Hayden Carroll (9:30)

Engaging with. So, so tell me. So, so clarify for me what is sol Scriptura and tell me why you believe it.

Austin (9:35)

So obviously creeds and confessions are n when they match with what scripture teaches.

Hayden Carroll (9:44)

Okay.

Austin (9:45)

So they don't necessarily have the ultimate authority over me because, you know, there's been like second Council of Nicaea. It's pretty bad.

Hayden Carroll (9:53)

I'd say the first Council of Nicaea too.

Austin (9:55)

Yeah, we disagree.

Hayden Carroll (9:56)

That's a whole other conversation. How do you adjudicate which councils are correct and which aren't?

Austin (10:01)

What I just said, I said when they line up with what scripture teaches. But like if the Councils don't align.

Hayden Carroll (10:06)

With what Scripture teaches. Right.

Austin (10:07)

Well, so the first Council of Nicaea, you know, was not about the canon, like.

Hayden Carroll (10:12)

No, it was about the new nature of God.

Austin (10:13)

It was about the nature of God, who he is.

Hayden Carroll (10:16)

Sure.

Austin (10:16)

And then they kind of argued about what day to celebrate Easter on.

Hayden Carroll (10:19)

Okay, but didn't they say that the Father and the Son were co. Equal?

Austin (10:24)

Yeah, Co.

Jeff Durbin (10:25)

Equal.

Hayden Carroll (10:25)

Co. Eternal. But the text doesn't say that. Right, that's what I'm saying, that the biblical text doesn't agree with that council.

Jeff Durbin (10:30)

Well, so sola scriptura, the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments being given by divine inspiration, are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the church. Sola scriptura. And so really, sola scriptura is a doctrine that's based upon revelation. It is. Here's for some of you guys are new to this big term revelational epistemology. And that is the question of how do I know what I know? How do you have any certainty about something? How are you able to justify knowledge? And that's really a question. That's not just a question. That is a part of the life and experience of the Christian church and interacting with counterfeit Christian cults like Hayden's a part of. It's not just an in church sort of thing. The question of epistemology is something that people have had to engage with as it's as old as the hills. How do I know what I know? How do I have certainty? How do I have warrant or justification to say that this is true knowledge, justified, warranted belief? How do I know that this is true? And so it's a question of epistemology. Sola scriptura is that revelational epistemology applied. And by the way, that revelational epistemology goes far outside of the walls of the church and theological debates. It is a question that comes right into confrontation with secularism and human today, atheism. So the question of how do you know? Right. Like, it's a question of certainty. Right. Like, should I love my neighbor or should I eat my neighbor? I love to put it in those terms because that seems like a quick and snappy, simple way to say, how do you answer that question, should I love my neighbor or should I eat my neighbor? Because there are people who do eat their neighbors. It's happened in our own nation. That's happened fairly, fairly recently in our nation. It does happen. There's cannibalistic tribes around the world who do believe that it's perfectly moral and right righteous to eat another human being. And so it happens. And so it's an icky thing to think about. But you do have to start to engage with that question. How do I know with certainty? How do I have justified true belief? How do I have warrant to say like this is true, this is the true ethic? And so love your neighbor, eat your neighbor. And so Christians tend to know how they answer that question. Well, you love your neighbor as you love yourselves. Well, why do you believe that? Well, because that's from God himself. Jesus told us that. And obviously Jesus is quoting from the Old Testament law and Old Testament revelation at that point as well. And so this is a question of epistemology. And oftentimes, of course, the main thrust of this issue is most widely heard and disputed in the disputes between the Reformed and the Roman Catholics and the Reformed and Eastern Orthodox. But of course, by its very nature, it's going to come up here as well with a Latter Day Saint, because it's a question of knowledge. How do you know what you know? And so let's go to Torah is very simple. It's very simply stated as well, because God says, now that's not all there is to it. That's a quite, that's, that's in terms of where's the foundation? What do you set your feet on? Well, we say, well, God has spoken. God has spoken. And that's how I know and have certainty about that truth claim. It's because God has said. And so when it comes to the issue of church councils and those things, Sola scriptura doesn't say that you can't have good, solid, healthy traditions. It doesn't say that you can't have creeds and confessions. Confessions. Absolutely you can. You have creeds and confessions and traditions. In the very New Testament itself, Paul is citing them like what Christians are passing around orally to, to communicate their faith and what they actually believe. Sola scriptura doesn't dis or diminish the value and even at times importance of creeds and confessions. Sola scriptura is saying, but how do you know that something is actually true? That that tradition, that that creed or that confession is something that that is. That is true. That is beautiful. And what we would say is because, well, it has to be measured by the truth. Jesus said in the high priestly prayer to the Father, thy word is truth. Your word is truth. And the, the word there la is, is the plumb line is what, it's what construction workers would use. It's the standard by which you Measure if something is right or is true. And Jesus identifies in the high priestly prayer, your word is truth. It's the plumb line. It's the standard. It's what you measure by. And so you see it in the ministry of Jesus itself, say Matthew 15, where Jesus is dealing there. And I think this goes very well to what Hayden is asking about here and the conversation. It's perfect because in Matthew 15, you have an example in the text of God's Word of this very issue that we're being challenged on. And the issue there is with the Corban Rule, and we don't have a lot of time today to go in the details of that, the history of that and how we know what the Corbon Rule was. And. But let's just talk about what's just plainly in the text In Matthew chapter 15, it is a famous section that really identifies this issue so clearly. And so the answer we can come to is really directly from the pages of Scripture, I believe here. So Matthew chapter 15, again, this is the controversy that Jesus is, is in regarding the traditions passed down. And so here's what it says. Matthew 15:1, it says, then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat. He answered them, and why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, honor your father and your mother, and whoever reviles father or mother must surely die. Now note something that's going to come up. I believe here in this portion, at least shortly after this, that Jesus is attributing the words of Scripture in Moses. What Moses wrote with that God commanded this. Like these. This is what God has commanded. God said this. Not just the prophets said this, but God commanded this. So this is from God's own voice, God's command, that's important. Honor your father and your mother. And whoever reviles father or mother must surely die. But you say, if anyone tells his father or his mother, what you would have gained from me is given to God. He need not honor his father. So for the sake of your tradition, you have made, made void the word of God. So what do you have taking place here? You have Jesus very simply saying, God commanded this. Here's what God says. And then he says over here, he says, but you say, here's your tradition. And so what he's addressing there is the, the issue where they would. They were required under God's law. To care for their parents, to. To care for their aging parents, to. To provide for the parents, to honor their father and their mother. But they were under this impression because of this tradition of theirs, that, no, I've given my money and my goods and all this support to. To God. I've given it to God. I don't need it to get. It's been all been given to God, not you. And so I'm okay. So I can. I cannot honor you. I can not take care of you and not provide for you, because I've given it all to God. And God's happy with that. And so Jesus says, so for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God, you hypocrites. Well, did Isaiah prophesy of you when he said, this People honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. And so here you have an example of a human tradition that they actually believed was passed all the way down, you know, through the centuries from the prophets. And Jesus is now testing their human tradition that they actually believed, in some sense was a divine tradition, and you were required to follow it. And this was righteous and good and moral code. And all Jesus does is he simply quotes the word of God and then he quotes their tradition. And what is he doing there? He's simply saying, God says this, you say that, and so you've invalidated or voided the word of God for the sake of your tradition. That's sola scriptura. There is Jesus dealing with an issue not dissimilar to what we have with Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, or you can even apply in principle to what we have in terms of the false prophet Joseph Smith's revelation. This is what Jesus does. Here's when. When God walks among us, when God is incarnate walking among us. Here is God incarnate, love incarnate, wisdom incarnate. And he's dealing with this issue. Well, he's telling you, here's how you know you're wrong. God says this, you say that. And so you see that principle being applied throughout Church history. It's not just during the time of the Reformation. You see Athanasius appealing to this principle. You see Augustine appealing to this principle. You see it in so many of the church fathers where they will simply say, like, essentially this. Like, it doesn't matter how you know deeply this is held. It doesn't matter what council said this or what group said this. If it contradicts God's revealed word in the scriptures. It's not binding and you need to hold to the scriptures. So the principle of sola scriptura can be seen throughout church history in so many of the giants of the faith. But there you go. Sola scriptura strongly disagree with that.

