F (2:14)

When we have the real message of truth, we cannot let somebody say they're

B (2:18)

speaking truth when they're not. Take an amazing journey to a place that will blow your mind and move your mind so you will never be the same again. Remember this and stand firm. Recall it to mind, you transgressors remember the former things of old. For I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me. Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times, things not yet done, saying my counsel shall stand and I will accomplish all my purpose, Calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my council from a far country. I have spoken and I will bring it to pass. I have purposed and I will do it. Isaiah 46, 8, 11. Y', all, what's up? Welcome back to another episode of Apologia Radio. This is the gospel heard around the world. Everyone welcome. Get more at apologiastudios.com that's a P O L O G I a apologiastudios.com go there for all the past episodes of Apologia Radio Shiologians provoked and cultish. You can also partner with us in this ministry. Everything that you see, all the gospel, all the evangelism, all the teaching, all the debate, all the equipping, everything happening at a Apologia Studios is because of people just like you who are part of this ministry with us. Go to apologia studios.com Sign up for all access. When you do, you get all kinds of additional content and you're a part of this ministry with us. And so we're very, very thankful for all of you. I'm Jeff. They call me the Ninja. That's Luke the Bear over there.

D (3:56)

What up? I don't know about you, but that verse sounded very definitive.

B (4:01)

Sounds like sovereignty. Yeah, like in all ways. And that's just only a smidgen, a little bit. Just a, just a touch on all that God has to say about his sovereignty and his rule and his kingdom ruling. Overall, going to do our second episode today reviewing the debate that took place recently between Jacob Hanson, Mormon apologist, and Dr. James White, Christian apologist, on the question of is the God of Calvinism morally reprehensible? And we did one episode last week. Encourage you guys to go check that out. We're going to spend some time going through this debate because we think it'll be very valuable both to the church, to equip the church, but also to the Latter Day Saints that we love, who are watching and who engage with our content regularly. We're thankful for you. We're thankful for you that you're asking questions, that you're listening. And we are just blessed and feel privileged to be able to communicate these truths to you. So we're going to review the debate today. We're staying right now with the cross examination section. I think that's, that's where the debate happens anyways. And so we are absolutely going to also go through Hanson's opening statement, which was just fun, really, really interesting. And I'm being very Kind when I say that. Interesting. It's, it's. And we'll, we'll talk about it. It shows somebody who's engaging in a subject publicly that they haven't actually studied themselves. And so we're going to get to that. But today's episode is cross examination. Last week we did James cross exing Jacob. To this week we're going to do Jacob cross exing James, and then we'll kind of go from there. And so again, thankful that you guys have joined us. And we're going to get right into it today. So leaping right forward into it, make sure you guys do all the things that YouTube likes do, all the likes, the subscribes and the shares. Make sure everyone hears about this. So let's start, however, with this, this we're going to review. Let. Make sure again, the right spot here. And. Okay, sorry guys. Make sure I have this. Right. Okay, good. Okay. That we're going to review just the first few seconds of James cross exing Jacob. We did this last week, but I'm going to just spend a few moments because I want to update you guys on something. So if you're familiar with the debate, you know that Pastor James was not pretending neutrality and he didn't want to allow Jacob to pretend neutrality either. And so going into the debate, James made it clear that this is going to be a discussion that also involves your position because you're not neutral. And so you're representing the Mormon God. I'm representing the biblical God. And so that's how this is. This debate's going to go. Now, as the cross examination opened up, something interesting happened. And I could see James just struggling in terms of, I think, well, how do I use the word? Is it. Is the word struggle? Right? I think, I think he was astonished that Jacob is a Latter Day Saint and that he was denying some fundamental beliefs of the Latter Day Saint community. Clear teachings from the prophets and apostles throughout the whole history of Mormonism. And Jacob was contradictory. And Jacob wouldn't just come out and say it and be clear. And so he was, he was waving the hand at times. And so I think it surprised James, maybe that's the best way to say it, a surprise that he'd be doing a public debate, doing what he was doing. So here's what I'm saying. You're going to see right now. I'm going to play this first part and then I'm going to play actually some engagement that took place after this debate with some Latter Day Saints. And I want to show you that Mormonism is in a state of change now. Man made religion, always will be. But Mormonism, current Mormonism, is real state of change transformation. Because there are so many contradictory statements within Mormonism that's internally and because Mormonism contradicts fundamentally the Bible's fundamental or essential doctrines, there's this change that takes place where, you know, for example, there are many Mormon sects. And it's always interesting to me too, because Mormons will often say, well, how many different denominations of Christianity are there? And try to use it as some good argument against, you know, Sola Scriptura or something like that. But in Mormonism, they have a real problem with all of these different offshoots and sects of Mormonism. Did you see the movie yet on Netflix, the series? It's False Prophet. Oh, you got to see it. It's. It's four parts. Make sure you watch it as soon as you can. Four parts. So basically, after Warren Jeffs goes to jail.

D (8:44)

Yeah.

B (8:45)

There's a. There's a vacuum, like, who's going to fill Warren Jeff's spot? So the FLDS community up north, not really far from us, that he's. That Warren Jeff's, you know, presided over. You know, they're wondering, like, where we go from here, like, who's gonna fill this gap? And this dude rises up. He's the most unlikely Mormon prophet ever. He is a schlub. He is the most weird, wonky guy. And people start following, dude, it's gonna blow your mind. What happens is going to blow your mind. I just watched that last. Did you watch a game? Yeah. Wasn't it freaky? Just crazy. Like, I could not how far it went.

D (9:25)

Wow.

B (9:26)

Just the. There was these dudes, he like, okay, you're the prophet. So they gave their wives and daughters to him. And I'm talking about daughters like 9 years old. And this dude was doing what you think he was doing. And worse with all these guys, kids and. Oh, man, it's just. It's crazy. Anyway, so there's an example. Here's a. Here's an offshoot of Mormonism, you know, off of Salt Lake property. And it's one sect. But see, what they do is they glob onto historic teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. So they go old school, they read Brigham Young.

D (10:01)

They're more true to the old Mormonism.

B (10:03)

Yeah. So they read Brigham Young saying that the only men who become gods, or even the sons of God are those who enter into polygamy. And they go, oh, looks like we've Got to be polygamists, right? I mean, Brigham Young said that if you continue to deny the plurality of marriage or plural wives polygamy, then you'll be damned. He says, you'll be damned if you deny polygamy. And so you've got all these different versions of Mormonism that are out there. And that's because fundamentally, there's internal contradictions and tensions. Now, I'm saying that to set this up because I think it's very important. Mormonism is in a real state of change. It's in a real state of change. James said to me, probably two decades ago, he said, the way things are going now, he said, I don't think there's going to be a recognizable Mormonism in Salt lake in. In 20 or 30 years. And you're beginning to see that right now. And so I'm going to play this portion of the debate again so you can hear Jacob say it. And then I'm going to play with some other Latter Day Saints are now having as a conversation after this debate. So here is that section again from the debate. The opening question from Pastor James to Jacob.

C (11:13)

I am ready. All right, Mr. Hansen, has your God eternally been God?

F (11:21)

Yes.

C (11:23)

And was he a God when he lived on another planet?

F (11:28)

No. I don't think there's anything in my canon of scripture that says that.

B (11:30)

Okay, now let's start there. Notice the contradiction. Has your God eternally been God? Yes. Okay, now let's all think now about language and the meaning of language. Has your God eternally been God? Jacob says, yes, he's eternally been God. So that puts him at odds with Joseph Smith, King Follett, Discourse, sermon in the Grove, any number of statements from prophets and apostles of Mormonism. Has your God eternally been God? Yes. Was he a God when he was on another planet? No. How, pray tell, do you bring those two things together and make any sense of it? He's been God. Been God from all eternity? Yes. Was he a God when he was a man who lived on another planet? No. Which is to say, if you were not God as a man on another planet, then you were not God from all eternity. So within 15 seconds, you already have a collision. Now, why does that collision exist? Okay, now this is going to set up now the video of the Latter Day Saints talking about this. Why does that collision exist? Why the contradictory statements? And here's why. If you don't know a lot about Mormonism, you need to understand that Joseph Smith Jr. Was in New York. He was in New England. Surrounded by Christianity, he publishes the Book of Mormon in 1830. He says it's the most correct book of any book on earth. He says the Bible is missing many plain and precious parts. He said about the Book of Mormon, it's the most correct book of any book on earth. And a man can get closer to God by obeying its precepts than any other book. That's even the Bible Joseph claims. Now, we know that's from the 1830 version that he published. We have it. I have a copy of it. By the way, that version in 1830 to today's version has thousands of changes.

D (13:24)

Over 5,000.

B (13:25)

Yeah. There at least 4,000 changes.

C (13:27)

So.

B (13:28)

So you see, you see a real problem. It's the most correct book of any book on earth that was translated by the very power of God in the 1830 version to today's version. Thousands of changes. All right, so there's already a problem. But however, in the original 1830 version of the Book of Mormon, you have explicit statements of monotheism. And wouldn't you know it, Joseph Smith is raised in New England. He has Christianity all around him. It's in the atmosphere, monotheism. Every Christian is monotheistic. And so Joseph smith publishes the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon, and it's got statements of monotheism, but it also has contradictory statements within itself, confusing members of the Godhead. You've got it contradicting scripture. All kinds of problems we're not going to get into today. But that's the 1830 version. So when he publishes the Book of Mormon, you've got statements of eternal God, you've got statements of monotheism. 1830. Something happens, though, from 1830 to 1844, when he was murdered in Carthage. So 14 year time span, and in 14 years, Joseph Smith's theology starts to evolve also. His praxis does as well. But his theology starts to evolve from his publishing of the Book of Mormon with monotheistic statements and things like eternal God. He's trying to match scripture as much

D (14:44)

as he can, even trinitarian sounding.

B (14:46)

Yeah, yeah. And again, confusion of the Godhead and things like that. All kinds of problems there. This, you know, modalistic statements and just, you know, heresy in there. But by 1844, Joseph Smith is saying things like, I wish to declare I have always. And in all congregations when I have preached and the subject of the deity has been on the plurality of gods, lie, lie, lie. Not true. His theology evolved between 1830 and the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1844, when he's murdered in Carthage, it evolved to the degree that you see him then saying, you know, that people think that, you know, God has been God from all eternity. He says, I will refute that idea and take away and do away the veil so that you may see. So within 14 years of Joseph Smith being presented to the world as a prophet, with the publication of the Book of Mormon, within 14 years, Joseph Smith's theology starts to evolve and contradict itself. He goes from monotheistic statements to clear statements of a plurality of gods, a council of gods. In the beginning, the head of the gods called a council of the gods, and they came together and concocted and prepared a plan to create the world and the people. It Joseph Smith is saying many gods, plurality of gods. Okay, so that creates a problem. Within 14 years, he couldn't keep his theology together. And Mormons are today trying to carry that bag, that bag of contradictions. They're trying to make a system work and come together that just simply cannot come together. You can't have a plurality of gods, you know, one God creating another God, us becoming gods one day, and then an eternal God also. And so that's why Joseph, that's why, sorry, Jacob, Jacob, within what, 10 seconds, contradicts himself here. Has God been God for all eternity? Yes. Was he a God when he lived on another planet? No. How do you make that work? Not while he was on a planet, but he's been God from all eternity. So that creates an issue within Mormonism. How are you going to bring these concepts together? And so this is a clip of a conversation that took place, not exactly sure how long after the debate, but I want you guys to hear this conversation of these Mormons actually talking about the problem.

