Part 1: Protestants from Apologia Church debate Latter Day Saints on the topic of Sola Scriptura 

I first watched this debate on Apologia's RU-vid channel. I was having allot of questions and this debate gave me allot of answers I needed to return to my LDS foundation. Thanks guys.

The more I learn about other Churches, the grateful I am to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've been watching 52 Churches in 52 weeks RU-vid channel and it has also been really enlightening.

"I'll start my defense of sola scriptura by citing sources that are not in the scriptures" 🤦🤦🤦

As a former protestant, I can testify that the path of the Latter-Day Saint brings the most Christlike change to one's life if lived consistently.

Jacob, you're a saintly warrior! I'm so happy that your on my side!

More debates, LDS ROCKS! 😊😊😊 LDS members are highly intelligent people and they know if you're wrong big time! 😅 Thanks to the LDS Church big time!

Awesome debate! Love seeing our members starting to debate more and more!

The ludicrous thing about Sola scriptura is its supposed to stand on its own. So why do they interpret it then? An atheist said they should just get up read a verse snd then sit down. What's this "the spirit speaks to me, this is my understanding", yet they reject prophets that they push down while simultaneously lift themselves up to the level of essentially a prophet. Which makes sense if you realize that they consider themselves the elect.

im orthodox ☦ but these mormons really broke protestantism apart hardcore lol

Technically anytime a new testament writer mentions scripture, they are probably talking about the old testament. The new testament wasn't a book yet. And the writings weren't compiled until much later.

As a Catholic, I find it funny that non Catholics try to use our bishops, Saints, church fathers to prove sola scriptura. This is never wise, but it IS always hilarious lol.

During the Cross examination, Oscar Dunlap resorted to playing word games by using equivocation and relying on faulty use of words. He purposely uses the word communication as a synonym for speaking, listening as well as the process of of communication. Each of those words have substantial different meaning, and while communication can be used a synonym for these words, the context provides the meaning meant. For example, when we say "God communicates," that literally means God is giving us a message. Yet Brother Dunlap tries to then claim the sentence is the same as receiving the message. We wouldn't say "We communicated God's message" to mean we received the message. He is using language games. Brothers' Carroll and Hanson did a reasonable job of calling that out. Brother Dunlap is a perfect example of the fallacies and logic that are so common in protestantism. It relies on the use of language without concrete or specific meaning. The gaming of the "Word of God" is an example. He pretends the Bible is something that Christ and the Apostles know of and spoke of, while ignoring that the Bible is a collection of works that were chosen and picked for inclusion by a politicaly chosen committee. What's interesting is the quality of the arguments between essentially amateurs in the field against degreed professionals in their field.

Something that watching this debate. The Pharisees in Jesus day also used sola scriptura and didn’t believe that God could have flesh and blood. They were no different from those who you debated.

Love this debate. Your arguments were on point! Continue what your doing.

Opening Statement dropping the mic! OH MAN! Props to both of you Thoughtful Faith! I think that hit HARD...

Yall smashed em nice job elders. This one wasn't even close. I don't know any of your names but the black dude basically quoted Joseph Smith. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, it is a hard matter to get right. The irony I love how you yall put the Book of Mormon on the the level of the Bible. Masterful. Ask and ye shall receive its really that easy. They even said "they would expect revelation to come" 🤣 Hats off to you guys.

I don't know how the protestant guys can make so many statements that are without a logical basis AND not appear to notice. It is painful to listen to one after another. I am spending all my mental effort trying to work out how on earth I can attempt to get from the beginning to the end of one of their sentences and make them logically consistent. I cannot comprehend what they are seeing that I am not. Very strange indeed.

Thank you for sharing this Jacob!!! I would never have found it except by being a new subscriber to your channel. I think you are brilliant and I'm grateful for your knowledge and your kindness and the respectful way you share it. God bless! Much love from a fellow member. ❤️

@1:11:15 They claim it says 6 days so it must be, but fail to admit that the word “Yom” in Hebrew could denote not JUST a day but a period of time, such as a year or longer. Amazing… they deny that translation errors exist. According to them, no one who spoke any other language than English could get the full meaning of the Bible.

