt assumes it's an authority. So now you change it to the word of God. Okay? Now, Joseph Smith did affirm 65 of the 66 books. So this question that you think is so great, who chose the books, how do you know the canon, doesn't work because your own guy already affirmed it. If you want to kick out Song of Solomon for whatever reason he thinks, that's fine. But you're stuck with the rest because he didn't do it. Secondly, that's the C can and affirm a alterations is that the

23:47 lectures of faith were put in there by Joseph Smith in the doctrines and covenants. That's the doctrine section, the seven lectures, meaning he oversaw the publication after his death. Men came along and removed it in 1921, saying it wasn't given an official context. And why did Joseph Smith put it in there under a section that is supposed to be divine doctrine? Your church doesn't even trust your founding prophet. Why should we? Next, the s the standard works trump your your living prophets. Now, there's great confusion about this within the Mormon church. But if the standard works, which here's the quad that includes them, trump prophets, then what that means is the King James version that you include here. This part

24:33 contradicts the back part because even Joseph Fielding Smith says we judge prophets by the standard works which includes scripture. So you're stuck with the same problem. Lastly, E is era. You're in the wrong era. You got 19th century America. You don't have first century. You have it's totally removed from Jesus, totally removed from the context, and it shows further problems because you have Joseph Smith willy-nilly re-ransating parts of the Bible without any reference to manuscripts, Greek or Hebrew. And I can see why you don't want to talk about it because you're trying to create confusion in people's minds. So they say, "Well, maybe we don't know." And then you say, "I have a solve for that." And your solve is the Book of Mormon. And yet you as a Mormon won't defend your book. So that's why there's a case against the Book of Mormon and a case for scripture. And I've given both. And

25:19 you have not cited one scripture this whole debate. >> All right. Sir, go ahead. For your >> Okay. Um, let's do this in in two ways. I'm going to read my questions one more time and I want the audience just consider has vocab given or answered these questions. Show me can you show me the divine warrant for identifying these specific 66 books as the complete canon of scripture? And the answer is he hasn't. He gave a criteria and then it immediately failed. Uh the other thing with this is there are scriptures actually the majority of believers in the world today uh trinitarians in the world today 1.4 billion of them believe that there are scriptures outside of your cannon and they believe they're being led by the spirit. Okay? So you can't adjudicate without a teaching

26:06 authority what is scripture. It's just you get to decide or you get to accept what was handed to you. This is called tradition. And second, can you show me the divine warrant for treating the canon as Christ? Okay. Can you He's distracting. >> Just Yeah, just finish that. Sorry. Can you ask Can you ask him to put his book down while I'm talking? >> You don't mind putting the book down? Okay. Sorry. >> Yeah, I see you don't like using books the whole debate. Gotcha. >> So, second, can you show me the divine warrant for treating that canon as Christianity's final doctrinal authority? And he hasn't done that either because there is no verse in the Bible that says that even the category of scripture is the final authority. Now, I'm going to do one last thing, and I'm going to show you how this is unfair. You're a Calvinist, right? So, on your view, didn't God want Joseph Smith to do everything he did? Didn't

26:51 God predetermine Joseph Smith to do what he did? Didn't God predetermine me to be a Mormon? Didn't God predetermine for everything that's happened, including all evil, all abortions, all unalivings of of people? didn't didn't God. So So what I'm doing? >> So what I'm doing is I'm showing that his worldview has nothing to do with it. But if I wanted to and I wasn't going to, I can use his worldview against him, but it has nothing to do with the prompt. So I'm not going to do that. But on your worldview, this is exactly what God wanted. So he wants probably to read something else. But are we done? >> No. Yes, we are done. We're going to move the next person. Thank you so much uh for that one. Um all right. While we get our next person up here, it's going to be you wanted to do the same prompt. >> Okay, cool. We'll have you next. Um, [clears throat] one real quickly read the super chat we came in. Uh, how could