Austin (20:02)

We could go John 1:1 NRK ain't hologos kai hologos and prosthon theon but logos.

Hayden Carroll (20:08)

But the consubstantiation of the Father and the Son is not taught in that verse and we have scriptures like Jesus.

Jeff Durbin (20:14)

Interesting terminology. I'm wondering, I think he does say it a number of times in this video. Consubstantiation is a technical term that is is generally used in reference to disputes over the Eucharist and a lot of stuff with Lutherans and really has to do with it's technical term that's used most for that dispute in terms of the Eucharist or communion or the Lord's table. And so it's interesting he's using that terminology there and I do believe he uses a number of times throughout. So technically consubstantial is the term. Consubstantiation is a technical term again for a separate issue. So I'm not sure exactly why Hayden is using that terminology. Maybe he's just unaware or ignorant of it. But let's go on a little more.

Hayden Carroll (21:06)

Answer saying the Father's greater than I. Yeah. We have scripture saying Jesus God is the Father is the only true God. It's a sure. But does it mean one in consubstantial and substance? It doesn't ever one in one in being. It doesn't say that though the, the text and I think all Protestants and Catholics would agree that the text doesn't say that.

Jeff Durbin (21:26)

Doesn't say no. All Protestants and Roman Catholics. What whatever do you mean by that? There's a lot of these sweeping statements throughout this that are just kind of jarring. Protestants and Cath wouldn't say that it says that. Do you mean the kind of lame argumentation that's like well the word Trinity is not in the Bible or the word Bible is not in the Bible. Because that is honestly just very, it's a suspicious form of reasoning and it's just very low level stuff. Yes. The Christian church has developed terminology to express what, what is taught in the Bible. So when you say like well the word consubstantial is not in the Bible, that's not in the Bible. It's like right. It's. It's a, it's A, Neither is the word Bible in the Bible, but you get the point, right? Like when we say Bible, we're, we're, we're applying a term or a title to a thing. We all understand the 66 different books and letters of, of the Old and New Testaments. And so you understand when we use the word like Trinity, where we're using a word to, as a quick and snappy way to identify what we believe about something in substance. And, and so when you say something like, you know, Protestants and Catholics would agree that the Bible doesn't teach that. No, we wouldn't. I mean, I, I dare you to say that's a Roman Catholic or a Protestant theologian. Like, what do you mean? I don't, I don't think that the Bible doesn't teach that. Of, of course the Bible teaches that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and he says, you know, nowhere does the Bible teach that. And I'm sure this can come up a little bit more here, but of course it does. That's why Christians teach and believe it. Because Christians from the very beginning acknowledge something that Hayden and other Latter Day Saints won't acknowledge, and that is that the Bible teaches throughout from Old and New Testament that there is only one true and living God. The verses I read at the beginning of the episode today, Deuteronomy, chapter 4, verses 35 and 39. He is God alone. There is no other. In heaven above and on earth below. In heaven above and on earth below. There is no other. Now, Mormons don't believe that. Latter Day Saints do not believe that verse. And there's no way to get around the ramifications of that verse. Heaven above and earth below. There is no other. Joseph Smith taught that there were three gods of this earth. Joseph Smith taught that there were three gods of this earth and many more gods outside of that. He is not. In Mormonism, Elohim, Heavenly Father is not. Is not the only God in the heavens above. He is not. And even on the earth below. I mean, Joseph Smith explicitly taught that there are three gods of this earth. And so it is interesting. I mean, you can go through the whole revelation of God without question. One God, none besides him, none before him, none after him. The first, the last, the beginning and the end. He doesn't even know of any other God. Isaiah 44, 6 and 8. None formed before him, none after him. Isaiah 43, 10. Of course, the, the famous one hero, Israel. The Lord, our God. The Lord is one. Deuteronomy. I mean, you can go for days about this. And Mormons know that these verses are there and they're not disappearing and they can't get around it. But the Trinity, the teaching on the Trinity comes from the fact that Christians always understood what the Bible clearly teaches and without contradiction, and that is that there is only one true and living God. And yet the Bible teaches that the Father is God. There's no dispute there. Mormons aren't going to dispute that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. And it is interesting because doing evangelism with Latter Day Saints in say, the late 90s versus today, very different Mormon apologists have had to polish up a lot. But talking on the street to the average Mormon in the late 90s, getting them to agree that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God was very difficult. Even though there are verses in the Book of Mormon itself that say that Jesus is the eternal God, which Mormons don't actually believe because Joseph taught that God came to be God. So it's, it's. Anyway, so there's, there's only one true and living God. The Father is God. The Bible calls Jesus God. The Bible calls the Holy Spirit, is the Holy Spirit God. And yet the three persons are distinguished from one another. They are differentiated from one another, and yet all called God and eternal and always existing alongside one another. And if you say, well, the Bible doesn't teach that. Yes it does. Yes it does teaches that Jesus Christ is eternal God. John, chapter one, verse one, that Austin quoted to Hayden here, you can see it in a number of other different passages. Micah, chapter 5, verse 2. The prophecy of the one who is to come, whose origins are from old, yea, even from everlasting, the, the one who is coming to Bethlehem. And so we could do this for days. But the Bible does teach these things. And in terms of Christ being consubstantial, what does that mean? Consubstantial? So that Jesus is of the same substance of the Father, he shares the same nature as God, the Father, that Jesus is by nature God. Now, since the Bible teaches there is only one God, and then it teaches that Jesus is God, he's called God, he's worshiped as God, he uses the divine name of himself. Christians say, okay, so since there's only one God by nature, and Jesus as God worshiped as God, takes the prerogatives of God. And you could do many verses. I mean, obviously John1 is a big one. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And it says that Jesus created all things in existence and nothing came into being except, except through him. Mormons don't believe that. Mormons do not believe that nothing came into being except through Jesus. Mormons do not believe that. You cannot. Not with Mormon theology. Not unless you want to jump through a lot of hoops and do a lot of dancing. But of course you have in terms of consubstantial, of the same nature and substance. Hayden says it's not there. It's, it's not the Bible. That's just something that councils and creeds just made up. It's not the Bible. When they, they, they talked about these things because these, the Bible, all these references. Colossians, sorry, Hebrews chapter one, verse three. That Jesus is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature. That Jesus is the exact imprint of his nature. And by the way, that's also Hebrews chapter one. The same place where the Father calls Jesus God, right? So Mormons say, well then what? You know, if Jesus is God, why is Jesus calling the Father God? That's not a problem. The Father calls Jesus God in Hebrews chapter one. And he tells all the angels of God to worship Jesus. To worship Jesus. Now we know of course, the scene, you remember the scene in Revelation where John is just so wow over the angel, right? Like which all of us would be like, just this is crazy. And so he falls down to like worship before the angel. What's the angel do? Freaks out. I'm a servant like you worship God, you don't worship me. This heavenly being, you worship God and God alone. He's the only one that we worship. And so John learned that lesson very, very well. Jesus, of course, is worshiped by the angels. The angels are told to worship Jesus by the Father and the angels reject any words worship of themselves. Of course. You have Colossians 1, 15, 17, that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. You have Philippians chapter 2, verse 6. That Jesus is said to have been in the form of God. In the form of God. He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped. So he was in the form of God. He's the nature of God. But he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped or held onto, but he emptied himself and took on the form of a man. To do what? To save us from our sins. And so it's just, it's always mind boggling to me when Mormons think they can make these claims publicly and get away with them. And the goal here is just to Prepare you. When you engage someone like Hayden, who talks very fast and oftentimes throws out concepts and things maybe. Maybe people aren't familiar with, and he thinks it's effective, and it's not. It's effective against the unsuspecting. It's effective. Effective against those who may be just learning these things, but it's. But it's not effective in terms of somebody who actually understands these concepts and history itself.