The most hilarious part of the Matthew 22 reference is that the scripture that he claims Jesus quoted is not in the protestant Bible. It's in a book that they don't consider scripture, the book of Tobit (apocrypha).

"What we call the New Testament is true because Jesus said the Old Testament is true. Also, our opponents deny Jesus and that's not a strawman, because reasons."

God lives and loves us Our Loving God surely answers ang reveals everything....

iT IS an understanding that discussions about religion very easily go from debates to arguments! i say that with alot of life experience!

I think you guys did a fantastic job. Their position is very hard to defend.

The Sola Scripture debater warned about Strawman attacks. He did it. He did it by lying about whether we believe the Bible. He lied about whether we believe God can give us clear messages.

I clearly either have too much time on my hands, or I have a real procrastination problem, but here are my thoughts on the Protestant guys: First off, the first guy makes a big deal not to be inconsistent, and says "to be inconsistent is to lie." That is incorrect. You could just be wrong. Ill intent isn't necessary here. 8:11 - "scripture alone" is ultimate authority, goes on to quote non-biblical sources 9:15 - "all of church history" - so like, starting 100-200 years after the biblical texts were finalized/decided upon 9:55 - claims they do not deny times of revelation. Did scripture not exist also in those times? Why did they need further revelation then? Isn't it "inconsistent" to claim that there were times where both scripture and revelation existed but not anymore? 10:34 - True, we don't read that the scriptures bring unity, but we read that prophets and apostles do! (Ephesians 4: 11-14) 12:20 - The Bible doesn't need the Book of Mormon, YOU do. The two dot analogy is applicable here. 12:33 - "scriptures are self-consistent" LOL! Paul's conversion story? Just one of many examples As far as the 2 Timothy scripture goes, it reads all SCRIPTURE is breathed out, not THE BIBLE is breathed out. The equating of "scripture" with "the bible" is obviously wrong, because the bible didn't exist when Paul wrote this. Also, Paul doesn't say "trust your feelings" or whatever because Timothy is ALREADY converted. 15:05 - mentions that Paul tells Timothy to "remember what you've read when you were little." Well, Timothy certainly didn't read 1 Timothy 3:16 when he was little.... 17:45 - is he suggesting that Jesus thought the word of God was truth even when it was NOT translated correctly??? 18:07 - um, wut?? that's literally the foundation of testimony in the church... Personal revelation...we LITERALLY believe in visions, manifestations, miracles, continually, ongoing, today...I'm so confused why he would claim this. 18:18 - Jesus never said the New Testament was the word of God, except for, you know, in the Doctrine and Covenants. 37:35 - Wrong. "By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." That's our belief. 37:51 - You CAN'T be certain about matters of faith, otherwise it's not faith, it's knowledge. That's just definitionally the case. To equate faith with knowledge is a gross misunderstanding of both faith and knowledge, the roles both faith and knowledge play in our understanding, and the utility of both faith and knowledge. 40:23 - "if God is obligated to law external to himself. . .then He can give no more assurance of the truth than we can give each other." But twice in this debate the other dude admits that God cannot lie. That seems inconsistent, and would require some serious explanation to balance those two ideas. 40:37 - Talk about straw man. We don't believe "God is nothing more than a man himself." He is an exalted man, a perfect man, and if he is perfect, then of course He can't be wrong. To make things clear, we believe God is like Christ. And certainly they would also admit that Christ was fully human and fully God. The dude's epistemology is all wack. It's true, in order to arrive at some particular truth, it is often necessary that a different particular truth is needed as a starting point or a foundation. In order to have a true conclusion, it must come from true premises that relate to each other in the right way. But one wrong way the premises can relate to the conclusion is if the premises are IDENTICAL to the conclusion. You can't justify the veracity of one particular truth using the same particular truth. It doesn't work that way. It's illogical. 51:55 - no, because the God of "Mormonism" IS the God of Judaism....but going with the more colloquial understandings of God, still no, because limits allow for greater reason, creativity, and strength of will. Overall, the equating of "scripture" with "the Bible" is the real problem with their position. The Bible doesn't teach "The Bible" is the word of God. It teaches "scripture" is the word of God. The books in The Bible were chosen by random dudes. It's thus an arbitrary collection of books, most of which are scripture; but it is not and cannot be an exhaustive collection of scriptural works, nor is it an entirely pure collection of scripture (Song of Solomon, for example). The canon problem is the strongest point against sola scriptura, in my opinion.