27:37 the book of Revelation be the climax of the Bible when it wasn't even the last book written? Uh, we thank you for your chat from Mr. Ward, uh, Ward Ward Radio. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. All right. And we'll have you come on up next now. Appreciate it, >> Bill. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> No aggression. [clears throat] >> The word radio didn't understand either. >> Still talking. Still talking. [laughter] All right. What's up, man? >> Hey, brother. What's your name? >> Ezekiel. Nice to meet you. >> Ezekiel Hayden. Nice to meet you. >> Looks like he's gonna come probably do a tech thing real quick. Also, looks like this is not actually doing.

28:24 >> Got it. There we go. >> Got it. >> Got it. We cooking now, boys. >> All right. Thank you guys. Sorry. bit more. This is your box. Just >> this way. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Yeah. Chad, sorry about that. You know, as always, tech issues are a problem with live streams. We thank you for your patience and your support. All right. I'm going to have him read out his uh prompt again. We just went over it. >> Same prompt. >> Same prompt. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Well, you heard the argument, but the prompt is that the Bible is not our final authority. >> Okay. >> All right. Whenever you're ready, go ahead. Start us off. >> Yeah. I'm kind of kind of baffled to be honest. Uh, I mean, I'm kind of on Cab's side. Uh, yeah. So, I guess my presentation would be I believe scripture is self-testing.

29:09 And I don't necessarily fall into any type of I guess uh philosophical or any other standard of truth to try to identify the Bible as scripture because scripture teaches against that. And I'll give you an example. Um we see in Colossians 2:es 8-10 it says see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men according to the elementary principles of the world and not according to Christ. And we also see this in Corinthians chapter 2:13. It says of which deaths we also speak not in words taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the spirit combining spiritual deaths with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the

29:55 deaths of the spirit of God and they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually examined. So I believe that scripture in itself is self attesting. It cannot be approved by any appeal to whether it's any philosophical thought, any human conception. And so, um, there's many, um, I can show you systematically how scripture, um, talks about itself and the books that are in scripture as well. But, yeah, I think it's a I think with all the respect, I think you're arguing like an atheist and um, I don't understand why if you are Mormon, if you would like to explain that. >> Yeah. Can you help me understand when you read scripture, the word scripture in your canon,

30:42 >> are you reading that as like your 66 books or like how are you interpreting that word scripture? >> Well, the way I like to see scripture is um for example in the New Testament we see many times um the Greek word graph is used and it refers to old canon scripture, right? And even Jesus himself right? >> Whenever he appeals to authority, >> he appeals to scripture. You see this all over Matthew chapter 4 plenty of times. Jesus says as it is written when he was being tempted by the devil. So um I think when you look at it systematically you can see why the Old Testament scriptures belong there and why we adhere to the New Testament scriptures. >> Well, you know that the Old Testament was not established in the same way that we have it today in Jesus's time. Right. >> Uh I know some books were kind of mixed in with each other and

31:27 >> well it was disputed amongst different Jewish groups. Like for example is when we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1960s I think it was. You know that there was a book in the old that we have now in the Old Testament that just wasn't there. And so it's highly disputed on whether or not the Jews actually use it. Are you familiar with which book? >> Which book are you referring to? >> Esther. >> So why do you use Esther? Because Jesus never affirmed Esther. >> Well, it's in the Septuagent, right? >> Uh it's not in the earliest Old Testament things that we have the because because it could have came later. I'm not arguing that necessarily, >> but I'm saying we just uh it is highly disputed and actually was highly disputed in the first century >> on whether or not it is scripture. Now, I have I have another question for you. >> Sure. >> You quoted a a verse in Corinthians, I I believe that talked about not using philosophy. Is that right? So So you would agree that we shouldn't use the philosophies of men and mingle them with scripture. Is that a fair way?