G (17:02)

Okay, so now, and I'm, I'm gonna push back a little bit on something that you said because, look, I know that anti Mormons are absolutely crazy intoxic, and I don't want to ever be caught defending them. However, I think their concern is legitimate because the majority of members of the church and all the apostles and all the prophets since the beginning of the Restoration, I believe, have manifestly, overtly publicly taught the infinite regress of gods.

B (17:33)

You hear it? Here's a faithful Latter Day Saint trying to acknowledge the issue. He's like, you know, look, I'm not agreeing with these antis. Okay, that's good. We're toxic. And he's not saying I don't agree with them. But we do have to face the facts that this is what our Church has taught like from the beginning. And so how do we deal with that infinite regression of Gods? In other words, like Joseph Smith said, God was once a man as we are now sits enthroned in the heavens. All that, and he has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man's. And then he says, you know, I'm going to tell you how God came to be God. We've imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away and do away the veil so that you may see that God himself was once as we are now, that he went through exaltation. He became a God one day. Which means what? And other, other Mormon prophets and apostles have expatiated on this. They've expand it and, and explain this even further in terms of like God the Father once being a man going through exaltation, who had a God before him. And so this young man is just acknowledging it. Right? I mean they're, they're saying what our prophets have said, like what are we going to do with that? So listen, there's more.

C (18:46)

It's falls through my survey.

G (18:49)

Yeah, well, I think you're wrong because like I didn't realize there was another option.

E (18:53)

I mean, I'm sure what you're asserting is an empirical issue that's demonstrated by taking a poll that's reliable and you haven't done that. So you don't know what percentage of church members hold that.

G (19:06)

Touche. Neither have you.

E (19:09)

I haven't. But I'm not making the assertion that the majority of church members believe something, am I?

B (19:14)

You are.

E (19:15)

Moreover, and here's the bottom line, the church hasn't in general conference in the past 50 years, really hasn't addressed this issue at all.

G (19:24)

Well, prior to the years, did they address the issue?

E (19:29)

Some of them, they held different views. This is not a cut and dried issue. And they held.

G (19:35)

Look, look, I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to help you. If you tell our critics or historians and say, oh no, no, no, infinite regress is some fringe thing that has never been official doctrine, they're going to rightfully say you're wrong.

D (19:49)

Wrong.

G (19:50)

This is all official doctrine.

D (19:52)

I'm not wrong.

E (19:53)

It's not official doctrine.

C (19:54)

No.

G (19:54)

And I'm not, no, I'm not saying it's. Sorry, I'm not saying it's official doctrine. But.

B (19:59)

And there is presented to us yet another issue, another problem. It's not official doctrine. Okay, so if your prophets who speak for God tell you that this is coming to them from the Holy Spirit, that they have authority and they're speaking as a prophet. They're giving you revelation from God. Right. If the apostles of the Mormon Church are doing the same, they're speaking as apostles, they're saying, with the authority of an apostle, this is the truth about God. Isn't that official doctrine? Or do you have to finagle it? You have to try to say, well, wait a second, we have a new standard now. It's not just the prophet has to speak it or an apostle has apostolic authority. It's not like our church is built on prophets and apostles or anything like that. That's what the claim of Mormonism is, the restoration of prophets and apostles. And now you watch this, they claim that when they come to your door, we have the restoration of prophets and apostles built upon prophets and apostles like the true Church. That's what they claim. They come to your door with that message. We've restored all of that. And now you get down the stream and you find yourself now with Mormon faithful Latter Day Saints, faithful Mormons now going, well, we know that our prophets and apostles taught this, but that's not official doctrine. Whatever happened to the restoration of prophets and apostles? Because you know what you won't ever find a Christian doing is this. Is this. Now, I know that, you know, Paul spent chapters speaking on that, but you know, Paul's, you know, fallible and you know, it's not necessarily official doctrine. Or when Peter preaches, he teaches on something for several chapters, you don't find Christians saying that. Right? Now, I know that Peter, I know he said it, but it's not official doctrine.

D (21:39)

Well, what these guys like to do is to pull scare quotes. Quote. I can't talk. Scare quotes from other Christian thinkers and leaders, you know, to try to defend their claims against Christianity, you know, because that's what they do. Right. But they try to do it to us. And we say, yeah, I don't care what that guy said. What does the Bible say?

B (21:59)

What's the Bible say? Yeah, yeah, well, that's the point. We say. We say, what do the prophets and apostles say?

D (22:04)

Right.

B (22:04)

That's our standard.

D (22:05)

Right?

B (22:05)

Because they're inspired. Exactly right. So what do the prophets and apostles say? Yeah, I mean, for example, there are some just, just amazing, amazing teachings coming out of the early church. Some of my very favorites, Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom, that you, you've got some great teaching. And then you have, like on the next page, the same guy who just, like, taught so faithfully on scripture as the ultimate standard or justification by faith alone in Christ alone. The next page, doing a face plan plant maybe on baptism or something like that. And so what you can do is you can say, hey, fantastic, this guy was solid, right with Jesus and Paul and then he face planted. So he's in error there. Why? Because they have a standard. But we don't hold the early church fathers and bishops and teachers, anything like that at all as ultimate or as infallible. However, we take this as infallible. These are the words of God. And we do actually believe in a sovereign God, an infallible God who's able to communicate effectively, infallibly through fallible creatures because he's that kind of sovereign. Mormons today are saying things like, well, you know, God, God is infallible, but you know, he's speaking through fallible men. So even that revelation is fallible because he can't, he can't make an infallible revelation through fallible men. That's what they'll say. So not quite that sovereign anyway. So the point is, is that you'll never see Christians, you ought to never ever see Christians speaking like this. I know a prophet said this, I know an apostle said this, but I can disregard it. It, I can disregard it and say it's not official doctrine.

G (23:36)

There's more, but it really sounds like trying to distance oneself from the teachings of our historical leaders.

B (23:43)

Hear that? He said it, he sees it. Good. Good on him. Good on him. I respect this man. I do. I really genuinely. If you see this, I want you to know that I have a very deep level of respect for you. I truly, truly do. Because you're having integrity, you're being honest here. And I'm not just doing that as a debate tactic or something. I mean, genuinely, I really respect you that you'd be willing to publicly say to other Latter Day Saints guys, this is a problem. Like it looks like we're distancing ourselves from the teachings of our own prophets and apostles. They've said this stuff. There's no way out of it. This man has integrity. He really, really does. And so I'm grateful for him.

E (24:24)

I'm distancing myself from an interpretation and an understanding that I don't think is an accurate best take on what is actually.

G (24:31)

And that's totally fair. That's totally fair to say I interpret these things differently. But you got to be able to understand when the antis say, hold on a minute, all these statements, all these pages and all these sermons from all these Leaders all the way up into the 1970s all sound like they're teaching this doctrine. You can't just ignore that. Right. That's what they're going to say.

E (24:56)

Yeah, but it wasn't taught that way. I mean, you haven't really had it fully addressed in this way since Brigham Young. I mean, there hasn't been an express, explicit take on this to make sense of it from a prophet while being prophet. And I mean, look at what happened in the 1990s when President Hinckley was asked about this doctrine. Okay. He said, I don't think we know much about that. That was his actual answer.

D (25:19)

Right?

B (25:20)

Yeah. And then. And then. And then. Because that surprised a lot of Mormons. And then he went before a Mormon General Conference and said, like. Like, wink, wink, we know what we teach about that. And so it was. It was. It was a complicated moment, I think, for most Latter Day Saints to see Hinckley in an interview saying one thing, we don't know much about that. And then saying a General Conference right after that, like, we know what we teach about that.

D (25:45)

Well, and just because they're not teaching it from General Conference doesn't mean it's not being taught. Taught.

B (25:49)

Right. And you have a whole history of Mormonism.

D (25:51)

Yeah. And like, you know, you mentioned our. Our friend Craig Ray, who used to love having him around because he taught in wards for years. I don't know, 40, 50.

B (26:01)

A long time.

D (26:02)

Years, probably. Yeah, a long, long time. He taught. And he'd be like, oh, no, we teach that. I teach that.

B (26:09)

He was so honest. Yeah, he was. He had so much integrity.

A (26:12)

Yeah, yeah.

B (26:12)

That's why we got along so well with him.

D (26:13)

Yeah, yeah.

B (26:14)

Because we.

D (26:15)

We.

B (26:15)

We both. Well, the three of us knew where we stood with each other and. Yeah, okay, so here's more.

E (26:20)

So when we're actually dealing with this kind of an issue, what we ought to do is urge caution and acknowledge that there are Mormons who believe it. Brigham Young actually taught it. Okay. But there's a lot that Brigham Young taught that we're not going to adopt now. I hope you understand that.

G (26:35)

But now, now, if Brigham Young taught things that were untrue, which I think we very reflexively and far too quickly dismiss many of the teachings of Brigham Young.

E (26:44)

Brigham Young with that. I agree with you on that. What I don't agree with is that everything he taught was. Was inspired.

B (26:51)

And you don't either.

E (26:53)

We have an express doctrine of prophetic fallibility.

B (26:58)

So interesting that they make that claim, because that is not what. What Brigham Young believed about his own teachings. I would actually say that Brigham Young's, Brigham Young's position on his sermons and teachings were in fact biblical. Now I want you to hear me very carefully when I say that the way that Brigham Young spoke about his sermons as a prophet would match what ought to be the case if he truly was a prophet. And that's where he said, I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men that they may not call Scripture. That was, that was Brigham Young's belief as a prophet in the Mormon Church about his teachings that he said it is. It is as good as what is couched in the Bible. That's what he said. So Brigham Young's perspective on being a prophet was actually the biblical way of a prophet. That when he's speaking with authority as a prophet, that what he's saying belongs in the Bible. Like slip, slip his sermons in the back of your Bible, sort of a thing. Like if Brigham Young were to write a letter to the Mormon wards, then that belongs in the back of your Bibles because that's revelation from God. Now this man clearly doesn't hold to that perspective. He disagrees with Brigham Young. He disagrees with his own prophet. So again, the claim of the Mormons, when they come to your doors, they've restored prophets and apostles to the church. And then what do you see when you get inside? This. This is what you see. We've restored prophets and apostles to the church, but you can't always trust them. They could teach authoritatively from the pulpit. They could teach authoritatively as a prophet of God and they could be in error and wrong and fallible. And we can't trust them. We can disregard what the prophet says to us. So again, what happened to the restoration of prophets and apostles to the church? This is what, this is the reality.

D (28:44)

Reality.

B (28:45)

It's a sales pitch. It's marketing. Right? We've restored prophets and apostles to the church. We're the one true church. All this stuff, it's a sales pitch. It's a marketing pitch. Pitch. Because when you get inside the club, this is what you actually have given to you and delivered to you, is that now you know, we don't accept everything our prophet said. Now we can disregard him. Now he's fallible. You know, he's not always trustworthy. We can't believe what Brigham Young says. Again, that's not what Brigham Young thought. He thought his words are the very words of God.

E (29:13)

We have an express doctrine that limits what is binding on the saints to what is accepted by common consent. We have an express recognition that nothing delivered to human beings is 100% complete because we have ongoing revelation that.

B (29:27)

See, that's slippery. People call this sophistry. Sophistry. Right. Well what we're saying is that we have an express doctrine that revelation is not complete. That's not what's being asked of you at all, is whether there's more revelation coming. What we're asking about is the revelation that has already come. How come it contradicts itself? We're not talking about future revelation and oncoming or incoming revelation. We're talking about right here. This is not about new revelation coming. This is about revelation that's come that contradicts itself and contradicts the Bible. That's the issue, not the incoming revelation. It's what's been delivered is contradictory. How come you reject the words of your own prophets and apostles and this is what you have to deal with. Man made religion will create these conflicts for you. It will create these conflicts because fallible men, uninspired men will contradict themselves and the Bible. God doesn't do that. Your prophets do. And that's why you're dealing with this problem.