Yeah, no. "Sola Scriptura" was NOT taught in the earliEST days of "the church". The claimants to authority didn't allow that.

This was interesting to watch. However, as much as I don’t want to be critical (cuz I was not the one debating) I think the LDS guys could have more thoroughly demolished the opposition if they would have merely discussed the context of the formation of the Bible. It would have supported their argument with greater lethality.

The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is God's true church on the earth today. i bear my Testimony that I read the Book of Mormon and prayed to god to know and through the power of the holy ghost, he made that known to me that it is the true church today.

Thank you Jacob. I can't tell you how many times they would say something and i would pause, give it thought and answer myself. And as soon as I unpaused you would say the exact thing I had thought. How else would you know who authorized a book, than the author telling you personally that he wrote it?

It's always about interpretation of scripture. No wonder so many people are joining the Church of Jesus Christ.

God’s perfect will for every man is to love thy neighbor as they self and love God with all your heart mine strength and soul

The Evangelical response acts as if we LDS do not understand those foundational truths for all Christianity, like that Jesus is the way the truth and the light, or that God's plan was to provide us with a saviour who is Jesus Christ...We believe nearly everything that other Christians believe...

This debate was over after the Protestant opening statement, and they lost. So many contradictions…

Wow, that first question at 52 minutes reminded me SO MUCH of Zeezrom questioning Amulek. Q. “What can God do?” A. All that is possible Q. Can he communicate perfectly A. Yes Q. Then why don’t people understand Him? A. Because we will not hear Him Q. So He cannot make us listen to Him. A. He respects our agency, and so He will not make us listen to Him. Sometimes scriptures just come alive!!

NOWHERE in The Holy Bible does it say "The Bible is the Word of God".

Facinating debate!! Great job Jason. Super interesting that the entire concept and definition for sola escripture is nowhere to be found in the text of the Bible but rather it was dreamt up from thin air and by twisting a verse or two to mean things that they were clearly never intended to mean. Then through the process of time, individuals defined themselves as the authoritative arbiters of what the Bible verses means. It's kind of like circular logic. It's as plane as the noses on their faces that the whole concept is just a man made mirage but the just don't get it.