32:12 >> I shouldn't say it at all times. That's what I'm saying that philosophy shouldn't be the standard of >> comparing because if you compare it >> using philosophy which again you can use it to explain it. I believe that >> but when you compare it I think you're putting the authority of the Bible lesser. >> Okay. So like for example but you can use it to explain it. >> This is a brief tangent but but it applies and I'll show you how because you're saying we shouldn't put philosophy over scripture. Is that a fair way? Is that okay to say that >> scripture comes first and maybe philosophy second? So my major issue with that is that one of the three core topics that Christians come to me, crude Christians come to me and say are the most important are the nature of God, nature of scripture, nature of salvation. But their whole and probably your are you a trinitarian? >> Yes, I am. >> Your whole function and understanding of the trinitarian notion of the oneness of

32:59 God relies completely on philosophy rather than on the Bible. And we're going to get to that in the third prompt. So can you help justify if if we shouldn't put philosophy over scripture? And I'm just using your own standard, right? >> Why are First of all, we don't see the Trinity in in the Bible whatsoever. It was >> Well, that's your opinion. >> Well, you can you justify that for me? And and maybe we could save this for the third prompt, actually. But >> Sure. All I'm saying is on your own standard that's just not true because you and the early Christian thinkers who who arrived at the trinitarian notion of God or the perfect being theology that they did did so by reason and and philosophy and then they put those glasses on those helanized glasses and then they read that into the text. So on your own standard you'd have to deny the trinity. Well, not necessarily because I

33:45 know that we're >> so each definition, for example, um what you just talked about, um everything that they claimed, it was backed up through scripture. Was it not? >> No, absolutely not. How was it not? >> Can you show me the constantity between the father and son and the spirit? Because that is the essence of the trinity and it's not there. I have lots of quotes I can show you from Catholics, from orthodox, from evangelicals who say it's not in there. So, and that's a philosophy, right? The philosophy is if we're hard monotheists and God is a maximally great being and we have Jesus. Jesus is the biggest problem for critical Christianity because he says I am God and then he says I have a God and if we're hard monotheists what do we do with that? Well, we put them into one being and we say they're three persons which makes no sense whatsoever but that's how we're going to do it so that

34:30 we can keep our hard monotheism. It's not in the text but we're going to philosophize our way to it so that we can remain hard monotheist and accept Jesus Christ. the philosophy ruined Christianity. I don't know how you fight against that. >> Yeah. Again, um so all these claims that they had. So give me an example of what would you say that they didn't use a biblical text to back up what they said >> cuz you see it all over through the early church fathers. Whenever they would talk about God's sovereignty, they would use scripture to back it up. >> Do do you believe that all the early church fathers were trinitarians in the same way you are? >> No, I wouldn't say that. >> Okay. So if the scriptures are sufficiently clear and the trinity is taught in there, why don't we have all of the people closest to the apostles teaching them the nian trinity, which is probably what you accept? >> Well, I'm I'm um I wouldn't say nian trit. I mean, I know

35:16 you like to use the term predto Christian. >> Well, what do you accept the nian trinity or what formulation of the trinity? >> I I use the monarchal um view. Okay. Yeah. I believe that the father is the source. I believe he generates the son and the spirit. >> Okay. Are you Protestant or what's your faith background? I'm a Christian, man. That's that's all I'm going to say. >> Do you attend a particular church? You don't have to tell me, but I'm just curious. >> I'm a follower of Christ, brother. That's it. Okay. So, does it matter? Maybe we're getting too far from the prompt. Does it matter what trinitarian formulation a person believes or no? >> Um, it depends on how you put it. I mean, I'm I'm not against social trilitarianism. I'm not against monarchal. Um, but as long as you understand the concept of the trinity, I think that's what matters. >> Let me just just ask this back to the problem a little bit. Sorry. So, [clears throat] we've gone down the Trinity path a little bit here. Why is