D (30:28)

This is a good point actually because it's one thing to say, well, we haven't really, they haven't really talked about it from general conference in like 50 years. So we don't really teach that. It's another thing to have if, if what he's saying was a legit point. And to make that hold up, you'd have to have the prophets come out now and say we no longer believe that things have changed. We have modern prophets that receive ongoing revelation. We, we no longer hold to that view. That's what would need to happen for his point to be valid, I think.

B (31:04)

Yeah.

E (31:07)

And so if somebody wants to close the door and say no, this is what Brigham Young taught, that's the end of the discussion. Not even Brigham Young would have agreed with that.

G (31:15)

And I, and that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, is that if you're going to pretend like the antis are going to let you off the hook for this, you're delusional.

F (31:23)

They don't care.

C (31:23)

What.

E (31:25)

No, we have the benefit of not caring what any anti Mormon thinks.

C (31:29)

Right?

G (31:30)

No, and I, look, I, I, yeah, but we would. We like, like so to me, look, it doesn't matter. Hold on. It doesn't matter if the anti say this, but your youth and my youth are going to Google this and they're going to say this has been taught for decades and I can't and pretend

C (31:48)

hard to find teachings of this. If you go through the historic record,

B (31:52)

Joseph Fielding Smith, Lorenzo Snow, they all taught it. Good on these young men. Good on them. Way to go. That's good. They're making the point that needs to be made to someone who's trying to dismiss it, that this, the teaching here is extensive and it is decades and decades and decades long. The claim that, you know, that this isn't, hasn't been spoken on or taught, you know, extensively or whatever is just, it's just fiction. It is absolutely just lost, clear fiction. And these men see it. Good on you, gentlemen. Very good.

C (32:30)

Smith taught it in doctrines of salvation and BH Roberts mentions it. But the idea that this is repeated over the pulpit regularly in every single general conference, which is not what I

G (32:41)

said and no one has said no,

B (32:43)

no

G (32:45)

teenager who is going to Google these things. Well, yeah, but that's teenager is going to say, why are you teachings? And you can't just shrug and be like, oh totally.

C (32:55)

It's been really fun to see a lot of people take this and say stuff like, I didn't even realize that all of this theological nuance existed within the church or that there were different thinkers who have had different opinions on these debates.

G (33:06)

So no idea that non infinite regress was even an option. And I'm not being, I'm not being funny, like I literally did not until like interesting to me like a year ago and somebody was like, oh, infinite regress.

B (33:19)

And I like, was like, what? Okay, so now there you go. So very important, very important part of the discussion here. And I wanted to bring you all into that so you can see the problem that is presented to the Mormon apologist today and why I do think James is right. I think before very long Mormonism is not going to be recognizable. BYU is, is pumping out so many of these Mormons that just have very differing opinions and views. And, and this is what you're seeing, you're seeing the, the fruit of that. And so I, I, I miss the days with the hardcore solid Mormon who just said, yeah, that's what, that's what we believe.

D (34:08)

We're ready to defend it.

B (34:10)

Yeah, I've told this story a few times, but maybe you haven't heard it. And then we'll go right into the cross X. I was outside the Mormon Temple. Oh my goodness, I must have only been like 22 or 23 years old at the time. And I was Talking to this young return missionary, and we're surrounded by a bunch of young Mormons. And I'm just trying to get, you know, on good, solid ground with this guy so we can have a good conversation. And so I'm saying, well, you know, Joseph taught and your church teaches, and it was about becoming a God one day. And so I. He's a returned missionary. And I was like, so you do hope to become a God one day? You do believe that that's. There's potential there right through exaltation because of what your prophets have taught. And he would not admit to it. He would not admit to believing he could become a God one day. And so I'm pulling references and I'm reading quotes and I'm doing my very best just to get this guy. Just, look, I'm not mad at you for it. Just like, so we have a good place to talk. Do you believe you're going to become a God one day? Now the whole time this is happening, there's this old man, this really old man who's standing there right there next to us, and he's just looking at him. He's looking at me. And he's looking at him. He's looking at me. And like, we're all getting worn out by the process at this point of me saying, can you just admit that you believe you're going to become a God one day, that you. That's what you're hoping for? And he wouldn't admit it. And I could see this old man getting more and more frustrated looking at him, looking at me, and his face is getting mad. And so I say to him one last time, I said, do you believe you're going to become a God one day? And this old Mormon, he goes, yes, I am. And like, yells it. And like, everybody in the whole circle just, like, looks over at this guy and he's just, like, panting, like, he's just so frustrated with this young Mormon. And he grabs his cane, he's holding a cane. He points back at the Mormon temple there in Mesa, and he goes, I'm going to do it right over there. And so you know that guy, that guy. Where's that guy? Right? The one who just say, yes, that's what he taught. Yes, that's what we believe. Now let's go to the text together. Like, where's that guy? That's what we need more of. Yeah, here we go. This is the beginning of the Cross Ex with Jacob Cross examining Pastor James.

F (36:21)

All right, let me get my. Let me get My timer ready?

B (36:26)

Okay.

F (36:29)

All right, Dr. White. So first question. Does God want to save everyone?

C (36:37)

No.

F (36:37)

Okay, so wait, wait. You said God does not want to save everyone.

C (36:42)

If God desired to save, save every single person, he has the power and the ability to grant to them regeneration, faith, and draw them unto Himself. It is very, very clear that God decided to demonstrate his glory in the destruction of the Amorites, the Canaanites, Babylonians, and any other numbers of people in the biblical record. So if you're simply trying to say there can only be one will in God in that sense, then obviously the scriptures contradict them.

B (37:15)

Is it possible for humans to reject so important conversation? Does God want to save everybody? And Pastor James just gives a straightforward no. And there's a reason for that. You have the entire history of redemption where God is speaking about not only Himself, his character, his justice, this, but also his power and his ability to save. And, you know, scripture has any number of statements, and this is not exhaustive to any degree. Psalm 115, verse 3. Our God is in the heavens. He does all that he pleases. So let's just. Let's. Let's assume that's true. We ought to. Our God is in the heavens. He does all that he pleases. All right, so the question is, is do people perish? Do people go to hell? According to scripture? Yes. There's no question of that. People get cast into the lake of fire. You can't avoid that. Jesus taught that. Jesus taught the reality of hell, all of that. So if our God is in the heavens, he does all that he pleases. The question could be also framed this way. Would it please God? Does it please God to save everybody? Well, if he does all that he pleases, then everybody would be saved. Saved because God does all that he pleases. If God wanted to save everybody, then everybody would be saved. The fact that there are people in hell means that it did not please God that all those people would be saved. God chose, obviously, justice in their case. And what does every sinner and criminal deserve? Justice or grace? Justice, like, you know, in a court of law, what is the standard? Justice, not mercy. Justice is the standard, is the ultimate. Is mercy available? Of course. But what's demanded in a court is justice. So if people are in hell, the question has to be asked, well, how are they there? And the heaven? The. The scripture says, our God is in the heavens. He does all that he pleases. Or how about this? Job 42. 2. I know that you can do all things and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. If it was God's purpose that every single human being would be saved, well, then the word from God is that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. If it was God's purpose and God's pleasure that every human being received salvation, then no purpose of his can be thwarted. And so if people are perishing, if people go to hell, if people don't know God well, well, what's the Scripture say? No purpose of his can be thwarted. Romans 8:28 Famous one Christians love this one, and you ought to have it memorized. I hope you do. And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good all things work together for good. For those who are called according to his purpose, God has a purpose. Psalm 103:19 says, the Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all. Ephesians 1:11 says, in him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined. Here it is. Listen closely to this one Having been predestined according according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will of his will. Psalm 135. 6Whatever the Lord pleases, he does in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. Daniel 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing. And he does according to his will he does. There is again, see, it's a repeated thing. It's a theme. He here he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand or say to him, what have you done? Note that last portion there. He does according to his will among the host of heaven. Everyone says, that's fine, he can do what he wants in heaven. But listen, it says, and among the inhabitants of the earth and so the question is, does God want to save everybody? Well, according to the Scriptures, before your question arrives, God says that he does according to his will, and no purpose of him could be thwarted. He does according to his will among all the inhabitants of the earth, and no one can stay his hand and say, what have you done? We could keep going. But this is the problem is that and this is what James is reiterating to Jacob over and over and over again is your problem is that your God is an exalted man. He has laws and standards above him. And so he's not a standard of anything. He's not even fully sovereign. And he's in the script that your own, your own prophets and apostles have said that he continues to grow in knowledge and power. And so that's not the biblical God. This is the biblical God. Here's what Scripture says about God, and it's very different. So there's more

F (41:59)

God.

C (42:00)

Humans reject God every single day. The real question should be, is it possible?

B (42:05)

Let me get back to that.

C (42:06)

Humans reject God. So if you're simply trying to say there can only be one will in God in that sense, then obviously the Scriptures contradict that.

F (42:16)

Is it possible for humans to reject God?

B (42:20)

Now, this is important. And this goes to show Jacob's fundamental ignorance and lack of understanding of what Calvinism, what Calvinism teaches. And that's shorthand for saying going to the Scriptures to say, what does the Bible say about a biblical anthropology and a biblical soteriology, Biblical view of man and a biblical view of salvation. When he asked the question, is it possible for someone to reject or resist God? It fundamentally shows that he has never read a book on Calvinism, at least up to the point of the debate. He didn't actually do his due diligence and do what was required of him to go in a public debate. And that's actually understand the position of his opponent before he goes to debate his opponent and to speak on it publicly. You've heard me say that. The one thing I think we should all try to avoid is leaving a public record of ignorance. We're all humans, we're all going to fail. I get it. But you're doing a public debate, a public moderated debate, and you're leaving a public record of ignorance. Is it possible for man, men to resist God? Here's the thing. If you knew anything about Calvinism, and I would say especially what the Bible teaches about the nature of man in the Fall, you would know that resisting God and rejecting God is, is the default position, not is it possible. It's the default position of sinners rebelling against God. There is none righteous. Romans 3. No, not one. None who seeks for God. There is none who is good. This comes, by the way, in Romans 3 after Romans chapter 1, where it says that people suppress the truth of God and unrighteousness and they switch God for idols. It even says there that they are haters of God. Haters of God. So you ask the question, is it possible for a person to resist God? That's their default position. Because why? They're haters of God. Romans 1. They're not good, they're not righteous, they don't seek for God. Romans 3, Ephesians chapter 2. They are by nature children of wrath. By Nature, children of wrath, dead in their sins and trespasses. And so you ask the question, is it possible for someone, biblically speaking, to resist or reject God? That's their default position according to Scripture. What do you mean, is it possible for them to do that? So, and it goes to show Jacob hasn't done his homework.

C (44:41)

Humans reject God every single day. The real question should be, is it possible for those who are in Adam to repent and turn to Christ outside of the work of the Holy Spirit? Jesus said no in John chapter 6, verse 44. So I follow his teaching at that point. And by the way, Acts 7:51, people resist the Holy Spirit of every day. You are confusing categories. There's an entire chapter on this subject in the book that you forgot to read. But quote from that demonstrates the category errors that you made, many of them in your presentation.

F (45:17)

Okay. You once said, I think God is probably consistent here, and he's going to have elect infants and others who will not be. So why would God send some infants to suffer in hell?