Austin (30:36)

No, I. I would strongly disagree.

Hayden Carroll (30:38)

You would say that the text says they're one being.

Austin (30:40)

So it's obviously when you take scripture as a whole, like, I can go all the way back through the Old Testament.

Hayden Carroll (30:46)

Okay, so you would. You would cherry pick verses and proof text.

Jeff Durbin (30:49)

And I'll.

Austin (30:50)

It's.

Hayden Carroll (30:51)

Is.

Jeff Durbin (30:51)

You see that. That's the. That's the sort of just, I'm sorry, despicable kind of interaction that just, look, Hayden, do better, all right, friend? You just got to do better. So when he's saying, like, I think you would look at the whole of Scripture and you would look at scripture, these different verses. Okay, so you would cherry pick and proof text that. That's what you just said to me. Is, is, Hayden, is that what Austin said to you? Is that what Austin said to you? That in answering your question, he was suggesting. Well, what we need to do to demonstrate that Christ is consubstantial and that there's one being of God is we need to go through the Bible and cherry pick things that aren't actually there. We need to just do proof texting. Is that really. Hayden, did you really hear Austin as saying that, or were you just being abusive in the conversation? I think we know that was an abusive thing to do in a conversation and not in good faith. And so things like that are thoroughly unimpressive to me. They might impress your Latter Day Saint devotees as like a gotcha sort of thing, but if you really step back and have integrity as a man. Did you really think your opponent was suggesting that we cherry pick the Bible, take things out of context, or were you just being abusive to him in that conversation? I think we both know one author.

Austin (32:13)

Beginning to end.

Hayden Carroll (32:14)

Is there one author? Well, you know that The Bible's not one book, right? It's 60.

Austin (32:18)

Well, 66 books.

Hayden Carroll (32:19)

Right?

Austin (32:19)

And Catholics and youth and.

Hayden Carroll (32:21)

Or 73 or whatever.

Austin (32:22)

73, like, 84.

Hayden Carroll (32:24)

But even that, though, like, can you show me Jesus or an apostle or even one author, even if they're anonymous, which most of them are, you know, that show me one who teaches the consubstantiation Are you talking about Old or New Testament?

Jeff Durbin (32:39)

Well, we did. Does Paul do. I mean, do you respect Paul? I mean, here's the amazing thing you're going to see in a few moments. I believe it's at the beginning of this is it appears that in order to be a Mormon, you have to attack and denigrate the Bible. Like, that's. It's just a given. That's what you have to do. You have to say it has contradictions. And to say it is, it is filled with errors. There's an error here, an error there, which he tries a little bit later to do with the genealogy accounts of Jesus, which shows that he hasn't done much real study on this. And to show that the two different genealogies, which actually, you need the two different genealogies to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is both priest and king, that he has a right to both lineages, one through Joseph, his adopted father, and one through Mary. And of course, the curse that was put into the line with Joseph's line. And the only way to get around that curse is a virgin birth. And so it's just, it's just an incredible thing, like, thank God for the two different genealogies in the New Testament. Thank. Thank God we have two different genealogies to demonstrate that Christ receives the kingly line and bypasses the curse because he's not a physical descendant, but it's by adoption and all that. Sorry, I'm getting way ahead of myself, but it's just, it's amazing. But in order to, apparently to be a Mormon apologist, you have to be ready to denigrate the Bible, attack the Bible, say the Bible is filled with errors. And you have to also denigrate and diminish the glory of God's providence in history and giving us his word to us and preserving his word. You have to be willing to do both those things, sort of like, you know, let me pull some arguments over here, Chestnut. Atheist arguments against the Bible, those sorts of things, and sort of mash it all together and attack the Bible and still say, I believe the Bible and it's part of my quad and the standard works of the church. And it's just, it's just, it's messy. Mormon apologists have to just be messy. And so you need to be prepared for these things.

Hayden Carroll (34:38)

Both.

Austin (34:39)

So, yeah, who wrote the, who wrote.

Hayden Carroll (34:40)

Who wrote the book of Genesis?

Austin (34:41)

Wrote, I would probably say, Moses.

Hayden Carroll (34:44)

Okay.

Austin (34:44)

And what evidence, going off of, you.

Jeff Durbin (34:46)

Know, and what evidence do you have for that? I don't know. Jesus. Just. See, this is the problem. When you, when you get your arguments against the Bible from skeptics and critics of the Bible and atheists and those sorts of things who are sloppy in their own thinking, you become sloppy in your thinking. Hayden, this is just a mess. It's just a mess. Well, how do you, how do you know that? I don't know, because the inspired authors of scripture said so. It's just. Okay, like, let's just do it this way. Will Jesus do, right? Will, Will the Mormon apologist who's attacking the Bible and the history of the Bible and the transmission of the Bible, will they, will they at least accept the words of Jesus or do they believe that that's also, you know, fallible and corrupted, even though it, you know, in their quad and they, they more missionaries come to people's houses and they, they say that they believe that and this is the word of God insofar that it's translated correctly, of course, which is really a meaningless thing when it gets down to it. They believe that it was transmitted incorrectly, not translated incorrectly. So it's just poor, poor way to, to say that. But when he says, you know, how do you know that? Okay, well, Jesus, when Jesus quotes from Moses and says Moses said, or when Jesus quot, you know, when you, the first five books, the Pentateuch, when you have that and it's being quoted from the New Testament authors as Moses said that, and have you not read what was spoken to you by God in quoting from Moses? So it's, it's, it's frustrating at times to, to see how Mormon apologists have not only changed over the decades, but how Mormon apologists will, will draw from so many different traditions even to try to attack the Bible and the Christian faith. And much of those arguments just have to come right back squarely on them that they, and they never really consider that.

Hayden Carroll (36:49)

But we have no evidence for that at all though.

Austin (36:51)

Right, but I just asked you about the Old Testament and then you said all of it. Yeah, I mean, like, I know that the Gospel of Matthew was written by.

Hayden Carroll (36:58)

Matthew and how do you know that?

Austin (36:59)

I know that.

Hayden Carroll (37:00)

How do you know it though? It doesn't, no, it doesn't, it doesn't say. It doesn't say that though. Where, where, where does it say it? No, it doesn't read it. It doesn't say it.

Austin (37:09)

Mark, Luke and John.

Hayden Carroll (37:11)

Those don't say. Those are all anonymous.