36:03 why is that uh like like relevant to it not being the final? >> Because he made a comment that we shouldn't put philosophy over scripture. >> Okay. >> And I'm saying, okay, but on that standard, you have to reject the trinity because the only way you get to the trinitarian formulation of God, one being three persons, is through Greek philosophy and then reading that back into the text. And we'll get to that in the third prompt. So, I don't want to do too much more of this. So, let's go back to the prompt. Can you here's my two questions I have for you >> that uh Vocab failed miserably at trying to show us how to uh justify these. >> First, show me the divine warrant for identifying. Let's just start with this one. Can you show me where God said it's your 66 books or how did you get 66? Basically, well, again, this comes from church tradition. I mean, if you look systematically over the books that claimed each other, like in the New

36:49 Testament and even when they make reference to the Old Testament, you can put together, you know, the 66 books. >> They all, you know, go with each other. >> So, you're saying every book mentions every book and that's how you came to. >> But I wouldn't say that just the 66 books. I mean, I'm not I would say the Apocrypha, you know, is maybe >> scripture, >> not reference, but uh I mean, yeah, I mean, if if they want to say scripture, I think that's fine. I don't think it's >> interesting. So you're 76. >> I mean the early church used it. >> Yeah. Okay. So you don't believe that the 66 books is the final authority or do you? >> I I do. I do. >> I do believe that. >> But how could that how >> But I'm not against someone reference it or using it again. I mean again >> scripture though. Do you think those seven books are the are in >> I just don't think they're divinely inspired. I don't think they pertain to Revelation is what I'm trying to say.

37:35 >> So you wouldn't call them scripture then? >> I guess not. >> Okay. Okay. I just want to clarify because if you were this would be a different conversation, right? >> Sure. Sure. Of course. So, so can you help me? Um, so would you agree that God never publicly revealed? Let's just start basic. God didn't tell a prophet what the canon should be. Is that a is that a fair statement? >> In those words, no. I mean, obviously it's there's no verse in the Bible that says, "Hey, these are your your books. This is >> right." >> But again, I mean, at the same time, you can't say that God didn't intend these to be the final authority. >> Well, that's just an assertion, though. So, my next question is, did he give any criteria for the books or like cuz people Wouldn't you be able to say that your claim is also an assertion to say that? >> Um, why not? >> Well, which claim? Cuz I haven't made any assertions without backing it up. So, which one are you talking about? >> That the 666 books are not the final uh

38:22 authority. >> I'm saying on your worldview. Here's my argument. You're not able to justify it other than just saying, well, this is what was given to me or this is what I think is scripture. But that doesn't work if you don't actually know what scripture is. And if you're missing books or if you have too many books, how can that be the final standard if you don't even know what scripture is? And that's why I'm asking for a criteria that God gave. Not that man made up because they did have criteria for the early for the early church fathers and the early church to decide what scripture was. I don't dispute that. But I'm asking how do you know they got the criteria right? And and I don't know of any other way because they could have just made it up or made a mistake. You don't believe that they were infallible, right? So I'm asking how did the church come to this conclusion on what the criteria should be and if it's not from God then where is it from and why should

39:10 it be our final authority if it's not from God that's my concern essentially. >> Yeah I think regardless of which way whether you see it your point of view or my point of view at the end of the day it's all going to be circular. I mean you can't put definitively that these are not the standard or the final authority as your prompt is. And at the same time, I mean, I could believing in what scripture teaches me, I can attest and I can say, "Okay, I believe this is God divinely and inspired word." And since I believe that the word of God is authoritative and these books claim to be God's word, then I believe that they are, you know, his standard of truth. >> Can we can we go over that? Did you say that every book claims to be the word of God? >> No. >> Okay. So So not all of them do. So let's >> but I but I said that I believe they contain the word of God. >> Okay. But I'm asking you to justify that. You're you're just saying it is