C (45:30)

Well, again, Romans chapter five is still in my Bible. And Joseph Smith never had the authority to remove anything anyways. And Romans chapter 5 says, you are either in Adam or you're in Christ. If you are in Adam, you receive death. If you are in Christ, you receive life by grace. He transfers us out of the kingdom of darkness into his Son. We receive life. So Scripture does not actually address the issue of that you're raising. It's speculation in regards to infants and things like that. There are many people just want to go, hey, all infants at Noah's flood just automatically go to heaven. But you go. And where do you get that from Scripture? Well, I don't, but it just feels good that way. And so my confession of faith specifically refers to elect infants. So that has to be a possibility for me. But the fact of the matter is, Scripture is silent on many issues in regards to. To that particular subject.

F (46:26)

Why would some.

B (46:29)

So one of the things. And you're going to see this when we do the review of the opening statement, the opening statements from Jacob and Pastor James. One of the things that was clear in this debate is that Jacob went into this with a clear goal of emotionalism.

D (46:45)

Yeah.

B (46:46)

Of. Of an appeal to the emotions. And one of the things that James said is, you know, I'm going to show you enough respect to appeal to your mind and not your emotions, because that's what we should be doing here is thinking and thinking biblically, thinking with our Bibles and not thinking with our emotions. As creatures, which is what we are. And so James makes the point. So of course, Jacob, because he wants to appeal to the emotions. He talks about infants that die. You know, what's the eternal state of infants who die. And James is trying to make the point, well, if Scripture is your standard, then you know that Scripture doesn't spread. Speak on this explicitly. There's not like a whole chapter in the Bible of what happens to infants when they die. There are, there are moments in scripture where you see certain things, like David, when David's son dies, David says, you know, he can't come to me, but I will go to be with him. So David's assumption was that he was going to go be with his, his, his son when he died. And so there's that. There's also the fact that it says that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. So that's while inside the womb filled with the Spirit of God. So is God able to bring regeneration to fill a child with the Spirit, to grant repentance and faith to a child? Yes. I mean, clearly in Scripture that's, that's, that's within God's power to do so. But James is making the point. You're asking a question that Scripture doesn't have like long discourses on. So we have to. Where Scripture is silent, we need to be silent. You know, if it's whispering, we need to whisper with it. But where it shouts, we shout. And, and so that's, that's the point. But yeah, Romans 5 is still in the Bible. I hope, I hope everyone caught that, because that's something that Jacob cannot deal with. And Jacob, if you see this, you can't do it. You cannot deal with Romans 5 with your perspective. And Romans 5 was here long before you got here. And Romans 5 says very clearly Romans 5 12. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. Adam is, according to this text and others, our representative. And James makes the point to you too, that if you reject Adam as representative, then you have to also reject Christ as representative. Because that's the point. Paul makes you have a representative. It's either Adam or Jesus. If you're in Adam, it's death and condemnation. If you're in Jesus, it's eternal life and righteousness. And so they're your representative. So which one do you want to be in by faith? Jesus, where there's righteousness and eternal life. But he says this for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given. But sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. That's Jesus. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through the one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man, Jesus Christ abounded for men many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. But the free gift, following many trespasses, brought justification. For if because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man man, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience, the many will be made righteous. That's Romans 5 still in the Bible. James is right. Joseph Smith didn't have any right in the first place to mangle those texts or to remove anything from the Bible. But it's still there. There. It's still there. Now we're going to take a quick commercial break here guys. And when we come see, I need to go. Oh, you take off? Yeah, I'll, I'll stay.

D (50:50)

You want to keep going?

B (50:51)

I'll keep going. We're going to, we're going to take a quick break and when come back, we're going to review. Review more of the debate. I hope this is a blessing to you guys. Do all the things, the likes and shares, subscribes, all that stuff. Make sure everyone knows about this conversation. It is a great moment for us to have some incredible opportunities to converse with Latter Day Saints about these vitally important issues. I think this debate, it provides a great foundation to do so. So, so do all the things. Thank you guys for watching today. Quick commercial break. We're right back. This episode's brought to you by ion layer@ionlayer.com Go and check out the health benefits, the wellness benefits and longevity benefits of NAD treatments. NAD is nicknamed the Fountain of Youth for a reason. You have an abundance of this in your system when you're young. As you get older, it drops Off. And now we found a way to get NAD into our system systems. They do it through IV treatments, but they're very expensive and it's also extremely painful and difficult. However, Ion Layer found a way to get a high dose of NAD into your system through a medical patch you wear on your arm. You wear it for about 14 hours, you get a high dose of NAD treatment into your system and no pain at all. And it is a fraction of the cost of what you would pay through for an IV treatment. In the coupon code, type in Apologia in all caps. They're going to hook you up with a great discount for an already amazingly cost effective product. And they bless Apologia studios and help us to stay on the air and do all these programs with you. Don't forget. Also Ion Layer has added a glutathione patch as well. Glutathione, the master antioxidant. Go check out the health benefits of glutathione. I'm doing this stuff anyways. It's blessed my life in tremendous ways. And so if you want to focus on your health, wellness and longevity. 70 nothing better in my mind than ionlayer.com for your NAD and Glutathione treatments. Ionlayer.com don't forget to put Apologia in all caps in the coupon code.

D (52:50)

This video is brought to you by Amtech Blades. We are very excited to be partnering with amtech. Bill Rapier, long time Navy Seal, Devgur operator, amazing brother and friend looking for a battle ax to carry on your person to chop some wood. They've got you covered. Looking for a blade to carry on you every day. Also got you covered. Look at this. I gotta check my mail. What do we got going on here? Oh, look how sharp that is. What is this? Oh, 5% off. You can go to amtechblades.com, put apology in the coupon code, get 5% off your order and he will match that and give 5% to end abortion. Now again, amtech blades.com com we're grateful for them. Check them out.

B (53:33)

All right everyone, thank you guys so much for staying with us. We're going to jump right back into the discussion here. Here is more from the cross examination from Jacob to Pastor James.

C (53:44)

Infants deserve to suffer well again because we're in Adam and so do do infants suffer. So everybody has to answer this question. But if do infants suffer? If they suffer, then the question is why?

F (53:59)

But do they deserve it well again.

B (54:01)

So notice that James can't handle that. You see one of the ways that you can tell that somebody's argument is falling apart is when they make the argument and then it's turned back around on them and they can't answer it. It shows a contradiction, contradiction in their system. You know that it's, it's not a valuable question because what he's asking about is infinite infants and they're suffering and they're dying. But notice something. Every system has to address that question. Every system has to address the question, why? Because we all know that babies in this world, this fallen world, die and they suffer. And so the question is, well, how do you answer that? Theologically, the Bible has an answer for that as to why the world is the way that it is today, why the effects of the fall look like this. And, and you can move that. You can move that question all the way back. And the Bible has an answer from the very beginning. And so that's what James is doing, is saying, wait, this isn't a problem just for me. It's not like it's a problem just for the Calvinist, which is what Jacob is pretending. It's a problem just for the Calvinist. You know, how do you answer that? Why are babies suffering? It's like, well, wait a second now we all have to answer that question. Babies are suffering, babies are dying. And so what's your answer? What's your answer? Because what we're saying is that we go to the word of God and have God provide those answers for us. Us. And we have an answer at the very beginning of the Bible in the first three chapters as to why things are the way that they are in the world today. Why is there death? Why is there suffering in this world? Why is there decay? Why is there depravity? We have an answer from Scripture, and we also have an answer in terms of the plight of all human beings. And that's in Romans 5 and that's still in our Bibles. Whether you like it or not. Adam in Scripture is considered by God representative, and all of us fall in Adam, and that includes babies. That's the answer from Scripture. You may not like that answer, but don't pretend to be following the Bible. Don't pretend to be Christian. That's what the Bible says. You may not like the answer, and that's irrelevant. God has spoken. And so if you have to face the problem of infant mortality, babies suffering, babies dying, you have to say, okay, why is that the case? Did God just not know this was going to happen? Is God powerless? Is God not able to address this issue? Or does God actually know? And is God sovereign and is he in charge of this whole thing? And is there an answer from Scripture as to why things are the way that they are in the world? Why is there death? Romans 5 answers that question from an inspired apostle. And we happen to believe that an infallible God, God who is sovereign and all powerful, can give us his creatures, communicate a message to us infallibly through fallible creatures, because that's what it means to be all powerful and sovereign and infallible. God can do our. God can do those things. So we have an infallible word here as to why the world is the way that it is. And there's more.

C (57:02)

There's a difference between what we experience in this life and the eventual judgment at the final day. And so the fact of the matter is we look at the fact that infant mortality has always been an amazing.

F (57:16)

But, but that's not my question. My question is why do they deserve to suffer? Because your theology holds that they deserve it.

C (57:21)

Again, deserved suffer. I would, I don't know that I would use that terminology outside of judgment. So I'm not sure what you're quoting. And given how many quotations you've given to me that were just laughably bad tonight. I'm really sorry, sir. That was one of the worst presentations I've ever heard. I'll just be, I'll just be honest with you. Okay, so I'm just telling, I'm just

F (57:41)

telling you my next question.

C (57:43)

Well, well, I was trying to answer the last one. And that is you're, you're assuming a context here that I'm not sure is accurate. I can't, I just.

F (57:51)

It's a simple question. I was just asking if.

C (57:53)

No, it's not a simple question. Let's not, let's not.

F (57:55)

Why do infants deserve okay to suffer?

C (57:57)

And so.

F (57:58)

And you said it was because of Adam. And so I guess my follow up question would be what is it about what Adam did that causes an.

C (58:06)

And I already started answering the question. And I'll go ahead and finish answering the question. There would be a context of judgment where dessert would be brought in. And then there's a context of simple creation where it would not. And I can't trust the context that you're quoting from because I bet you you don't have the context anyways.

F (58:23)

Well, I'm just asking a simple question. No, no, no.

C (58:25)

Stop saying simple question. You are putting words in my mouth.

F (58:28)

No, no.

C (58:28)

And if you can't give the context, then at Least allow me to say.

F (58:31)

Let's just go to the next.

C (58:32)

There's two different possibilities of the context.

F (58:34)

Let's just go to the next question. What is the good news for those who are not elect?

C (58:39)

The good news is, again, what is. What does Scripture say? We do not know who the elect are. And so we proclaim the Gospel promiscuously to all people. We command all men everywhere to repent. And we say to any person, if you will turn from your sin and believe in Jesus Christ, you will find him to be powerful Savior. Now, who's going to do that? Jesus said, no, I'm not.

F (59:02)

I'm not asking about who who is. I think you misunderstood the question. The question is, is for the people who are not elect, we don't know who they are, but for those people, what is the good news for them?

B (59:12)

Again, this is really important. I appreciate that Jacob asked the question in this way. And here's why I would challenge you to do this. Read the New Testament. Read the New Testament and read the proclamation of the Gospel from the apostles. So you could look at Peter at Pentecost, you could look at Peter before the Gentiles, you could look at the Apostle Paul at the Areopagus, Mars Hill. But read how the apostles proclaimed the Gospel. It's one of the things that I've been saying for many, many years that if you read how the the apostles proclaim the gospel and you compare it to how often we do in the west, very different. And so we asked the question, what's the good news? To the unelect. And here's the deal.

C (60:00)

Look.