Well done. Thanks

I really enjoyed these two videos and the debates were enlightening in terms of coming to better understand the evangelical views. I say "understand" but thats not quite the right word because the logical issues with their claims make their claims almost incomprehensible. Having said that, I'd be very curious to see how they would respond to some additional questions. One was a question that comes close to what you guys were exploring with them about the clarity of the Bible. You began to ask them what the reason would be for all the extra material God placed into the Bible if all that was needed was a simple voicing that one accepts The Lord Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior as a sign of faith and then that person is manifest suddenly as one of God's chosen or pre-elected to be saved. They never really gave a clear answer on the purposes of the rest of the Bible. In their opinion or according to their interpretation of the Bible, are those "non-salvific" ideas included simply to tease? Are they included to confuse, because the results of "Christianity" reading these things certainly seems to have been much confusion. In the same vein, you suggested that according to their philosophy the Bible might as well just contain a one page sermon on "believe in Christ and accept Him as your Savior and you'll be saved" and forego the rest of the Bible. I would say, "what the hey! Why have a Bible at all? If all those who are to be saved are pre-destined, what does God need a Bible for at all? Can't He just save those He chooses? What's the point of the Bible if all that is needed is for God to maje His choices and the rest go to Hell? The rest of the people who read the Bible but who aren't picked ultimately gain zero benefit from reading the Bible when it comes to eternal salvation so clearly it is not needed for them. Those who are saved will be saved either way so clearly they don't need the Bible for salvation". They might say that in order to "be one of the elect you have to show faith and claim Jesus as your Savior and be born again". But why? Does God NEED these folks to make such a declaration to save them? Does He just enjoy their picking Him like its a boost to His self esteem or something? If He is all powerful and can do whatever He wants, He doesn't need a Bible to save us and we technically wouldn't need to do anything to warrant His saving us. Its arbitrary and just up to God so for what purpose then is the Bible? Another issue I considered is that they claim the Bible as the only authority for truth and, if I understand correctly this means that any appeal to someone or something outside the Bible for truth is wrong and faulty, then why do they cherry pick teachings of religious thinkers from centuries ago, heck, even from today's time to validate their beliefs. Doing so, relying upon ANYONE ELSE, even those you agree with on your presuppositions, is a violation of your presupposition by definition, yet they seem to enjoy relying upon the opinions and teachers that are clearly NOT the Bible to make their points. Besides, where in the Bible does it say that this or that early Christian theologian is a reliable source of truth? If the only reliable source of truth is the Bible, it should proclaim "Calvin's way of thinking is the correct way" but last time I read the Bible it makes no such utterance anywhere. Again, even relying upon Calvin or analyze else AT ALL to make your claim that the Bible is the source of all truth is to violate your own rules right out of the starting gate. I had other thoughts but its getting late and I've gone on too long as it is. Good job guys. Especially in being servants of Christ in bearing testimony and inviting those listening to come and find more truth to add to what they already have.

Most debates done like this (Bible bashes also) are circular discussions that can go on forever . . . and ever . . . and ever . . .

In the cross-examination, Jacob apeared to mispeak. In response to the question, "Does the Bible say that the Bible is the Word of God?", Jacob answered, "Yes." What I think he meant, as was made clear by the context, was "The Bible teaches that scripture is the Word of God." No where does the Bible teach that the Bible is the Word of God. It cannot, because all of the 66 books that make up the Protestant Bible were written years before those books were collected into what we now call the Bible. So, it wouldn't have made any sense for Peter, Paul, John, or any of the other authors of the last few books of the Bible to teach their readers that they should rely on the Bible because the Bible didn't, at that time, exist. It would be like George Washington telling his field commanders to call him on his mobile phone if they had any questions during the upcoming battle. The mobile phone didn't exist at the time of Washington and the Bible didn't exist at the time of Paul.

You get down to the nitty gritty of Calvinism and it makes Jehovah's Witnesses sound rational, compassionate, and loving.

The second guy who spoke from the other side, said that we believe that God has a body of flesh and blood. That is incorrect, God has a body of flesh and bone. Only as mortal do we have blood

Jacob - this was excellent

For some reason when I watch on my laptop the comments are not available. First observation: the first Protestant speaker pretty well undermines his own argument from my LDS perspective. I'm glad you guys are doing this. I wouldn't have the patience!

This was so good. Thank you so much.

It is not that man is only fallible and flawed, but he is limited. There is a bottle neck between God and man. If I had to explain to my child Calculus, I would have to do it in language he understands and at a level he can work with. And it would not fit into one lesson...or 100.

Amazing guys. Keep up the good work!

Thoughtful faith, please do a rebuttal video to the Hello Saints channel.

Thank GOD the FATHER & GODDESS the MOTHER, for the restoration of, THE TRUE CHURCH, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.

Amen my brother you tell those Calvinists their loss tell them right now they’re under the wrath of God you tell them you know there was a time where God went at ignorance but now commands all people everywhere to repent tell those calvinist to repent that is sheer ignorance on them they were under the wrath of God

That Oscar guy is way off base in his rebuttal. Bringing up Calvinism is very logical when talking to them about how they hold the bible to be the ultimate authority. They went out of their way to bash personal revelation as a means to know the truth of God. Which is an Lds/Mormon belief. So they cannot cry fowl when the same thing is done to them.