39:56 you believe it. I understand you believe it, but I'm asking you how did you come to that conclusion and why should I agree with you basically? >> Yeah. Again, that's that's the reason why I'm confused with this prompt. Um, you know, I I I really thought I was going to debate, you know, about Mormonism. >> But you can't the issue is [clears throat] you can't steal. >> But you're arguing like an atheist, though. >> Here's the issue. You cannot steal from my worldview to affirm your own scripture. Because if I said, "Yeah, it is scripture, but the reason I would justify it or how I would justify or adjudicate it is I believe there is a teaching authority on the earth." You can't use that because you're not in my worldview. So, I'm saying on your own worldview, please help me to make sense of how you determine what is scripture. And notice neither of you have been able to do it. You basically say, "This is kind of what the early church decided." And like I said before, the majority of believers today believe that the apocryphal uh dutonical books are

40:43 scripture. And you disagree with them. And I'm trying to say, help me understand how you are right and they are wrong. And you haven't given me any adjudication tool to be able to do that other than your own opinion. That's my concern. How do you know what is scripture? >> Um, again, got to breathe. You know, his scriptures got to breathe. >> Um, sorry. I cut you off. No, I cut you off. I apologize. >> No, ask me. Ask me. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, so you're you're referring to 2 Timothy 3:16. >> Yeah. >> The sauce. >> How did you come to the conclusion that is God breathed? And what what does that mean to you? uh that it contains the inspired word of God, revelation. >> Okay. And where did Paul or the author of second Timothy, where did he give that definition? Does he ever define what he means by the house? >> He doesn't give that definition, but we understand what the word means.

41:28 >> Interesting. How do you know what the word means? [clears throat] >> Greek scholars, the language, what it means. >> Do you know? Okay. Do you think Paul made that word up? [clears throat] >> Uh, I couldn't tell you. >> He didn't. It was used before Paul. And did you know that within the first century the word theonistas doesn't mean from God because it was applied to perfumes and ointments. It was it was uh applied to wisdom or dreams. It was applied to sandals. >> But in what context did he use it though? How did he how did he how did he say it? >> He said all scriptures god pray. But here's the point. If you actually look at the early earliest uses um John P prayer pre did a wonderful study on this. I believe he is a trinitarian. Uh it's a the book is called um the invention of the spired inspired text I believe. Uh someone can fact check me on

42:14 that or the AI can anyway. And uh he basically does a study to show that the word theanusttoas doesn't mean perfect. It doesn't mean because it's applied to people too in the first century. It doesn't mean infallible. Um it means lifegiving, right? Like God breathes life, right? God breathing life say into Adam or somebody else. So and that's Hebrew. So it's a different word for breathing, but that's probably So, so here's my issue is Protestants will read that and they'll say all scriptures God's breathe first of all. What scripture is he referring to? It's the scriptures that Timothy read from when he was a boy and that wasn't the New Testament. So that does nothing to establish the the styles of the New Testament, but it establishes whatever scripture Timothy had, which we don't know all the books. We've already covered some of this. We don't know all the books that he had. Um, but also it doesn't affirm that the Bible is

43:01 infallible. That's typically how it's used. And al that verse also, this is funny, the verse also doesn't establish that the scriptures are sufficient because uh to my point I just made the scriptures that they had in that day uh were not the New Testament. So if you want to say Paul was teaching that all scripture is uh God breathed and um what's the word? uh it's it's good for uh approving and teaching and and that typically is is interpreted as I understand it by Protestants that it is sufficiently formal uh formally sufficient for whatever we need to know and that doesn't make any sense because they didn't have the New Testament. So you'd have to say that the Old Testament is sufficient and I don't think you would teach that. That's my concern. >> So you don't think that they knew about each other's writings while they was writing this? >> Well, not all the writings were even written. So how could they know about