B (60:01)

The Scripture talks about elect. It talks about predestined. It talks about foreknown. It talks about those for whom Jesus came to save. And there's no question that Jesus says in John 6:44, I've come down from John chapter six. He says, I've come down from heaven not to do my will, but the will of him who has sent me. And he says, and this is the will of him who has sent me, that of all that he has given to me, I should lose nothing but raise it up on the last day. And Jesus says, no man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up so no one can except the Father draws. And I will raise up the one the Father draws. So everyone the Father draws, Jesus promises, I will raise them up. So there are people, a particular people, that have been given to Jesus by the Father. We call that. We call them the elect. Of God. And so the question Jacob is asking is, this is like, what's the good news? For the unelect, you're preaching the good news, but what's the good news? And that's the point I was making, is there's a very. There's a difference oftentimes to how the apostles preach the gospel and how you often hear it communicated by people today. And that is that when the Bible proclaims the gospel, the good news of God, it is a message about what God has done in Christ, his Messiah. It's about what Christ has accomplished. It's about who Jesus is and what he did. So it's a message about Christ who lived and died, was buried, crucified, buried, rose again from the dead. And Paul gives that clear communication in First Corinthians, chapter 15, that the gospel that he's preaching is this. It's a proclamation of what God has done in Christ. Christ in the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The proclamation of what God has done in Jesus. It's also, by the way, the gospel of the kingdom. That's how Jesus preached it. The good news of the kingdom, that Christ has come to rule and reign on David's throne. And all those passages in the Old Testament about the kingdom of God, about the rule of the Messiah in the world, what it was going to accomplish in the world, it was going to bring justice and righteousness and salvation to the ends of the earth. The knowledge of God was going to cover the earth like the waters cover the sea. Isaiah, chapter two. That people would stream from the nations up to God's mountain, that God's Torah would go forth from Zion. So it was good news of a kingdom. Now somebody says, well, what? How is that good news? What's good news of God about what he has done in Christ to bring salvation into the world. World. You're saying this is what Jesus did. My part in the gospel comes after the proclamation of that truth. Where the call of the apostles was. God commands men everywhere to repent. The call was, this is what God has done in Christ. This is who Jesus is. Jesus lived, Jesus died. Jesus rose again from the dead. Jesus is ascended, Jesus is seated. That is good news for the world because of what God is going to do through the Messiah's kingdom in the world. And then the call is, okay, this is what Jesus has done. Now you repent and you believe. And the call was, if you believe in Christ, you will receive forgiveness of sins. That's the call. And so it is good news to the world, that God has done this in Christ. But that good news only is meaningful ultimately to me if there is repentance and faith in this Savior. I hope that that's clear. Like, why is it good news to the unelect? Listen, it's a proclamation of what God has done in Christ. That's good news. That salvation is being brought now through the Messianic King. That God has accomplished all of his promises in this one, that he has said he would do it in. That's good news. And those promises of the kingdom of what God is going to do through this Messianic kingdom is good news for the world. But it is again only something that is really meaningful to the sinner if it is met with repentance and faith. And that is something, according to Scripture, that God does. He is the one that grants the gift of faith. Philippians 1:29 for to you it has been gifted, granted, not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for his sake. Those two things are gifts from God. According to the Apostle Paul In Philippians 1:29, it is a gift of God to believe in Jesus. It is a gift of God to suffer for Jesus sake. Scripture is very, very clear that God is the one who grants repentance, that the Lord's servant must be patient when wronged, able to teach in humility, correcting those who oppose themselves if perhaps God may grant them repentance, leading to a knowledge of the truth. And so again, the Gospel is a proclamation of the good news of what God has done in Christ. And then the call of the Gospel is different. Now repent and believe. Turn from your sin and have faith in Jesus to be reconciled to God. Come to Christ for life. And so again, there's a proclamation of the good news, and then there is the call of the good news. Repent and believe. That's how it works.

C (65:12)

The good news is a proclamation of what God has done in Jesus Christ. For a person who remains a rebel sinner against what God has done, done, that's not good news. That's bad news. Because they are rejecting God's Son.

F (65:26)

So the good news is not for everyone.

C (65:28)

The good news is proclaimed to everyone. And those who reject it will turn it into bad news because it will become their own judgment.

F (65:36)

Okay, before creating any person, does God know with certainty their eternal destiny?

C (65:42)

Before God created anything, he knew exactly what his intention in creation was.

B (65:49)

Now this should be so abundantly obvious. It should be so abundantly obvious. If you have just done a cursory reading of the Bible on this point of the sovereignty of God and the knowledge of God, omniscience of God, you wouldn't have to ask the question. Just think about this in these terms. The Bible says about Jesus that Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. He's the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. In order for that to be true, that means that God would have to know what was going to take place in human history and ultimately the destiny of everyone in human history, because Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Couple that together with all of the texts that I've already given and the many, many more that could be given, given of the sovereignty of God, God doing his purpose, his will, all of those things that God and the God of the Bible knows. He's not like the God of Mormonism, as Mormon apostles have said and prophets have said. Who. He is growing in knowledge and power. He's growing in his knowledge. And so that's why this is probably a confusing, quite confusing point for a Mormon. Does God really know all these things? Does he determine all these things? Does he know all these things according to scripture? Scripture, he declares the end from the beginning. According to scripture, Jesus is a lamb slain before the foundation of the world. This plan of redemption was something that was settled before the world even was. That's what scripture teaches very, very clearly.

C (67:27)

The outcome of all things would be. Yes.

F (67:29)

Okay. If you had a button and pressing it would bring a person into existence, but you knew with certainty that they would suffer eternal torture, torment with no escape, would you press that button again?

C (67:41)

You are beginning with a. With. With a. Something that I rejected at the very beginning of my presentation. You are starting with man. I start with God. Yours is a human theology. Mine's a divine. No, no, no, no, no. You're not gonna roughshod me in cross examination. I've watched you do this. It's not gonna work for me. Okay, you can try. Joe Heschmeyer let you get away with it. It ain't gonna happen with me. It's. And my point is, there is no divine button to press to do these things. When God creates, He creates for his purpose, not my purpose.

F (68:14)

So.

C (68:14)

And so if my creation results in his glorification, and he's glorified in that, then that is what the scripture says this God is all about.

F (68:25)

Okay, let's. You said

B (68:33)

that.

F (68:34)

Let me see here. Actually, I'll just go on to the next one.

C (68:37)

If you use larger font, it'll help you read those.

F (68:41)

Sorry, I'M not quite as.

B (68:41)

It's dark.

C (68:42)

I know, but it's dark in here. Jason, we need lights, dude.

F (68:49)

What does it mean to say that God is good? What do you mean when you say that?

C (68:57)

I speak about God in accordance with his own word. So when he defines goodness, truth, justice, grace, I do that from Scripture, which is what my opening statement was. So. So righteousness and truth is the foundation of his. Of his throne. And that which is in accordance with God's law and righteousness is that which is good.

F (69:20)

Okay, so. So I still don't understand what you mean by God is good. It seems that you're just saying that God is God.

C (69:28)

Well, God. Well, yes. That is one of the big differences between us is that my God being eternal and transcendent and the definer of all things, is the definer of goodness, grace, love, mercy, beauty. Yes, he's the standard of all those things, because there is no standard outside Him. Your God became God through priesthood, power and procreation, creation. And so there are things above him that define Him. That's why we are. We can't come to any conclusions here.

F (69:55)

I'm not representing the LDS point of view tonight.

C (69:57)

No, you cannot. No. Excuse me. Excuse me, but we may. I made this very clear when I agreed to this. You don't get to dodge who you are in this debate. You don't get to dodge it. You are presenting a position. I know you. I know you try to dodge this, but you are.

F (70:12)

I'm actually arguing from the perspective of most Christians who believe that God is loving, which. What do you mean? What do you mean? Well, most Christians, I think, believe that God is all loving. And I want to know, what do you mean when you say that God is loving? What do you mean by that?

C (70:26)

Again, God is loving.

B (70:29)

So I think one of the things that needs to be corrected here is that when Jacob says this, you know, most Christians believe that God is all loving. It's interesting how he puts that. It's clear to me that what Jacob is communicating here is that. That what he's trying to say is that Christians believe that God is only loving. And that because that's how he's utilizing this. Because when you bring up categories in scripture of the non elect, the elect, predestined God clearly saying in His Word that He has created people for particular purposes, some for judgment, some for gracious purposes. When you. When you communicate what scripture says about all of that, that he struggles with it in his own perspective because he is condensing God down to like one dimension, one attribute, love. He is not just all loving, but really what that means is only loving. But the script in scripture, God is not just one attribute. He's not only loving. He is the very standard of what love is. I mean, think of what scripture says. It says God is love. Not that God is loving. He is. It says God is love. That's what scripture says about God. He is love. So if that's the case, then that means that the God of the Bible, the true and living God, is the very reference point for what love actually is. He is love. If you want to know what love is, it needs to be measured by God and his attributes and his own character. And you want to see what love really is, you look to God. It's very different from the God of Jacob Hansen and other Latter Day Saints, who is a God through exaltation and through obedience and through all these processes, he became exalted and a God one day at least. Of course, that's what the Mormon prophets and apostles taught. It's very different from what Jacob Hanson is trying to give to us at this point. But the God of Mormonism was once a man, and so he's not the standard. There was something that he had to yield to that was above him. There was some law, some way, some ordinance, something he had to himself submit himself to, to. And so the God of Mormonism is a man who is exalted to become a God one day. He's not the ultimate standard, all right? There were standards outside of him. And that's very different from what the scripture says about the God of the Bible. God is love. And so if you want to know what love is, you look to God and then there's definitions provided in scripture. We don't just make this up. We have God himself as the standard of what love actually is. He's the plumb line, right? His own character, his own work word, he tells us. But then scripture even expatiates upon what love actually is. It's not arbitrary. God is love. Love does no harm to its neighbor. And then, of course, the famous famous passage in Corinthians, love is patient, love is kind. All that. There's definitions provided in scripture. It's not just something we just make up. Now, why is this important? Here's the point. So Jacob doesn't like the fact that when we were. When we are talking about God and we're saying God is good, and Jacob's like, what do you mean? God is good? Is good. We're saying, well, then God, his own attribute, his own character. That's the measure. That's the standard. If you want to know what justice is, you go to God and you say, what is actually just. Because his throne is established on justice and righteousness. That's what Scripture says. And so if you want to know what justice is, you don't just invent it. You say, what is God like? What does God say? Has he given us word on what is just? If you want to know what mercy is, you go to God, whose mercy is new every morning. You say, God, what is merciful? What is that definition according to. To you? God is good, God is righteous, God is just. And so you look to God as the reference point, and you go to His Word to say, God's explained what all that means. It's not arbitrary. It's not just subjective. And here's what I mean. Where does this fall off? Well, if you don't appeal to Scripture, if it's arbitrary, if it's in us to define and not God, here's the kind of thing you end up with. With

C (74:30)

question for Mr. Hansen.

B (74:32)

Could you please be specific where you get your standard for defining love?

F (74:41)

Love is that which brings people into a higher state of existence. Okay? So God has the highest state of existence. And that which moves you towards that state of existence. Existence is loving and good and holy and all of that. And if you go in the opposite direction and you move things away from loving relationships that harmonize things together, then that breaks things down. So that acts as the basis of loving relationship, or that acts as the objective standard by which we can judge if something is loving or not. Does it move someone closer to harmonious relationships with each other and with God, or does it move it away from that?