Watched this a year ago. The LDS guys wiped up the floor with the other guys. Hmmm .. maybe I'm gunna look into the Mormons abit.

LDS man here. I wish that we could have an honest conversation about what the Bible actually is, where it came from, and who it was actually written for. I don't believe the Bible's contents were written with the intention of ever being collected, especially the New Testament, and made into a book. Certainly we can take truth and direction from the Bible, but there is no revelation that the Bible is the final word of God, the accurate word of God, or the soul authority and infallible source, for our lives. If the Bible is the soul authority, and it is infallible, and this is where we get our authority to preach from, then these beliefs are absolutely fails, because the Bible does not say so. These are man made claims.

If god doesn’t give us help and guidance, why do we pray?

In a great debate between Daniel C Petersen and James white (which can be found on RU-vid), Daniel Petersen convincingly showed the circular reasoning of White (Sola Scriptura) and also showed that God can and does reveal truth in the very way the BOM says. When Cleopas and his friend spoke with the Resurrected Lord, Cleopas stated: "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24: 32). Proving that it is the Law of Witnesses which gives us confidence in what we believe and not simply one witness (in this case the Bible).

Openings were waaaay to long.

Great job in part 1, these guys are modern Pharisees. They can’t get past the “letter of law” soulless scriptura thing. If Jesus wanted things to be perfectly clear with no interpretation why did he speak in parables?

Yes the Bible teaches its own fallibility: "Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months." (James 5: 17, et al). Proving that the medium of men are fallible (subject to human passions); through which God spoke.

You know, it’s interesting. I think it’s obvious both sides agree that scripture is only clear if God gives the reader eyes to see the clarity. Interesting.

Faith without baptism is not to be found anywhere in the scriptures either. They go hand in hand. Just one of many examples; While they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The officer said, “Look! Here is water! What is stopping me from being baptized?” Philip answered, “If you believe with all your heart, you can.” The officer said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Then the officer commanded the chariot to stop. Both Philip and the officer went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

@1:01:00 amazing that they think nothing ever gets lost in translation 😒

Sounds like in the end they took the defense they warned in the beginning not to trust..

Wow. The Sola Scriptura side claims whether baptism is required is not a salvation issue. They are claiming that a thing which some say is required for salvation isn't a salvation issue.

I disagree completely with Evangelical representatives' opening statement. He built a strawman about what the church of Jesus Christ members believe

Short answer at 55:00 Scripture isn't infallible, it's inerrant.

I love how you asked how you know the Bible is true and they say, "because the bible says it is." Thus, proving your point of their circular self-defeating logic.

@1:04:30 the Bible itself however says that there will be two prophets before Christ comes. Amos 3:7 would be the marker here to claim sola scriptura is false doctrine.

The evangelical is trying to say that since God is infallible that humans should understand the Bible with infallibility... Apparently those who can't are doomed to burn in hell

I wish political debates were like this. They would be much more helpful to the voters.

Absolute Divine Truth only exists in the spirit realm with the divine. The physical realm is only a shadow of the spiritual realm and is filled with Subjective Truth or Objective Truth and is usually determined by our 5 senses (see, hear, feel, smell, tast) becoming infallible interpretations within the physical world. Our imaginations are the gift given to us through the gift and power of God. It is how mankind are able take knowledge and information in order to formulate new ideas which come to us in a form of revelation. We can not obtain the Absolute Divine Truth directly because it is impossible to fully understand the spiritual realm of the divine. However we are being lead to the divine through infallible false answers, because once we are able to identify that the thing we thought to be true was actually false, then we are lead closer to the absolute divine truth. Example: How many innocent people that were thought to be witches had to die, before we realized killing witches is not a good idea? The divine truths lead us to the love of mankind and the God that resides within humanity.