Jeff Durbin (37:13)

So. Okay, first of all, they're not all anonymous. Read the end of John and you'll see who Wrote John, so you're wrong. Hayden the Gospel of John identifies who wrote John. I would just say open your Bible, go to the last chapter of John, and you'll see. So not anonymous. And, but of course, what we're dealing with here is, is the question of the transmission of the text and some of the tradition that came down with that. And Hayden doesn't seem to understand or to know that or be familiar with that himself. And of course, this, this whole thing of textual criticism comes up here. But yeah, there's, there's no question that things like Matthew on Matthew's Gospel, or Mark on Mark's gospel, or Luke on Luke's Gospel, a lot of that information in terms of how do you know who wrote that? Comes down from history and tradition. The Christian church, of course, received these documents early on. And the Christian church had a pretty rigorous and consistent way that they managed passing down these manuscripts and these writings and these letters to the next generation. And of course, you had a number of standards that were upheld by the Christians. If you had a book of scripture and something claiming to be Scripture, it had to be from a prophet, prophet of God. It had to come with the very power of God. It had to have been received by the people of God. And of course, the content and consistency was a key issue for them. And so, of course, as the word of God comes down, it's important to note something very, very important over against Mormonism and say, Islam is that in God's providence, when the Scriptures were being given to us and they were being passed around and handed down generation after generation, there was no controlling authority, authority over that. It was the sovereignty of God and his providence and his preservation of his own Word. It's important to note, and this is a fact of history, the Christian church didn't create the Word of God. It was the word of God and revelation of God that created the church. The church is just passive and receptive in this, in this, this whole thing. Very different, say, than Mormonism in terms of Joseph Smith publishes the book of Morm, 1830 version of the Book of Mormon, very different from today's version. And yes, it is the 1830 version. There's the thousands of differences between the 1830 version, which is written by the very hand of God. And it's very different from today. And it's not just spelling errors and things like that. There are doctrinal changes, things taken out, errors from the 1830 version. But that gets to the point, you did have a controlling authority, authority over the Book of Mormon. And its transmission throughout history, and it's fairly recent. Think about this, 1830 from today. We're not very far away from that, okay? Not very far at all. I mean, in history, you know, we're talking about. We're getting on 200 years. And since, since 1830 to today, you got thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon because you have a controlling authority over the Book of Mormon and its distribution and transmission. And they can control it. They can take stuff out, they can remove stuff, all that. And you know, we have original 1830 version. We have it, We've got it. And you can compare today's version of the Book of Mormon with that version, and it's different. And how do you have that? Because you have a controlling authority over it, controls its publication, controls its transmission, can change it, manipulate it, throw stuff out. The Bible's history is incredible because nobody was controlling the process but God. I mean, Christians are a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire, and they're on the run. I mean, at some points it's illegal to even hold some of these things. And so Christians are making copies, passing them down, making copies, passing them down. And, and what's amazing too, is that as time was going on, there was no Internet. There wasn't. There were no fax machines, text messages, those sorts of things, mass communication, quick like that. It didn't happen. And so, yes, if you were in one part of the empire and you had, say, some, some of Paul's writings as a church, you've had them for two generations. Generations. And maybe say the Book of Revelation or, you know, Luke's Gospel. And then some Christians in the other part of the empire, they don't have like maybe two of those, but they have, you know, these that you guys didn't receive those yet. The amazing thing is, as time went on, the Christian church was able to communicate with one another as to what had been given to them by an inspired apostle or by inspiration of God, what was received as the Word, the Word of God from the very beginning. And who was in charge of that process? God was in charge of that, that process. There was no controlling of authority over that. Saying, we declare that this is the Word of God. It was receptive. It was organic. God did that process. And yes, as time went on, you know, names were applied to particular books. There's certain traditions that came up along with those books as, as the church was passing those down, for sure, no problem. But whether or not Matthew is on the Gospel according to Matthew is meaning meaningless. What's important to note is that from the very beginning they understood these were the inspired words of God. It came from a prophet of God, power of God, content and consistency was there. It was received by the people of God from the very beginning and understood to be the very words of God. That's from the very beginning. But in terms of like a title over Matthew or Mark is ultimately irrelevant in terms of the inspiration of these texts. And, and of course, yes, Luke and Acts, I mean it's in the text. We understand, it's even explained in the beginning of these books as to why they were written and how the investigation went down and the eyewitness testimony, all those different things. But honestly, we asked the question, like, what's really the point of your question there? Is it to attack the Bible? Like, is that what's necessary for me as a Mormon if I convert to Mormonism, If I convert to Mormonism, is it necessary that I now have a commitment to attack the Bible, to attack the transmission of the Bible, to attack the inspiration of the Bible, to say that there are errors throughout the Bible, false prophecies in the Bible, which Hayden says, is that what's required of me, that as a Latter Day Saint, that I need to be ready to attack the Bible? Like if I'm going to be able to Mormon or Mormon apologist, I've got to be very good at some arguments, some chestnut arguments against the Bible. Like to be a good Mormon, I need to also be ready with arguments against the Bible. It appears to be.

Austin (43:59)

So, I mean, you can say that. That's okay.

Hayden Carroll (44:03)

No, this is good. Let's stop on this though.

Jeff Durbin (44:04)

But.

Hayden Carroll (44:04)

So show me a verse. No, no, this is important.

Jeff Durbin (44:06)

No, no, no, no.

Hayden Carroll (44:07)

This is important.

Austin (44:08)

Let's, let's.

Hayden Carroll (44:08)

No, because you're accepting scripture that is.

Austin (44:12)

Anonymous, 2nd Timothy 3:16, all scriptures. They honest us.

Hayden Carroll (44:15)

Okay, but how do you determine what scripture, what was scripture at that time? That's a proof text that even James, even James White denies this, sir, you.

Jeff Durbin (44:23)

For what? Even James White denies this proof text. I'm sorry, I got to go back here and figure out what Hayden's point was. Forgive me everyone, because you're accepting scripture.

Austin (44:34)

That is anonymous, 2nd Timothy 3, 16, all scriptures. They honest us.

Hayden Carroll (44:38)

Okay, but how do you determine what scripture, what was scripture at that time? That's a proof that even James, even James White denies this.

Jeff Durbin (44:45)

I don't even know what you're talking about, Hayden. James White is my spiritual mentor, my father in the faith. He's also a fellow pastor at Apology at church and it happens to be the case that right now in our catechism at church that Pastor James is teaching on every Lord's day is on this issue of Sola scriptura, what is the word of God and the sole infallible rule of faith and all of that. But also the verse that our church is memorizing together right now happens to be 2nd Timothy 3, 16, 17. All scripture is breathed out by God. All scripture is thean ustas. I'm not exactly sure what Hayden's point was here and what he's saying that Pastor James denies eyes. All scripture is breathed out by God. Let's, let's find out what, what this all means.

Austin (45:28)

You talking about when, like what they had in their day because like the apostles walked around.

Hayden Carroll (45:35)

Well, the issue that you have is when it says all scriptures God breathe theopneustos doesn't mean infallible.

Jeff Durbin (45:43)

Right.

Hayden Carroll (45:43)

It means life giving.

Jeff Durbin (45:44)

So if it that means breathed out by God. That's what I wonder, I wonder how much Greek training Hayden has, has done. I wonder where he's getting that God.

Austin (45:56)

Breathed it is infallible because it's God's speech.

Hayden Carroll (46:00)

Okay, but it's not God's speech, though.

Austin (46:01)

Well, you see that.