B (75:25)

By the way, we either don't know what objective standard is, or we have to redefine it. That's not objective. That's not an objective standard. He just made a claim about what love is. It's what brings us to a higher state of, forgive me, I don't know exactly how I said it. Love just takes me higher. And he says, that's the objective standard. But. But now try that with a pedophile. He can adopt that. He can adopt that standard. It's what takes us to a higher state of being or whatever it is. He could take that standard. You said that you called objective. And he could say, well, okay, so what that means here is that my actions, my activities, what I'm engaged in is taking me and this child to a higher state of being. It's raising us higher. And so how are you going to argue with that? It's pure subjectivity. This is Jacob Hanson's own mind trying to develop what actually love is when Scripture's already identified that and defined it. God is love. And so you look to God and his character. What is God like? And Scripture defines it. Again, further, love does no harm to its neighbor. You know, most Christians, when they're hearing this, they're probably a little surprised. They're like, well, don't you know that God has spoken on this? Jacob, in First Corinthians 13, 4, 8, it says, Love is patient and kind. Love does not envy or boast. It is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way. It is not irritable or resentful. It does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. And so there are definitions in Scripture, and that is objective. It's outside of us. It's true whether we like it or not. Yours is not objective. That's a subjective position on love. It's interesting because you wonder, like, well, where did you. Where did you get this from? Because it's like pithy slogans and music. I mean, where do you. What is love according to you? If you're not going to use it, if you're not going to define it based upon the God of the Bible? I mean, what is love? Is that one of your prophets? I mean, people have. People sing about this all the time. Again, you could find this definition in music and all kinds of different genres. I mean, some of you like this better. And your love just takes me high, just takes me higher. You see what I'm saying? It's just pithy slogans. It's. It's the stuff of. Of songs. I mean, anybody can pull this. But it's not actually objective if it's not rooted in God's own character. Something outside of ourselves, something that is eternal. It's true outside of you. It's true outside of your existence. It's true when you're here, it's true when you're gone. It's true anyways. And it's based upon something that's not just simply in your own mind. And Jacob has a hard time with that. What do you mean that God is good? Well, we go to the Bible to see what does God say about his own character and nature and attributes. We go to God and say, God Give us word on what is actually love, loving. And Scripture defines that for us. That's how Christians approach the problem, in

C (78:46)

that he has demonstrated his love toward us in Christ Jesus, in that he gave Himself for us so that when we repent and believe, we can have eternal life.

F (78:56)

But only for the elect.

C (78:58)

But I don't know who the elect are. My faith in God is the result of his action of election. And so the fact that you are sitting here this evening. Evening. And God has not struck you dead for your sin is an act of love on his part. It's mercy. It's common grace. And when the atheist sits there and mocks God, when, when, when an atheist tries to get you to drink antifreeze and, and, and is still alive to this day, that's an extension of God's mercy and grace towards someone. Now, you need to understand, understand there's different kinds of love.

F (79:36)

I have another, I have another question. Well, but I know you tried to go through the time, but I'm not.

C (79:40)

No, I'm not. If you ask about love, there's a difference between.

F (79:43)

I just want to get to some of the questions in general. Could I ask the next question? Well, if you want answers, I do so.

B (79:48)

And that's important too. There's a difference between redemptive, redemptive love and general love. Is God loving to everybody? Is God loving to the them? Is God merciful to them? Well, Jesus. It was Jesus who said that God causes the rain to fall in the just and unjust. That's loving. That God causes the rain to fall on a just and the unjust. Jesus said that that's, that's a kind of love, but it's not salvific love. It's not redemptive love. It's not the kind of love that Jesus talks about in John chapter 6 or John chapter 10. In John chapter 10, where Jesus says, I know my sheep and they know me. They hear my voice and they follow me. And he says to the Jews of his day who are rejecting him, he says, the reason you cannot hear me in John 10 is because you are not of my sheep. He says, my sheep hear my voice and they follow me and they come. He says, they're in my hand and no one can snatch them out of my hand. That's a redemptive, salvific kind of love. He knows his sheep, he knows who he came for. And he says to people who, who, who are there rejecting him, the reason you can't hear me is because you are not of my sheep. That's the. That's Jesus in John 10. Jesus in John chapter 6, Jesus says again that he came from heaven not to do his will, but the will of him who has sent him. That of all that he has given to me, I should lose nothing but raise it up on the last day. That's what Jesus says. That's a salvific love. That's a redemptive kind of love. That's a special kind of love. But is God loving, loving to people generally? Well, he causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. And did you notice, you can go back later and watch this go. Just rewind in a minute here. That when James said the fact that you are a sinner against God and God hasn't like, ended your life right now. And Jacob, like, was like, looked at James in shock over that, like, that God would end people's lives who are sinners and rebels against him. That, like, shocked Jacob that James said that.

C (81:49)

That.

B (81:50)

But that's what the Bible teaches, that God is not only love. He's also filled with justice and righteousness and even wrath, indignation against sin. He has a settled opposition against evil. And so God is not just one dimensional. God is not. He doesn't have just one attribute, love. God also is a righteous and a holy God. And God has wrath against sin. And yes, people die because they're sinners. People are judged by God because they are sinners against God. God doesn't have just one attribute. Attribute. It's so critical for us to understand that. But is God loving generally to sinners and rebels? The fact that they continue to live after a sinful, after a pursuit of sin is God being loving and merciful to them. But there's a difference between that kind of general love and common grace and salvific love that is effectual. That is the kind of love where Jesus says, no man can come to me. He is not able to, to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up. That's an effectual love and grace. I will raise up the one the Father draws, the one that was not able to come to me. These are the words of Jesus. And that is a special kind of love.

F (83:13)

Do you affirm that God decrees whatever comes to pass? Pass.

C (83:17)

That's what Ephesians 1:11 says. And it's also what the Westminster Confession of Faith says.

F (83:22)

How about rape?

C (83:23)

And the London Baptist Confession.

F (83:24)

How about rape?

C (83:26)

Yes. Okay. Otherwise it's purposeless. You don't you want, you want to. Don't want to go there, do you?

F (83:32)

Yeah, well, let's. Let's go to the next question.

B (83:33)

Yeah, Jacob doesn't want to go there. Jacob doesn't want to go there for sure. This is again the tactic of emotionalism. Throw out something that is an abhorrent display of depravity. Throw out something that is so evil and so wicked. Throw it out so that it has an impact on people. And say, do you believe that God is sovereign over that somebody being raped? And then you say, well, because of scripture, it says that God works all things after the counsel of his will. Will he does according to his purpose and his will in heaven and on earth, that no one can thwart his purposes. That's what scripture says about God, that he declares the end from the beginning, works all things, all things, all things, all things after the counsel of his will. I wonder if all of the evil things that happen this world could be contained under all things. Yeah, all things after the counsel of his will. And so you throw it out for an emotional impact. How about rape? Is he sovereign over that? And then you say, of course he's sovereign over that. Otherwise it's purposeless, it's meaningless evil. And I can't accept that. That's not who God really is. And Jacob's like, okay, so I got you. Got you how? Because James is right. You don't want to go here. Because guess what? In this world, we wicked, evil, abominable things like rape happen. They happen in the Mormon's world and the Christians world. It's our world. It happens. And the question you have to ask is, what does God have to say about the matter? What does he have to say about it? Is he impotent? Is he powerless? Did he not know? Did he not understand? Was he surprised by it? Is that your God? Because you see, you have to deal with the fact that evil happens in this world. Scripture has an answer as to why it happens that way. Okay, evil happens in this world. Lots of evil things like rape. Okay, so is God powerless or is he incompetent? Is he ignorant? And he doesn't know? Because that's where you have to fall ultimately. Because if you want to say that God isn't sovereign even over the evil events that happen in this world, allowing it or even prohibiting it, which scripture does teach that God prohibits evil. He stops people from sinning. If you want to say that God has nothing to do with the evil that happens in this world, then that means that you Live in a world with a powerless, impotent, ignorant and incompetent God. And I won't accept that. I don't want to live in a world that rejects what God says about his sovereignty over evil. Because here's the deal. If God isn't sovereign, even over the evil, evil things that people do, if he isn't sovereign, then that means that God is powerless, incompetent, ignorant. He doesn't know. And I refuse to believe in a God like that. And here's the good thing. I don't have to, because I know what God says about himself and his Word. And that is that God has a purpose for the evil that he allows in this world. He has a purpose. There is no meaningless evil that happens in this world. And the premier example that James brings up to Jacob here is the murder and crucifixion of Jesus. Think about all the evil that went into Jesus being crucified on that cross. What took place, Betrayal, abandonment, lies. I mean, it literally says in the text that the Jewish leadership is drawing people into the trial of Jesus to bear false witness in court against Jesus. And their testimonies weren't matching because they were all lying. That's a dangerous game to play, by the way, because according to God's law, his standards of justice is that if a false witness was caught lying on the stand, purposefully lying on the stand, then God's law says justice for the false witness is that the false witness would get whatever the accused would have gotten had their testimony been believed. And so it's a dangerous. It's a dangerous game to play to be bearing false witness like that against Jesus according to God's law. But they did it. False witness, kidnapping, abuse. And think about what took place with Jesus in the crucifixion. This is critical to think about this. What did they do to Jesus? They took an innocent person, they took control of their bot of his body. An innocent person took control of his body and they did things to his body they had no right to do. Do. They abused his body, they took advantage of his body, and then they crucified him and they murdered him on that tree. Okay? That's what took place with Jesus. And what does it say in Scripture, in Acts chapter four, it says, gathered in the city against your holy servant Jesus were Pontius Pilate, Herod, the peoples of Israel, the Gentiles. It says to do whatever your hand predestined to accomplish occur that God had predestined all those events that took place. Was everybody guilty? For what they did to Jesus. Absolutely they did it. God wasn't making them like, I don't want to hurt Jesus and know you're going to hurt Jesus. They wanted to hurt Jesus long before that. How many times in the Gospels does it say that they were going to kill Jesus? They picked up stones to kill Jesus and Jesus like slips out and gets away. They wanted to kill Jesus long before the crucifixion of Jesus. But now at this moment, Jesus says, my time, time, nobody takes my life from me. He says, I lay it down of my own accord. He said now was the time to go to Jerusalem. Now he willingly go, goes like a sheep before, before it's slaughter. He goes and he willingly goes and is guided into that death on his own. Because he says, now I'll allow you to do this, but think about what from their perspective, what were they doing? Only evil, only abuse, only lies, only abandonment. That's what they're doing to Jesus. And it says in Acts chapter 4 that God predestined that to occur. Okay, so you already know that in history, you have it on record in the very words of God that God predestined the abandonment, the betrayal, the abuse, the lies, the slander, the beating, that doing things to Jesus body they had no right to do. You already see that it says God predestined that. Okay, so you already have an example of that kind of supreme evil happening and God had a purpose for it. So enough with the emotionalism. Can we just think with our Bibles? Can we just think with our Bibles here and not just try to manipulate the masses with emotion? And can we actually look at the scriptures to say what kind of God actually exists? And is he the kind of God that would allow any purposeless evil? And the answer from the words of scripture is is never, Never. And by the way, that's why I have hope. That's why I have hope in the midst of all the evil that happens in this world. Because my God says all things work together for good, for my good, for those who are the called according to his purpose, that he does according to his will. Among the hosts of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, no one can stay his hand. He declares the end from the beginning. And I know that all of history is in of the hands, hands of a sovereign almighty, all powerful, all knowing God. And there is no purposeless evil. I have people who are close to me who are raped. Yeah, yeah. And you know my solace, my peace is that what took place in their Lives. The evil, evil that took place in their lives is not something that God allowed without a purpose. And that God will have the final step say, my God will have the final say. And it wasn't something that surprised him. It wasn't something he was powerless over. That God has a purpose and that's my solace. I don't have to say man, God was powerless to do that because these creatures are just so powerful with their free wills over God. And God just can't intervene and he's just powerless. Or he didn't know. He was as surprised as. As she was. That's not the God of the Bible. Thank God. It's not the God of the Bible. And so all your emotionalism should be recognized for precisely what it is. And James is right. You don't want to go there, do you? Because again, like I said a little bit earlier, the arguments that you make, if they're turned around back on you and you're found wanting and in trouble. Not a very good argument. Because we could simply ask you, Jacob, let's talk about your. Your God, who became a God one day, who's growing in knowledge and power. Let's talk about him. Do rapes happen in this world? How do you solve that with the Mormon God? Is it something he just didn't know about? He had no control over? He was impotent, ignorant, didn't know, incompetent, What? How do you address the problem from the Mormon God perspective? Evil things happen in this world. And what God's just like, my hands are tied. I mean, I'm God and all, but I can't do anything. I can't intervene. Really? You want to worship that God? Let me just say, no thanks.