It was interesting to watch this episode. I'm glad the tone remained fairly professional and considerate on both sides. As an active member of the LDS faith I wish more clarity had been made regarding the difference between the "word of God" and the bible. We of course believe the bible to be the word of God as long as it's translated correctly. Although some smaller emphasis was made between God's communication and how man interprets it, I think this could have been more clear. We certainly feel man is flawed and he can not only misinterpret God's communication be man can also choose to change the interpretation he gets. Additionally, I wish the point of; God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8...Jesus is used instead of God) would have been mentioned. It is a clear scripture that logically refutes Sola Scriptora. Why would he act differently at various points in human history? Overall, it was fun to watch.

Actually it is perfectly clear on infant baptism... baptism is an outward expression of something that has already taken place on the heart. An infant cannot be converted.

There is not one instance in all of biblical scripture where a prophet claims authority from any record or manuscript. The authority always comes from God not the bible as the bible did not exist in it current form then. Christ never once even slightly indicated that there would be a body of scripture in the future that his authority would reside in. Jesus set apart Peter and his apostles saying he and he alone chose them, they did NOT choose him. They only choices they made was to follow home after being chosen. If you are into patterns and precedent there is no basis at all that any authority for any religious organisation comes from the canon of scripture itself.

@44:37 - BOOM! Case closed. Debate won. And maybe I'm not used to debate formats, but I didn't like to tone (with as mild and well mannered as this whole debate was) that the debate took. Saying that the other side plays tricks, or flat out stating the other side is wrong. But maybe that is debate culture. I'd say, "I can see how our opponents see it that way, but that way would require X,Y,Z and this is why A,B,C is better and this is why X,Y,Z are wrong etc. etc." you all get it. But I was never in debate club so perhaps this is just debate culture. I do think the first round of rebuttals did make a good point when they said that your opening statement was a rebuttal, but I think when LDS people enter into wider Christian spaces we are sort of required to lay a foundation to even justify our faith at all so I think you still did the right thing. Props!

lol ... so the scripture is perfectly clear as to how long creation took? Both say, Yes! ... one says 7 days and the other says 6 :)

Debates like this are counter productive, divisive, and contentious. What a waste of time for everyone involved. No one changes anyone else’s mind. No one convinces the other in these debates. Everyone’s walls are up, and everyone’s humility is virtually gone.

Amazing!!

Here's a summary of their positions. "The Bible is the infallible word of God even though it never says so. The Bible is the ultimate authority even though an inanimate object cannot possibly have agency, accountability or authority. Please don't cast up straw men arguments against us, but we know that LDS trust their feelings to discern truth and that according to their world view, humans are not capable of knowing truth. We should not expect believers to have unity in their understanding of sola scriptura even though Paul explained that the church should seek unity through apostles and prophets until we all come to the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:11-14). We believe the Bible because God said it but God is not the final authority - the Bible is. Except when it comes to why we believe it. We're taking God at His word, which is why we refuse to accept God's word outside of these 66 books we chose. Our final authority is not dependent on man, church or council, which is exactly why we limit what we accept as truth to 66 books that were selected by men, the church and multiple councils, over hundreds of years. The Bible, which is our final authority, states that scripture is not to be of any private interpretation which is why you must accept our private interpretation of sola scriptura." Okay then. That must be logical. Not because it sounded logical to me, but because you said so. And now I understand how this all works.

These two LDS guys are pursuing or have completed degrees in Professional Communication and Supply Chain Management and are debating with two guys who are pursuing Masters of Divinity in Whitfield Theological Seminary. That sounds ironic to me. They sound more Biblical than the Bible scholars.

Yes God will choose you to be this honorable and that is talking about the vessel because that particular vessel has rejected God

God obtained Godhood through a process, and he invites all to participate in that same process, because that process is a perfecting process, and our Father desires that all of his children become perfected Like he is…

Protestants started with if they said we have no unity and we have different interpretations it should be dismissed. But the bible itself says we should be 1 body, 1 faith in Christ. Uhmmmm

Based on the long introduction of what "Sola Scriptura" is NOT, shouldn't it be called "Suprema Scriptura", Scripture Supreme, NOT Alone? Literally redefining words to fit a narrative.