Jeff Durbin (46:05)

Not God's speech. So you disagree with Jesus. You disagree with Jesus. It's not God, God's speech. Because there's a controversy that Jesus has in the New Testament. You'll know the one where Jesus says to them, have you not read what was spoken to you by God? Or how about all the times where the prophets are saying things like hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom, you people of Gomorrah, Isaiah chapter 1, Hear the word of the Lord. Have you not read, said what was spoken to you by God? We could go for days on this one. What do you mean that it's that scriptures are not God's speech? Jesus literally quoted the Old Testament words that were not technically written to the generation that he was speaking to, they were written to someone else. But Jesus applies it to them as the very words of God. He says, have you not read what was spoken to you you by God? So Jesus did believe that these were spoken by God.

Austin (47:18)

Difference is, I believe that the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is God.

Hayden Carroll (47:22)

And where does the Bible say that?

Austin (47:24)

2Nd Timothy 3:16.

Hayden Carroll (47:25)

But the 2nd Timothy 3:16 doesn't say that the New Testament is God breathed.

Jeff Durbin (47:30)

Oh boy. Okay, so when Paul is speaking to Timothy and he says all scripture is breathed out by God, profitable. You have correction, you have reproof that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work. What is he referring to there? Primarily because he says all scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for and he names all the benefits. But what is he primarily referring to there with Timothy that you've known the scriptures since you were little. What scriptures is he talking about? The Old Testament revelation. And so will Hayden at least grant that Paul, the inspired apostle, which he's supposed to think is an inspired apostle, did believe that the Old Testament scriptures were breathed out by God and profitable for all of those things? Can we at least grant that? And because that's what Paul was referring to. Like you've known the scriptures since you were young, Timothy, you know this, you were on your grandma's lap with, with the scriptures, you know, and all scripture is breathed out by God. And can we at least grant that that's what Paul was saying about the scriptures of the Old Testament. And if you at least want to grant what is obviously in the text, won't you at least grant what the New Testament its says about the New Testament revelation? I mean when Peter is referring to Paul's writings, he says that, yeah, Paul says some things that are difficult to understand. He doesn't say impossible, he says difficult. And then he says the problem with people is that unstable and untaught people, I would say like Hayden, twist the scriptures to their own distribution destruction. And so think about what's happening there in that text with, with Peter, it's, it's powerful. Paul is saying things that are hard to understand and it's unstable and untaught people who are twisting them to their own destruction. And then Peter says as they do the rest of the scriptures. And so what do you have have there an inspired apostle? I mean, I wonder, I mean Peter, can Peter be trusted? Hayden, can we at least listen to the words of Peter and believe those things or are you going to have some argument about how that is actually fallible as well and that. And that we can't trust that scripture either and we don't know if God preserved that. I mean, can we at least believe Peter at that point or do you have some argument against Peter's words there? Peter's saying Paul is saying things that are hard to understand and it's unstable and untaught people that are actually distorting them to their own destruction. And he says as they do the rest of the scriptures. So here you have an inspired apostle, much more reliable than Mormon apologists in 2026, believe me saying that Peter's teachings, sorry, Paul's teachings, Paul's writings are the same as the rest of the scriptures. So this the Christian, Christian worldview. Maybe as a Mormon apologist, you want to accept it, that's fine. But the Bible does teach within the pages of the New Testament itself that the revelation that was ongoing and coming in the first century gen, that first century and that generation, that those writings and that teaching coming from the inspired authors were themselves to be seen as equal to the scriptures of the authority Old Testament. That's what the Bible teaches.

Austin (51:03)

Scripture is breathed out by God. And then you take into context that Peter calls Paul's word scripture. Okay, what about Peter?

Hayden Carroll (51:09)

Okay, what about the Book of Hebrews? So Book of Hebrews, who called that scripture? So the things, this is a canon problem, right?

Austin (51:15)

So we come into. This is not.

Jeff Durbin (51:18)

And this is what's important here. It's so vitally important. When you use an argument, when you use an argument that when applied to your own position, refutes your own position, you know, it's a bad argument. So here you have again, Mormon apologist having to diminish the glory of God's transmission of scripture and history having to call into question the authenticity of different books of the Bible. And, and he's doing all of this as a Latter day Saint who will then turn around when he's going to proselytize for Mormonism. He will turn around and hold this book with reverence in his hands. And these are God's words. We believe the Bible is God's word. So when he's on say a mission, I'm not sure if he's actually been on a mission probably. And when he's out promulgating the Mormon gospel, he's going to talk about the Bible in a different way than he does with the Christian on the street. Look, how do we know the Book of Hebrews is, is. How do we know that's inspired? How do we know that? We don't know. How are you going to say, you know Hayden, because Mormonism tells you to. They simply pull rank and say this is the B, this is the word of God. Is that how you know? Because you have some, some authority above the Bible and the words of God that tells you that's the word of God. Okay, now do Islam, right? I mean you're epistemologically, how are you going to handle that when Muhammad try that? Muslims do that every day. Well, we declare this to be the word of God. Who did? Well, this guy, he declared it to Be the word of God. He's over it. And so that's how. That's the Word of God, because he says it's the Word of God. Or even Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism. Fantastic example of this issue. It's a fantastic example. Think about the issue of the apocrypha in Roman Catholicism. You have this incredible history, Old Testament history before the ministry of Christ, where the word of God is being delivered to the people of God. They're receiving the people of God and the Word of God and that's being passed down generation to generation. It's this organic process. The same way it's within the covenant people themselves. It's not being distributed like it was in the New Testament, where it's just going out to the world and to Gentiles and everything else. I mean, it's like the covenant people of God. It's their book, it's their revelation. They've received it and they're carrying it along generation to generation. And interestingly, of course, the Jews were aware of the apocrypha. Many believe that there were some valuable historical insights and things and stories inside the apocrypha. But the Jews did not believe that the apocrypha were inspired works. They believed that they were useful. At some points, people acknowledged that there were contradictions within the apocrypha, but historical works and valuable, but not Scripture. And so proof of that is that in the second Temple, they did not store up in the Temple the apocryphal works. They did store up our Old Testament canon that's in there. Jewish Bible and the Protestant canon is the same. And how. How they're organized can be a little different. But what was stored up in the Jewish temple was the Old Testament Scriptures. And Paul says in Romans Romans, chapter three, that it was the Jews who were entrusted with the very oracles of God. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. And so they were given the oracles of God. They were entrusted with them. They knew what their Bible was and it was stored up in the Jewish temple. No New Testament author, not Jesus, not the apostles, ever, ever quotes from the apocrypha with the divine formula of what does the scripture say? Or God said ever. And so they knew the distinction between the apocrypha and the holy words of God. And again, they were entrusted with the oracles of God according to the insp. Apostle. And that's what was stored up in the Jewish temple. And as time goes on, you have people suggesting, well, the apocrypha, should that also be in the Bible, you have what, what Roman Catholics would consider a Pope denying that the Apocrypha is scripture in writing, in history. And then along comes the Reformation and all of that. And then there's the official decree from the Church. These are the words of God. The apocryphal is in scripture. And it's like, wait, wait, wait, wait. Really? Jesus didn't seem to think so. Neither did any of the apostles and neither did the Second Temple Jews who seem to know what their Bible was. Like Jesus and Paul and Peter and John. And they had these books in the, in the temple, but not the Apocrypha. And they were well aware of the apocrypha. And then Rome goes, well, no, we're the, we're the church. We're the Magisterium, the Church. We're going to tell you what's in scripture. And so these are the words of God. We're going to pull rank. This is, this is your Bible. Mormonism is, is the same way. How do you combat that? How do you combat that? Someone coming in just to pull rank. It's a sticky situation. It's a difficult one. So we're gonna go to a quick commercial break here, guys, and stay with us. I hope this is a blessing to you guys. We will be 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 F 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 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 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, 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. All right everyone, welcome back. Welcome back to Apologia Radio. Do all the things that YouTube loves like and share this. Tell everyone all about it. Hope this is a benefit to you guys and a blessing passing. All right, quick things Q A as well in this episode. So Adam Malden 9800 that's a tough one, man. That's a big one. What are, what are my thoughts on the Todd White roast by Winger? I know Mike and he's a solid dude. He's done some stuff for us before with Cultish. Got to actually hang out a bit with Mike at the Charlie Cook Memorial last year and have a have a deep level of respect for Mike Winger. And I've not gotten a chance to look through all that he just did on Todd White. I will say one of the things that I have really valued with Mike in the past when I've seen him do things, is that he's tried to handle any kind of critique or accusation with a lot of biblical fidelity and fidelity to the word of God and God's standards for accusations. I know that Mike says that he hates, he hates doing these kinds of exposes, but he feels a moral obligation to do so for the sake of the victims. But one thing I have appreciated in the past and what I've seen from him is that he wants to make sure he has all the evidence, that he has multiple lines of independent testimony and witness, and that he's willing himself to be cross examined as to what he's saying. And that's very, very important. Especially in the age of the Internet where people can just write articles and do hit pieces on people. Literally movies, making stuff up. Literally, literally making stuff up. It's happened to us on a number of occasions. And there's a recent article this week, I got five paragraphs into it. It's a hit piece on us. I got five paragraphs into it and there were just two things. Complete fiction, false done. And the person never even asked me, never even came to ask me. What would you say in response to this? Is this true? Never, never was even asked. So in the age of the Internet, it is even more important for Firm up our commitments to the word of God and God's standards for accusations and receiving accusations. It's very important and Mike tends to do a very good job on that. I love Mike Winger. So I haven't got a chance to watch it all yet, so I can't really give a lot of comments. I don't want to speak about something that I'm ignorant of. Daniel says, may God bless your ministry. Daniel. Thank you, brother. I appreciate you so much. Means a lot to me, believe me, more than you know. Quickly. We'll just do a little bit more here and then maybe try to get to more questions and answers with the thread. So. So here is some more.