F (93:13)

Did God know Adam and Eve would eat of the tree of the garden before he put the tree there?

C (93:18)

Of course.

F (93:19)

Okay, so why did he.

C (93:20)

And from your perspective, they did the right thing.

B (93:22)

Again, let's just make it as simple as possible. Because did God know Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world? God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. So did God know? If you read the Bible, you wouldn't even have to ask the question. If he's a lamb slain before the foundation of the world, then it was part of God's plan that all of that took place in history. God was in full control over it. Known to God from all eternity are all his works. That's what scripture says. Known to God from all eternity are all of his works. So again, if you had yourself immersed in A biblical worldview. And in the scriptures themselves, you wouldn't be asking, let's be honest, stupid questions like this. And I mean that with as much respect as I can give it to. Can give to you. But this is an undeniably stupid question in light of script scripture, why did

F (94:19)

he put it there?

C (94:21)

Because it was in. It was central to the accomplishment of his redemptive purposes. God's purpose in creation was that Jesus Christ would become the God man and that he would demonstrate his manifest wisdom to all of creation in the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, and the creation of the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ.

F (94:38)

Could God have created me without a fallen nature?

C (94:41)

Well, now you're getting hypothetical. I mean, I suppose he could have, but then he wouldn't have accomplished the redemption of mankind and the demonstration of all of his attributes if he.

F (94:50)

If he had. Well, so in what meaningful sense is the creature the ultimate origin of evil rather than God? If God was the one who put the tree in the garden in the first place with the intention that they ate of it.

C (95:02)

Okay, so. Well, a couple things there I wish I could have.

B (95:07)

This is the. Where Jacob has a hard time thinking in categories. God put his creatures into the garden where his very presence was with them. Heaven and earth were together in perfect harmony there. And it says in Scripture that God created man upright, but he sought out many devices. And so Adam and Eve were in a period of probation and testing. They were created upright. They weren't created with a sinful nature. They were created upright. But they sought out many devices. When God created according to scripture, God created with heaven and earth perfectly together in perfect harmony. And God was there with them. Them, they're in the garden and God gave them law, this, but not that. There was no, there was no like potent or, or poison in the tree or something like that. It was a simple command this, but not that. God is the sovereign. God is God. We're his creatures. And God said, you can do this, but not that. And, and many people have pointed out, you know, the, the command ultimately was, was it could be. It could have been anything. It could have been, don't go that direction, don't turn left, don't turn right, don't pick up those sticks. But God says this fruit you can't eat of, it was just simple command. And so that's how Scripture puts it. God is in control. God is the sovereign. And it is the vocation of every human being to glorify, to enjoy God forever, to worship God, to honor God, to obey God, the Vocation of every human is to do these things, to obey God. That's the calling upon every, every image bearer of God is to obey God. That was the command. You obey me, you can do this, but not that. The question is, did God make them sin? Is the question. And the answer is no. God is not himself tempted to sin. He tempts nobody to sin. And so there's nothing in the text that even intimates anything like that. Like somehow that God did it and he was like, nudging him towards it, like, be bad, be bad. No, Scripture doesn't give us all the answers here except to say that they were created upright, but they sought out many devices. But here's the question. Did it surprise God that in that period of probation and testing that they fell into sin? And the answer is no. God allowed them to fall into sin for his purposes and for his glory. At the end of time, God will be glorified in his justice and in his grace, his mercy and love. It won't just be one attribute glorified at the end of time, it will be God's attributes glorified at the end of time. And so in the creation of humanity and in the fall, all itself perfect plan of God, nothing surprised God. And that's a clear teaching of Scripture.

C (97:45)

The last question, but a couple of things there again, you need to understand the difference between primary and secondary causes and primary and secondary purposes. You need to have those proper categories. And so the primary cause is always focused toward the glorification of God. And then everything in creation fits into that. And so you, you have wars, you have terrible things that happened. You have Acts chapter four, you have, you have the early church praying that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Romans and the Jews were gathered together against their holy servant Jesus to do what, what your hand and your purpose predestined to take place. That, by the way, was the greatest act of evil in all human history. The only innocent person who's ever been killed was Jesus. And Acts, chapter four, the early church said God predestined it to take place. You've got to deal with.

F (98:47)

If I, if I put a poisoned cookie.

B (98:51)

No response. Notice that. And you want to, if you review this on your own, I want to just encourage you to pay close attention to that. That during the cross examination, the role of the person doing the questioning or the cross examining is to probe for inconsistencies and weaknesses. And then when you're, when you find them, you capitalize upon the inconsistency and weakness and you show the audience. So when your opponent that you're cross examining says things that are contradictory, that are in fact not true, true, you're supposed to probe and challenge their statements. That's what cross examination is about. But notice that as Jacob asks a question, Pastor James gives a response, goes to the Bible, challenges the questioner, and then Jacob just goes on to next questions. Why? In this last run here, Pastor James points out what I just pointed out a few moments ago, and that is that the scriptures say that God predestined the murder of Jesus. So you would think that Jacob's going to have a response to that. He's going to have some question on the back end of that that's going to respond to what James said from the scriptures. And what James is doing is he pointing to the scriptures, he's going back to the Bible, he's giving the scriptures. And then Jacob just moves on to the next questions. Why? Because Jacob's system cannot handle the Scriptures. It can't deal within the biblical worldview or the framework of the Bible. And so all we're doing is going on to next questions and absurd questions, silly questions like I believe the next

F (100:25)

one with my child. And they, and I knew that they were going to eat it. Would I have done something wrong?

C (100:35)

If you can parallel what I just quoted from Acts chapter four with a poison cookie with your child, we are on completely different plans.

F (100:42)

Well, God did put in the garden a. The, the tree.

C (100:45)

Except, except Adam was made in the image likeness of God and was representing all of humanity in himself. So he's not a little child in the room with a cookie. These illustrations are foolish and I ask you to please elevate your presentation. I'm trying to understand.

F (100:59)

I'm just trying to understand.

C (101:00)

No, no, no.

F (101:00)

You're not saying that a child is more culpable and worthy of punishment than was Adam in the garden?

C (101:07)

I didn't say anything even close to that.

F (101:10)

I just. Just to see the analogy. The analogy.

C (101:12)

No, it's not. The analogy is rejected.

F (101:15)

You're. You're. Okay, well, that's fine. But I want people to understand because I don't think that it's an illegitimate.

C (101:19)

No, you're making an argument. I get it. You're making an argument.

F (101:22)

And I want to, I want to ask the question about this analogy. So the analogy is that there is a garden and God chooses to put a tree in there that will condemn humanity forever. And he and Adam and Eve are in that garden. He knows that they'll partake of the fruit. And in my analogy, you have a child in a room where I know that they'll eat of a cookie that will harm them. Am I doing something bad? Because it would seem that God is doing something bad and he's the one who's actually introducing the evil into the world.

C (101:49)

The reason. Yeah, the reason your analogy works for you is because your God is a man and he is limited in that way. The God of the Bible is not. And he specifically, he says, I'm going to answer the question. You went on. You're making arguments. You're trying to abuse. This time I'm not going to let you get away with it. I know how this process works and I know how you work. So it's not going to work tonight. Sorry. You should have known coming into this thing. So there is a vast category difference between the triune God who's accomplishing his own purpose, his creature that represents all of mankind, and the eventual incarnation of the Son of God to glorify the triune God in eternity. And an illustration about a fallible sinful father with a child in a room with a poison cookie. If you can't see that those are not the same thing, I can't help you. But it's because we start with a different God.

F (102:40)

Let's go on to the next question. In your book, the Potter's Freedom, you said, quote, God has the perfect right to do with man as he wishes, just as the potter has utter sovereignty over the clay. Some are sinners upon whom God's wrath comes. They are said to have been specifically prepared for destruction. That is their purpose. Now, with these, with any of these individuals.

C (103:02)

Is that a quote without any dots in it? There are some, but there are some that. So they're coming from different places.

F (103:09)

That's fine. You can correct what's wrong here, but this is the question.

C (103:11)

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I wrote the book in 2000. I don't have it memorized, but I can tell you are doctoring these quotes.

F (103:18)

Well, that's fine. No, no, no. I don't think so. We can. I can pull this up and put it online for everyone to see. Is there anything that those individuals who were prepared for destruction and that's their purpose is to be destroyed, Is there anything that those individuals could ever do to be saved?

C (103:33)

Those who are specifically chosen to glorify God in their rebellion would never want to do anything. And in fact, fact, in fact, God keeps them from doing worse things. He limits their sin. He doesn't have to but he does for his purposes. And they so they would never want to do anything else. So see, you have the idea that mankind just has this. This freedom to choose or do this or that that other thing rather than the scriptures teaching that we are dead in sin until we're raised to life. Now do you have a page number that I could look up that I'm

F (104:12)

going to go on to the next question?

C (104:13)

Of course I'll let people look it up.

F (104:15)

I'll post it for the sake don't

C (104:16)

let me steal this

F (104:20)

real quick.

B (104:21)

Important to again just reiterate that Jacob has a real problem with biblical anthropology. What the Bible says about mankind. What is the state of a person outside of Jesus Christ before salvation? The impressions being given. Is there something they could do? They don't want to. If you're dead in your sins and trespasses by nature. A child of wrath, not a child of God. A child of wrath. Scripture doesn't place us all in the category of children of God. It has. Clearly Jesus says to people, you are of your father, the devil. Your father is the devil, not God. The father, your father is the devil himself. Scripture says by nature children of wrath, not children of God. It's when we believe in Christ that we have the right or power to become children of God. We're not just automatically children of God. And so the status of a person outside of Jesus Christ according to Scripture is not righteous, not good. No, not one. No one who seeks for God. John 6:44. No man can come to me. No man is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. There's what the Bible says about our condition, tradition. It's things like Jesus where Jesus says, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. But if the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed. Who has to set you free? The Son has to set you free. Jacob can't operate within the biblical worldview because his system is foreign. His system is man centered, not God centered. His system is man centered and not Bible centered. And that's why he's having all of these problems when he asks these questions. Is there something the electricity can do? The Bible teaches they are rebels against God, haters of God, enemies of God, non God seeking. Not righteous, not good. No, not one by nature. Children of wrath, hostile to God. Right? Unable to come to God. So they don't want to. They love their sin. They love their rebellion. You're acting like somehow there's these people who want to know the true God outside of Jesus. Christ. And they're just seeing, seeking. They're just seeking for God, truly and honestly. Right? Because they have this, you know, ability through a free will or something like that. The Bible says they're enslaved. They don't want the true God. As a matter of fact, they know God so well. Romans 1 says they know him so well, God has shown himself to them, but they don't want God. So they switch God for idols. They switch God for something that looks like a creature, something that looks like them, like Mormonism. They even co opt Christian language and redefine those words and they make God into just an exalted man, a God who's growing in knowledge and power and his own understanding. That's what they do. They switch God for idols. They suppress the truth and unrighteousness, just like you, Jacob. That's what they do.