43:47 writings that were not written yet? >> But how do you know that? I mean, are you familiar with the biblical scholarship on the last book? When was the last book written? >> Uh, no clue. >> Probably second Peter. It's probably a forgery. It it claims to be written by Peter, but the overall consensus of scholars is that second Peter isn't written by Peter. And there's >> probably a forgery. >> It probably is. Yeah. We don't know for sure. There is no way to know for sure, but the writing styles are completely different. There are unique words in it. It It probably matches. >> You sure you're not an atheist? I'm bro, you don't have I'm No, I'm not. And you don't have to be an atheist to think critically about the biblical text. Okay, >> that's what I'm asking you to do. And I think you can do it, but you have to get past your dogma. You have to get past your traditions and actually look at the text for what it is. And that's all I'm

44:34 doing is say, let's actually look at the text. Because I mean, I think everyone in this room who knows anything about this and everyone watching knows that the book of second Timothy was not the last book written, >> right? That there were books written after that. So to say that all scripture includes the entire New Testament is just nonsensical because it didn't exist yet. So and he's referring to the books that he read as a boy and the New Testament he didn't have since he was a boy. So that verse really just falls flat all over the place. It doesn't establish anything. The reason why I think that that argument doesn't really work because for example I see the um quote in 1 Timothy 5:18. I don't know if you're familiar to it or from it what it says, but in that in that verse, Paul is literally referring Deuteronomy and Luke at the same time. So, yes, maybe all the books all the books were not written at the time. I'll give you that. But they

45:21 were considering these books as um authoritative in the same stance as the old scriptures. >> I will I will concede that there were some letters passing around. I'm okay with that. But that doesn't establish the point at all. >> But again, I think that we're considering as the same as Old Testament. And and I showed you that Jesus himself took the the Old Testament as as scripture as authority. >> Well, again, we don't know what canon they had. So to say that he affirmed, >> we have a good idea of what they have. I mean, I'm not too familiar with the, you know, like you were bringing up. >> Well, they were disputed. What I'm trying to say is there was no central teaching authority that said these are the 39 books of the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi. They just did not have that. There were competing groups on what was scripture. So to say that Jesus affirmed my 39 books, there's just no way to know for sure. That's my issue. I mean that's that's your opinion.

46:06 >> Can I ask you about Hebrews or I don't know how long how much longer we want to go. >> We got we got two three minutes. Okay. Can I ask about Hebrews? How do you justify Hebrews as scripture? Why do you how did you determine by what criterion? Where did God reveal it? Where did an apostle affirm it? What do you do with Hebrews? It's anonymous. We don't know who wrote it. >> Sure. I mean obviously we don't know who wrote it. I mean they a lot of people say it was Paul. But again um the people that were closer to that time frame, they were the one who attested to it. So I guess I would fall to their interpretation and their addition to the text. >> Okay. So you're appealing to early church fathers maybe or the early church that affirmed in scripture. >> Okay. But they also affirmed seven other books that you don't affirm. So why are you not agreeing with their exercise? >> Well, not all of them. Are you saying that all of them did? >> No. No. It was very disputed that >> because you said something to him that was that was wrong. You told them that the Apocrypha again before the after the

46:53 reformation that's when it was canonized, not before. And the reason why the apocryphal was canonized was because of the reformation reformation, was it not? >> You got a you got a Catholic behind me just laughing his tail off because what you're saying is >> Okay, this is what I'm gonna say. Let me let me just answer that question. Let me clarify. >> Yeah, [laughter] let me clarify. Go ahead. >> Yeah, let me clarify. So, yes, um some some churches did affirm it, but like some I guess you I would call them hubs. They did affirm it. Yes, they did have it as scripture that I'm not going to lie, but it wasn't like a consensus. It wasn't like everybody agreed that this is scripture. That's what I'm referring. >> What year was the council of Florence when they affirmed the apocryphal books? >> I want to say 1520 something. >> I think it was 1442. Can we fact check that? I think >> 1546 is what it says. >> 1546. There we go. >> What's the Okay. I I Okay, I'll give you