Austin (60:33)

I would rather talk to you about the nature of the.

Hayden Carroll (60:36)

Can I. Can I just make one little point here because I think this is important. You said that you know the author of Matthew is Matthew. There's no verse that says that.

Austin (60:43)

I take.

Hayden Carroll (60:45)

It's a tradition.

Austin (60:47)

And what is faith described as?

Hayden Carroll (60:49)

Wait, sorry, you said you take it as faith.

Austin (60:50)

I take it upon faith. But what is it? Faith is the assurance. No, it's the assurance of the things to come.

Jeff Durbin (60:57)

The.

Austin (60:58)

Okay, well, faith is not.

Hayden Carroll (60:59)

This brings up a whole nother issue, right? Because I would say that. Let me ask you, do you have faith that you're saved?

Austin (61:04)

Oh, I know that I'm saved.

Hayden Carroll (61:05)

Yeah. Hey, good to see you. You know that you're saved.

Austin (61:08)

I know that.

Jeff Durbin (61:09)

So. Okay, we'll price stop it there for now. There's so much more to deal with. We probably are going to engage with a little bit more, but really interesting point there in terms of the. The canon transmission Matthew as a title over a particular book. Whether or not the title Matthew over Matthew is. Is that's irrelev. The question of ultimately inspiration. Again, it seems that Hayden is ignorant about how we got our Bibles, how it went through history and the epistemological foundation as to how we know these are the words of God and how you can defend that it's the very words of God he doesn't seem to understand. He thinks he understands presuppositional apologetics, but he misrepresents it a number of times. So I would encourage you, Hayden, and I'll probably get a chance to engage in some of this a little bit on a different episode, to spend more time actually studying a system before you try to create, critique it publicly. Because otherwise you're going to make public errors like this and they'll be on record. They're going to haunt you. And so I would Say you need to do your homework in the area of presuppositional apologetics because you say things that are just patently false, provably untrue. And. And now it's a record. Now it's. Now it's out there, and now it's. It's there. And so, so the question of, you know, Matthew as a title, Luke over Luke as a title over is ultimately irrelevant over the inspiration of the words themselves. There's a textual critical way back to those things. And yes, a tradition passed down in terms of a title over a book, but that has. It doesn't have anything to do with it. It's inspiration whether it's inspired revelation from God. And so I think you don't quite understand this subject enough to be engaging on it in the way that you are. So. All right, so I'll again, hopefully be able to do some more interaction with this in the future. Got a busy next couple of months with a session and all the bills that we have going in, but I'll try to do some stuff here. Let's see here. Julian, Steven. So you guys got some interesting names here. It says thoughts on the Hyphenated Heresy by Webin. Haven't read it. Haven't read it. Don't know much about it. I would say. The recent comments, I'll be careful with using words like obsession. I think there is some obsession in this realm for sure, in terms of the Jewish question and Jewish people. There's definitely obsession and even hatred. And I'm not saying with. With Joel. I'm saying, like right now, if you go into Acts, you're going to see a lot of stuff that'll turn your stomach. And you could easily call that obsession and evil and hatred and all the rest. I'm not saying that Joel is there. I'm saying that you can see that, and it's definitely jarring. But the hyphenated heresy, this question of, like, Judeo Christian is heresy is a strange thing to me because as Pastor James has said recently when he's responding to this, there's no religion of Judaism, Judeo Christian. There's no religion with sacraments and none of those. There's no religion of Judeo Christian and Judeo Christian heresy. The whole concept of the terminology of Judeo Christian is to recognize the common ground because we hold the Old Testament scriptures as the word of God, and the Jews do as well. And so you've got Jews and Christians that say the word of God. The Old Testament is the word of God. Now here's the deal. Of course we have to say that Jews handling the word of God appropriately or properly. And we're not saying we agree with their conclusions. Of course not. We're saying that they profess to believe in the essential worldview of the Old Testament and Christians do too, like for example, monotheism. So Judeo Christian monotheism, things like there is an ultimate creator who sustains the universe and governs all things like that's all held together by Jews and Christians. So Judeo Christian also the commonalities in terms of, of justice and no partiality and equal weights and measures and those sorts of things that are just. Of course we're intersecting together as Christians and Jews because we're, I mean, darn it, we're holding the same books. We're not coming to the same interpretations and conclusions. Obviously they reject Christ, but Judeo Christian essentially meant that. But I will say this, I'm not going to make any comments on, on the book itself in terms of, you know, real detail stuff because I don't know what they're saying in it. I'm confused, Confused by the conversation. Let's just put it that way. I'm confused by the conversation. I think some of it is ultimately silly. So let's see here. Let's go to a couple of more. Go ahead. Oh, did you. Okay, sorry. Gabe's. Gabe's hooking me up here. He's already been ahead of me on this so. Thanks Gabe. You're always the best at this. Let's see here. Adam again says Jeff, someone said Alistair Bag corrected his statement about the granny going to a gay man mirage and said the gifts she should bring is a Bible. Is that okay now or still bad? I'm sorry, Adam, I don't even know what this conversation is about. Alistair Bag.

Hayden Carroll (66:17)

I think at one point.

Austin (66:18)

He said it was okay to attend a gay wedding.