C (107:18)

Believe you me, you will. The dividing line will be coming up next week.

F (107:21)

I'm fine with that. All right. You said, you said things about men not being free. Justin Martyr said, for if it be fated that this man be good and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious, nor is the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions. Why do you disagree with Justin Martyr?

C (107:51)

Justin Martyr continued wearing the Greek pallium his entire life. He was a Greek philosopher and deeply and heavily influenced by it. He was not influenced almost at all by the Apostle Paul. So I read Romans chapter three and I believe Romans chapter three. And therefore my, my theology is significantly more influenced by Paul than Justin Martyr.

F (108:09)

So you think that you have a better interpretation of Paul than Justin Martyr? Or how about.

C (108:14)

Have. Have you ever read any of Justin Martyr?

F (108:16)

Certainly.

C (108:18)

Okay, then how much Paul?

F (108:19)

How much Paul?

C (108:21)

How much Paul? I'm going to finish this statement. I teach Church history and Justin Martyr, it is known to anyone who does teach Church history was not deeply influenced by Pauline soteriology and theology.

F (108:32)

Are there any early Church Fathers in the first 200 years of the church that teach limited atone or that teach. That teach. I'm sorry, that teach that man does not have. Have free will.

C (108:46)

Well, Clement, when he writes to the Church, when the Church at Rome writes to the Church at Corinth, we don't know who it was, but it's called the first Clement. Clement talks about the elect, talks about predestination, talks about all those things. And so you have that, and you have the Epistle to Dionysus, which specifically makes reference to Justification, imputed righteousness and the necessity of the spirit, of the work of God in that, in that. That context. But that was not the primary subject of almost any of the. Of the early writers. It certainly wasn't the central subject. For example, between Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew.

F (109:20)

How did, how did Irenaeus interpret the verse? How often would I have gathered your children together and you would not. How did he interpret that verse? Did he have the same interpretation as you?

C (109:31)

I would assume not, no.

F (109:33)

Okay, I'll read what he says. He says that. Yeah, I'll ask you if. Why you think he's wrong?

C (109:38)

Yeah, okay. He says, well, if you read my book, you already know.

F (109:41)

37 Set forth the ancient law of human liberty because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own power to obey God voluntarily and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a goodwill towards us is presently with him continually. Why do you think his interpretation of that verse was wrong?

C (110:03)

Famine here has read Matthew 23:37. You're wondering what the heck Irenaeus read because that's not what Matthew 23:37 is talking about. It's not even close. Matthew 23:37 is a judgment passage against the Jewish leadership for standing in the way of Jesus's ministry to the people. And it makes a complete distinction between the judgment upon the leaders and the people who are the ones who were the objects of. Of Jesus teaching. Just look it up. If you had read my book, you'd know the answer. You didn't read it, did you?

F (110:33)

I. I like to have you explain this was.

B (110:37)

There were many clear examples of the fact that Jacob Hansen did not do his homework before he entered into this debate. And this will come out, I think, a little more abundantly when we go through the opening statement section. Section and examine some of that. Here's why. If you have read the Potter's Freedom, if you've read that, then you. And so I would just say this, maybe do this before we, before we even get to the opening statement next week or on hopefully next week's broadcast before we get to it. I encourage you to read the Potter's Freedom. If you're a Latter Day Saint, just do it. Just read the Potter's Freedom. It's not a huge book. If you're a Christian, read the Potter's Freedom. It is Pastor James interacting with Dr. Norman Geiserv book Chosen but Free. And James painstakingly works through some of the common chestnut arguments and he addresses them he exegetes the text, he responds to the objections, all of that. And James spends the time going through these famous verses that allegedly, you know, contradict or oppose Calvinism or the doctrines of grace. Grace. And it was interesting because Jacob is aware of this book and he even quotes from it, but clearly shows he doesn't have any understanding what was being said in there. And he brings up these arguments to James in cross examination and in his opening statement that were so fully rebutted and refuted in the Potter's Freedom. It was strange to see Jacob bringing it up as though he had no idea what James was going to say in response, which again demonstrates that Jacob did not do his homework. Because he's bringing up a question in cross examination that James has spoken on for decades. It's in print, it's in audio. Jacob would not have had a hard time finding out what Pastor James's response to this would be. But it demonstrates that Jacob did not do his homework. He did not even study his opponents, and he did not even try to understand what Calvinism teaches. He did. He misrepresents different points you're going to see in the opening stage statement. And so this was just one of those moments where it's like you haven't even read the book or studied your opponent or seen what he would say in response to your question. Because you're bringing up a question that's been so thoroughly and fully responded to over decades. It's strange that you would know that. Which means that you came into the debate, Jacob, not understanding your opponent and even misrepresenting the position you are trying to critique. And so that was. Was just, I think, a moment again where the wheels just fell off for Jacob.

C (113:18)

Oh, yeah, right. No, you didn't read it.

F (113:20)

There it is.

C (113:21)

Just be honest, you didn't read it.

F (113:22)

Does love require a genuine choice or not

C (113:28)

true love? Well, what's the commandment? You shall love the Lord your God, lawyer. Heart, soul, mind and strength. Can God command love? There's the question. He does command love. So does. Does he then grant the ability to love in that way by the spirit of God releasing us, Dr. White, from slavery to sin? The answer is he does.

F (113:50)

The question is, does love require a genuine choice?

C (113:54)

Again, we'd have to in four seconds. I can't go into the entire discussion of what genuine choice.

B (114:00)

All right, we're going to end on this. This is important. So James is bringing up a very good point, and that is that God actually commands. Commands love. He commands it in two ways. One, he commands you to love him. That's your vocation. That's who you created for. That's your purpose. And God is worthy of our love, worthy of our affection, worthy of our worship, worthy of our obedience. So God commands sinners, he says, you are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And so God commands love. And so, you know, is he allowed to command love? Well, as God, absolutely. We owe him that. That's our duty. That is only what's right. Then God also commands us to love our neighbor. Neighbors. Well, what if you don't want to love your neighbors? It doesn't matter. You're called by God to love your neighbors, which is, by the way, and this is one of the problems with Jacob and his own, you know, I think it's something that takes you higher sort of a thing. When you just invent it like that, you're going to mangle with love. Actually, if love is not in scripture, simply a feeling, it's not simply this emotional thing inside of us. Do you get that with truly loving somebody, like with your wife or your husband or your kids? Yes, you, you get that feeling, that emotional power and value of love. Of course you get that. But love in scripture is something beyond simply the feeling because you're commanded by God to love your neighbor whether you want to or not. God says love your neighbor. And to love your neighbor is to be just towards your neighbor and do justice towards your neighbor. There's so much in scripture regarding this, like to do no harm to your neighbor. You're commanded to love your neighbor. It's not something that's this emotional thing you're supposed to. To have. You're commanded by God to love him and to love your neighbor whether you want to or not. It is commanded of you. But I think maybe what's behind what Jacob is saying in terms of does it require a genuine response, like it's something from the inside? Maybe you're wondering, Jacob, do Calvinists believe that what takes place in salvation where this sinner who is regenerated and brought to spiritual life actually genuinely loves God? And the answer is. Answer is yes. See, that's what scripture says about going from death to life, is that you were Ephesians 2 by nature children of wrath. And it says this, But God. But God raised you together with Christ by grace. You've been saved. So when God takes a dead person and he brings them to spiritual life, he grants them the gifts of faith and repentance, the ability to turn to Christ and to believe in Christ, to trust in him. When that person does trust in Christ, they are trusting Christ from a new nature. Somebody who is spiritually alive, who sees Christ and desires Christ, wants Christ because they're no longer spiritually dead. So it is actually genuine faith, genuine love. But it's something that God gets all the glory for because he provided the way for your nature to be changed such that you would see Jesus and desire him from a pure heart, trusting in Jesus. And that's genuine. But love is actually also commanded by God, whether you want to or like to or not. That's the command. And so that's, that's the end of the cross examination after this question. So I hope this has been a great benefit to you all. So much more could be said, but we obviously have limited time to even go through these things. So thankful for you guys all watching. We've got some, let's see here, we got some super chats that came in here. Craig. Craig Small, thank you so much. Jacob quotes from page 213 to 214 and omits the part where Dr. White alludes to the Exodus narrative as one example. If you're going to evaluate Calvinism, you have to contend with Exodus 33 and Romans 9. He simply scoffed at it. Yeah, I know that James was really bothered by the fact that Jacob had some, some broken quotes there that were not making a lot of sense even to James. And so, yeah, so a lot of that. Thank you for that everyone. Hey guys, make sure you do do your thing and share all this across social media. Oh, we got more. Thank you, Art Butler for the super chats. Thank you so much for participating with us. I want to point everyone to apologiesstudios.com if you haven't gone there yet, go there, sign up for all access, be a part of this ministry with us. I, by the way, we are sharing maybe tonight, maybe tonight, such a cool conversation that I had with a young woman and then also her family, her mother afterwards. It's a long conversation. It's like 45 minutes long. It's a Latter Day Saint who comes up to me and says she's been watching the content and she says she's convinced Mormonism is false. She knows that it's not true. She had some questions for me so I ended up talking to her and, and to her mom. It ended really, really well. And so I'm going to be sharing that with you guys. Like I said, hopefully tonight I think I'll be able to get it up for you guys, by tonight. I know that's finished, but we got to like get it all set to go so it goes live tonight and so just be on the lookout for that. But also thank you to all of our All Access partners that do this ministry with us because videos like the one coming out tonight are only possible because you're doing this ministry with us. So thank you guys so much, much for that. So go to Apologia Studios, sign up for All Access but also go to Apologia Studios and go to the store because there's tracks in there that you can give out to your Mormon friends and family. We also have just basic gospel tracts. You can hand those out to people and it's all there@apologiastudios.com go there, get all the Apologia swag and things and that'll bless the ministry. Help us to keep doing everything that we're doing. And thank you to Dominion wealth and all that you guys are doing to take care of everybody who listening listens to this program. And yeah, we're grateful for all of you guys. Thank you for being part of this ministry. Stay tuned. This next year we've got great stuff. We are working hard right now with the app stuff with everything coming through Apologia Studios, new programming, new ways to impact the world with the gospel. So we're working hard behind the scenes to just completely actually transform everything we've been doing and just give you guys some just real valuable things that hopefully will bless your walk with Jesus and your ability to bring the gospel around the world. So it's all coming. Continue to pray for us. Thank you guys so much. By the way, I'm going to be in Dallas next week at TPUSA Faith's event, their conference in Dallas. I'm speaking on two panels. I'm going to be the abolitionist on the panel. There's some people from the pro life industry that there and we're going to have a bit of engagement over the issue of abolition. So if you would I cover your prayers for that. Please pray for me for that. That I would just communicate in a way that is gracious and is clear but also just as a blessing to the church. So that's next week at TPUSA Faiths event in Dallas. I think that is Wednesday. Next Wednesday is when that's taking place. I'm not sure anywhere. I'm not sure about the feed or where that's going to be. I'll try to announce that on, on my Facebook or something so you guys can see that as it's happening. So please be in prayer for that. Thank you guys so much for watching. Thank you for being a part of this ministry. We'll see you next week right here on Apologia Radio.