47:39 that. I There is a council before that I can't remember. Maybe he can tell us that did affirm the books and then they reaffirmed it after the >> No, no. Again, like I said, I'm not saying that it wasn't. I'm not Yeah, I'm not saying that because >> the way that I when I mean I haven't I'm still studying early church history, but they had hubs like for example the church of Rome, the church of um the the col in in Ephesians or whatever and each of them had their own little disputes. Each one of them didn't have like a central I guess >> there was no central authority. >> Exactly. >> I totally agree with that. >> So there was no central authority. But yeah, I'm not here claiming that nobody believed it was scripture because then that would be lying. >> And I I'm a sorry. Let me let me apologize and say that I I think we're on the same page actually here. >> I'm not saying that every Christian affirmed the Dudo Chronicle. If I said that, I apologize and I I will retract that. >> Okay?

48:25 >> But I'm saying that the fact that they were disputing over it shows that they didn't really know what should be scripture and what shouldn't be. And how can you blame them? They had no more public revelation. They had no more apostles. So what could they do? They could create their own criteria based on their best judgment, which I I I don't think any of these people were evil. I think they were really trying to do the best. And I and I give them the credit. I I'm not an Orthodox or a Roman Catholic, but but I give them the credit that's due where they preserved where I think what I think are are some of the most valuable documents we've ever had in the history of ever. Right? Without the Bible, we wouldn't have the life of Christ. We wouldn't have the teaching of the apostles in Acts. Like I I really value those scriptures. And so I'm not fighting against them. All I'm saying is is on your worldview. If even they were fighting about it, not fighting but if they were debating about it about what

49:11 is the canon and they couldn't even decide eventually it did get more uniform right we would both agree with that >> but I'm asking on what criteria that God has given like are we using and so if again if you're just saying well they affirmed Hebrews my my issue is not everyone affirmed Hebrews right of course not and not everyone from the Judo chronicle so you're kind of left as a third party observer looking like who if your criteria is I'm just going to follow one party like how do you know which one to follow? And without a teaching authority to bind your doctrine, which we'll talk about in the third prompt, as a Protestant, if you consider yourself one or an evangelical, you just have no adjudication tool to know what the canon is. That's my whole point. And we've seen through our conversation, there is no adjudication tool for Protestantism. That's my issue. >> I'm going to let you uh respond that, but go ahead and make that your closing as well, if you don't mind.

49:56 >> Oh, okay. I was going to ask a question. >> Yeah, go ahead. Ask the question. >> Yeah. So, why why would you not say that? Is it that it is enough? you know that maybe God reveals to you that these things are his truth in then rather your viewpoint. >> You mean revealed to the individual? >> Uh well not just individual because obviously you know whether you think that you know the 66 or the 73 at least all branches of Christianity agree on the 66 books. So yeah why why do you think it's not enough? because I'm concerned that you're using the 66 book the particular 66 books as the final authority which how can it be final if it's incomplete right if there if there is it's like kind of saying like the US constitution right it's like saying the US constitution is our final authority

50:42 but we only have 80% of it and 80% of it is missing so there is some other part of it that we don't have so in that sense it cannot be final because we're missing part of it so that's what I'm saying it matters that we don't know what the canon actually is. >> But see the difference though when we add things for example to our constitution, >> right? >> What if they go against what the constitution says? >> Well, I mean we it's a little different I think because >> for the constitution we can amend the constitution. We can make changes as a government, >> right? We can change the constitution whenever we want, right? It's our it's our constitution. So it's not a perfect one for one, but I'm saying the it's a final standard right now, right? the Supreme Court uses it, which by the way, that's a whole another issue of saying that scripture interprets scripture like we're not going to get into that, but it

51:29 is parallel in the sense that right now the Constitution of the United States on a federal level is our say our final authority, right? And the Supreme Court looks at that and they use that and it can be changed. That's why I don't think it goes to what you're saying, but it it

…