Jeff Durbin (66:20)

Oh, that's right. Okay, now I'm, now I'm understanding it was okay to attend. So he's corrected it and just bring a Bible. I mean I wouldn't sit through a gay mirage. I wouldn't sit through it because it's not real. I would show no support of it whatsoever. Because what's being, what's taking place there is an offense to God. It is a high handed sin against God. It is a mocking of God and God's ways and God's order and God's created order. And so I would not participate. And I'd say if, if I was going to bring a Bible, it'd probably be from the outside to stand there and to have conversations with people about what is true, lovely and beautiful when it comes to human relationships and human sexuality. But I don't think I'd go, no, I would not think I would not go and sit through the ceremony because the ceremony was. Is ultimately blasphemous. And so, of course not. Austin says Scripture teaches one eternal God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God, three persons, no God besides him. Amen. Austin that's right, brother. See here. Austin Matthew Stankus, 5 11. Guys, your name's here. I was like, they're like, seriously a mile long off you. Austin Matthew Stankus, 511. There's probably, probably some story behind that. What are your thoughts on refraining from comparing abortion to slavery, as Doug Wilson argues? AUSTIN I'd want to know what brother Doug said about that. I'm so sorry. I probably sound like, so out of touch right now with a lot of stuff going on, and I think most of it has to do with ministry and family and twins and one with a severe disability. And so it puts me unfortunately behind on a lot of things. But I don't think I'm aware of what Doug has said about comparing abortion to slavery. Maybe you can send a link to that. AUSTIN I can figure out what you're, what you're referring to. Let's see here. Adam says, Adam 2:13 says, why does Jesus constantly talk about the things of the spirit and not, and not. And badly of the flesh? And I think just meant and badly of the things of the flesh. Well, you see this not just in Jesus, but you also see it in the apostle, Apostle Paul. If you read the book of Romans, that's, that's clearly something that's identified and unpacked and talked about throughout the New Testament. And I think Jesus is, is the one who is, is giving that, giving that really powerful initial discussion on that in John chapter three with Nicodemus. Why does Jesus constantly talk about things of spirit and, and badly of the things, things of the flesh? I think it would have to do with, you know, Jesus and the New Testament and Paul referring to the spiritual and the physical. There's, there's an aspect to our existence of being in the flesh that is identified as that fallen state and that which is corruptible and that which is connected to the fallen state, the things of the flesh warring against the things of the spirit. There is regeneration, there is new, new life. And that's all taking place in a fallen world where you have this fleshly existence that's identified as related to the fall and, and part of that fallen nature. And so that's why it's identified. They have regeneration and life giving spirits and the things that are from above and, and then of course you have this, this existence that we're, we're still a part of in this world. Fallen world not fully made new yet. And there's the warring of the spiritual things versus the fleshly things or the natur. I think that's why you see not highlighted because it's a fallen world. We still have this experience in front of us. We're still warring against sin and yet we have this regeneration and new life in Jesus and a life giving spirit. And I think that's why we're seeing so much of that. Do we have another break here, Gabe? We have one more, don't we?

Austin (70:32)

Yeah, we can.

Jeff Durbin (70:33)

Let's go ahead and do. How long is this break here for everybody?

Austin (70:35)

This one is going to be 50 seconds.

Jeff Durbin (70:37)

Okay, 50 seconds. Let's go for that last break guys.

Announcer (70:39)

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 amtech blades.com, put a power and the coupon code, get 5% off your order and he will match that and give 5% to end abortion. Now again, amtechblades.com we're grateful for them. Check them out.

Jeff Durbin (71:23)