God spoke to us through apostles in the bible and he speaks to us today through apostles and prophets just the same because the people on earth are becoming more wicked

I love these interfaith conversations/debates

God has the power TO force us all into compliance with Him, but does not. The Holy Bible could theoretically BE perfectly infallible, but that does not guarantee ANYONE understands it. correctly. The Bible does NOT need to explicitly say "mankind may mess up this book, which won't even BE a book for centuries, so be aware" for it to be true.

This can go right back to a debate Daniel Peterson had with James White years ago. And these acolytes of James White still miss. That in order to understand an infallible book, you must have something infallible outside that book to confirm the truth being taught. And that source is the spirit. So you are right to bring up the fact that these two are Calvinists, because they(Calvinists) have professed on many occasions, that unless you are saved you cannot recognize the truth being taught in scripture.

Well that is true a true believer is spiritual and unbeliever is not spiritual so you cannot ascertain spiritual things because you are the natural man the natural man cannot understand spiritual things because he doesn’t have that ability that’s why those men on the right are wise spiritually wise and you are spiritually dead you’re gonna have to be born again in order to grow spiritually because you were not born again you can never grow spiritually you can never understand the Bible thank you and be blessed

If you stomp a Calvinist in a debate, does that count as a blood atonement?

Dude... those 2 protestants are such manipulators. They say: "These mormons are gonna do this and this and that to get ya to believe what they say... and I'm just here wondering if they really wanna debate or just play good cop bad cop?"

"actually history and analysis is why we believe the Bible"

56:19 - See 2nd Peter 3:15-16. If Peter had to warn his followers that Paul's words can be easily misconstrued, then it indeed is fallable.

Why is the LDS church so much of a controversial for other chuches? Never in my 64 years am I seeing more and more videos of investigating the LDS faith.

Towards the end there it seemed like the Mormon was just waiting to answer with his statement and not really listening and waiting for the Christian to finish speaking. I would say slow down a bit and listen to what they are trying to say. Was a great debate on both sides though even though I don't believe in the book of Mormon mostly because it just doesn't follow along with the Holy Bible. You can not boast in heaven of your works.

God breathed ... does not mean the scriptures speak for God. God breathed his word to the author; and the author used his own fallible grasp of the language to portray the revelation. And then other men compounded the fallibility with their own fallible comprehension of the attempted communication that was originally from God and tailor made for the original author.

Came from Sam Shamoun's channel, Mormonism and Calvinism are both heretical but I heard these Calvinists got demolished

This is all pretty new to me. Not all Protestants believe this Sola Scriptura stuff right? Or at least they have a different version of it than this predestination idea? I think the problem with the Protestant viewpoint here is actually a very human failing, that of being unable to accept uncertainty. I see this all the time in more intellectual spaces (whenever I happen to venture to those corners of the web) like Quora (which at least wants everyone to think it's the intellectual social media site). People can't seem to handle admitting that we don't have all the answers. The second Protestant debater here has a problem with the idea that reason and revelation are fallable (or rather, that human beings are fallable in their use of these tools). He does not understand that God imparts knowledge line upon line and not all at once. Coming to truth is a personal journey and even those with the purest intentions will stumble at times, but God will never stop drawing us to Him. Edit: I'm just getting into the Q&A portion. The other thing I'm noticing on the Protestant side is the idea that saying that sometimes people don't understand the scriptures is the same as saying God has failed. As if His goal is to force us to believe. That sounds more like *ahem* someone else's plan if ya know what I mean.

The opening comment completely defines this debate between Latter Day Saints and Evangelicals. "You are questioning God, I am not God, so I can't..." "I am questioning your interpretation of the scripture." Evangelical is complete gobsmacked because he has never even considered whether his private interpretation and the creedal doctrines are actually correct.

Romans 8:16 and James 1:5 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 destroy their whole argument.