Britain C. Clark says But Jeff, who decided which works made it into the Bible originally? It didn't assemble itself nor did any apostles, apostle of God assemble the Bible. Where does your Bible come from? It's a great question. Britain. Glad you asked it. So the first thing I would say ultimate in terms of who decided which works made it into the Bible originally is, is God himself. You have to recognize because this is a supernatural worldview and it's a supernatural book. It's a divine book. You have to acknowledge the divine origin of the work. You have to acknowledge that at the beginning this is not simply an earthly book. This is not something an organization created. This is a divinely inspired book. It is a divinely transmitted book. And it is a book that is ultimately sustained and governed by God, you can. You can't dismiss that. You have to hold that together. That's what the Bible is teaching you about the revelation itself and about God himself, who does all these things. And so you have to acknowledge first and foremost, in the beginning of the question, who decided which works made it into the Bible. Originally, it's God himself. Now, there's a second part to your question, which I think is probably the one you're more focusing in upon. And that's like, how did all this happen? And that's what I said at the beginning when I was engaging with that question on canon and the transmission of canon, canon and all that, is that it is not the church that created the Bible. It is the word of God that created the church. What you have is this organic thing with the divine scriptures being given to the people of God. Paul is an inspired apostle. According to Peter, what he's giving is Scripture itself. Paul gives a letter to the church, or Paul writes Romans and the church receives it. That comes from an inspiration, inspired apostle. We're receiving it as the people of God. These are the words of God. This comes with the power of God. This is consistent with all of God's other revelation. And so the church understands that they're receiving these words, these inspired words from an apostle. And then the church holds that, copies it, shares it, sends it. It's going from church to church and Christian to Christian. It is an organic process. There's no franchise here where you have governing body standing over it and declaring, we declare today on this day that this book is officially the word of God. That never happened with the Bible. It did not happen with the Bible. It is this organic process where the church recognized that their position was reception. We've received the word of God. These are the words of God we've received. Now, of course, there were some parts, I said, of the empire that did not receive certain books. And so as you get further on into history and as a church is communicating more and they're traveling and are able to deliver things like, oh, you didn't have the Book of Revelation. You never received that? Yeah, no. From the beginning, generations back, this is how we received it from John. We've been worshiping God with this book for all these generations. And this is the origin of the book. Here's where it came from. And of course, there were at times questions like, we know we didn't have that. Like, there's some scary stuff in that book, right? Like, so there were still questions. Christians were asking questions like, well, how. How do you know when did you get that and how far back? And. And you guys have always had this and you're worshiping to this. And you would, of course, you would even see early church fathers already quoting from those works in their writings. And clearly they had received those and they saw them as scripture. But there's no governing authority over the Bible declaring these officially. We declare to be on this date at 2:00pm the word of God. They are now the Word of God to you. That didn't happen because that's not the nature of Scripture where it yields to man and man's opinion on whether it's the Word of God. That's not even how it happened. It was this organic process. Now, what's interesting about it though, in terms of just the power of this conversation, you look into the second century. The second century, like not long after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, second century. And because of theological disputes they had and heresies they were dealing with, like the Marcionites and those who would try to lop the Bible in half, you have to have Christians who are like going, no, we need to make sure everyone understands, like, these are the books that everyone's received. These are the words of God. And if you look at the moratorium canon, you see that it is. There's our New Testament, there's our New Testament, our Old Testament. It's consistent. But it was amazing because it wasn't like they were declaring, we declare these to be officially the Word of God. They understood reception. These are the books that have been received. These are the books that are the inspired words that are given to us in the church. And there's no dispute that's how God did this. It is a divine process, and it's powerful in this divine process that God not only gives the words of God to the church, they receive those, but he also preserves it. The transmission of the text of the Bible is a stunning and incredible thing to study. If you haven't done so, please do so. You could read. If you want to get into the, the how we got the Bible and how it's transmitted in a short sort of summary thing, I would highly recommend getting Doct. James White's book, the King James Only controversy. That'll be a big blessing to you in understanding how we got our Bibles and where they came from. Jesse6731 says. Hi, can we talk about how Jay Smith believed the Book of Abraham was written, penned by his own hand? I assume there, Jesse, that you're talking about the Book of Abraham and the, the Egyptian fragments and those sorts of things. So I'll try to do a quick, quick work on that. So one of the most compelling, interesting studies in the history of Mormonism is on the Book of Abraham. It is fascinating if, if you want to get a good book on the history of Mormonism. That's just it. It's just, I mean, it's like reading a novel about. It's like someone made it up. No Man Knows My History by Fawn Brody is an interesting look at the history of Mormonism and the origins of Mormonism. You'll see some of this discussion there in that book. No Man Knows My History, but it is fascinating. The whole Book of Abraham, Egyptian papyrus is a fascinating study. So there was an Egyptian exhibit, traveling museum at the time coming through Kirtland, Ohio, and Michael Chandler was the name. Michael Chandler was, was the guy who was displaying these things and ultimately selling them. And the Mormons are all there. And it's a traveling museum. It's interesting. And so there were, there were these papyrus and papyri fragments and, and, and within there was these scrolls and they were written in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Now, at the time that this was happening with, with the Latter Day Saints who were seeing this, the, the data really from the Rosetta Stone had not really come over yet to United States. And so this wasn't a widely known thing at the time. Egyptian was a dead language. And so if you consider this, like you're looking at this really interesting thing from history, it's an Egyptian and no one knows like, what it says. Like it's, it's, it's a mystery. And the Rosetta Stone cleared all that up in terms of being able to understand. Oh, this is what it says. So what the Latter Day Saints essentially said is, well, well, we have a prophet who can read dead languages. Great, bring them. And so Joseph comes and Joseph basically, I'm going to pretends to be able to translate this. And, and so Michael Chandler ends up selling these scrolls to, to them, to the Mormon Church and at a pretty high price, by the way, a very significant dollar amount. And so Joseph basically ends up saying, this is the Book of Abraham, Book of Joseph. This has been delivered to us by God, preserved by God for us. And he begins the translation. Now, there's no question that what he was doing. We, we have his, we have. This is what's amazing on Mormon apologists when they try to find some way around the mistakes of Joseph Smith or the Book of Abraham. There's no question that what Joseph Smith was doing was translation. We have his writings, we have the symbol. And then hit what he. He wrote next to it. Here's this symbol and what he wrote next to it. And so there's this, the comparison, you can see. And so he claims that, you know, God preserved this for us. There were parts of this papyrus. It was, it was, we know now it's. It's the Book of the Dead and Book of Breathings. And there were pieces of it missing, though. And so what you'll see in your, your, your pearl of great price today when you guys are reading that, you'll see like, you know, these, these pictures. He gets the pictures wrong because they were. It was missing in the scroll. And so he just draw. He said was supposed to be there. And it's not what's supposed to be there because we have. This is a common pagan funerary text. We know what this thing is. It's a common pagan funerary text, you know, rolled up, put by the heads of dead people to help them breathe into the afterlife. It's all paganism. Osiris, Isis, the crocodile God, Sobek. It's all there. Like we know what this thing is. And Joseph Smith lies to the Mormon people and says it's the Book of Abraham. And he of course, doesn't get a word right in the translation. You know, you can look at the translation to see like, you know, the word was the. And it's like he has multiple words to translate the word the or a sentence. I mean, the man was a fraud. He lied to the Mormon people about being able to translate dead languages. And you know, this is reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics and all the rest. But so the, the problem was is that people had thought that that original scroll had been destroyed in this, this big fire until the late 1960s. I forget the name of the man. Muhammad seems to, seems to be at the front of my mind here in the museum in New York in the basement, I believe it was. He recognizes something on the scroll as he's looking through these things. And he recognizes it because he knew somebody that had, you know, presented the pearl of great price to him before and he recognized that. And so he's looking at it. And then anyways, long story. Eventually all this gets back into the hands of the Mormon Church. And so the Mormon Church gets a hold of this once again, it's confirmed that these are the scrolls. Like, it's. This is it, guys. We got it. And the Mormon Church was, I've talked to old school Mormons at the time who, who were alive when this was discovered. And when the church says, we got. We got it, we got it. I talked to this, this one Mormon couple told me, they said, jeff, you don't understand. When this first came out, it was all we talked about. They said it was all we talked about. We were so excited. We were going to prove to the entire world that Joseph Smith's a prophet. He said, because we had it, we have the original scrolls. We got them. And nobody knew how to translate this stuff at the time. And Joseph Smith translated it. And so we were. Every Mormon was just like with baited breath, breath, waiting, waiting for the demonstration that Joseph Smith got it right with his translation. And then here's the scroll. Did he get it right? And so the Mormon Church went to work on it in terms of, okay, this is the scroll. Clearly it is. Let's translate it. Let's, let's go. And then they had to report back to the Mormon Church. Guys, we have a problem. This is not what Joseph said. That it was like, there's not one word in this. That, that's, that's, that's correct. This is not. It doesn't work. And my friend and his wife said, you don't understand, Jeff. He said, we were just, with bated breath, every one of our friends, all we talked about is any moment the world's going to know he's a prophet. Only a miracle of God could have done this. And they said to me, and then all of a sudden he said, they just stopped talking about it. He said it was the weirdest thing. Like we were so, like, what's going on with that? Like, what's happening? He said that we went from like, everybody, this high level of excitement. We're going to prove to the world that Joseph Smith was a seer and a prophet and he could translate dead languages just like he did with the Book of Mormon. And, and he got, he said. And then they just stopped talking about it. And it's like. And it just sort of went away. And we were all expected just to pretend like it never happened. And then of course, it took some time for all that information to come out. And so, yeah, the pearl of great price. Book of Abraham. That whole story is fascinating. And if you guys want to get a good work on this, this, to study this, I think it's still available. It might still be in print. By his own hand upon papyrus is the name of the book. By his own hand upon papyrus. That book is fascinating. By the way, it's very helpful because not only does it tell the story and the history, but gives all the different dates and details, everything you need. But also in the middle of that book is a big pullout, full color pullout of the original, original scroll. And. And it's a great book. It's a great book by his own hand upon papyrus. And so I hope this is a blessing to everybody today. I'm so grateful for all of you. We are going to go into the after show after, after this. It's over@apologiastudios.com you come, you can join me over there. We're gonna have a quick Talk over there. ApologiaStudios.com Sign up for all access. Be a part of this ministry with us. Don't forget, everybody to go to the store. ApologiaStudios.com to the store. Get yourself some tracks. We have tracks for Mormons. We've got basic gospel tracts. We have tracks to hand out. The abortion mill. We got tracks on the issue of depression and suicide and lots there and shirts and all the swag and everything else you guys can get over there. And don't forget also everybody that, yes, Heritage Defense. I was going to point out that Bradley Pierce, Bradley Pierce, who is with Heritage Defense, he's the one writing all of our bills across the country for these bills of abolition. So pray for him. Foundation, everyone in Texas right now, foundation to abolish abortion. The hard work that they do, they are just such great, amazing believers out there. So faithful, so courageous. And I know that Bradley's super busy. He's got the weight of the world on his shoulders right now. Like, you know, when Illinois came up, I was like, bradley, I need a bill for Illinois, man. Get to work. Let's do it fast. You know, so he's doing it all. Pray for Bradley, an attorney, constitutional attorney, but also Heritage Defense. If your family is homeschooling in particular, you need to be concerned at times about three letter agencies showing up at your door. And so go to Heritage Defense. You have them on speed dial. Someone shows up at your door, makes accusations. They don't like what you're saying online, something like that. Heritage Defense, very low cost. You hit speed dial, hand it to the person outside your door, talk to my attorney. It is phenomenal. And the price that they charge for that doesn't make sense to me to this very day. Heritagedefense.org make sure you guys go check it out. And so I think that's it. So thank you, everybody. Bless you. Thank you. Apologiesstudios.com Go over there. Let's do all access after show together right now. We'll see you guys next week.