A Calvinist and A Mormon Were Predestined to Disagree

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]Hey everybody, welcome back to Let's Talk. We're still collecting funds for charity. If Jeff Durban decides to engage with me in a formal debate, if he doesn't respond or declines, the funds will be donated to the church's missionary fund. You can find a link to donate in the description or in the pin comment. I'd like to thank Jen Gardner for donating to the channel via Venmo.

[00:00:18]I'd also like to welcome John Hartman as our newest channel member. Channel membership is a really easy way to support the channel while also getting small perks like early access to our videos. You can find membership options by clicking the join button below the video. If you are a gold member or higher, make sure you send me an email so I can get you a free signed copy of my new book, The Creation Dilemma.

[00:00:44]Oh, I found it. I found it. I found it.

[00:00:47]Oh, okay. Yeah, I said the the Calvinist God literally wants some people to go to hell. Prove me wrong. And you said, Hayden, the Calvinist God exists. The Mormon God is a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination. Prove me wrong.

[00:00:58]Okay. And so that's how this came about.

[00:01:00]Okay. This is perfect. Okay. So, the reason I posted that is because I've been having a little bit of back and forth. Not well, not really back and forth. Jeff Durban and James White have been making comments about me. So, I have been responding without any response, personal response back. And so, I've been posting just a couple things on on Calvinism. And so, yeah, the tweet is the Calvinist literally wants some people to go to hell. Prove me wrong. So my the logic with that is it's an internal critique of Calvinism.

[00:01:29]And just correct me if I'm if I'm wrong.

[00:01:31]We can chat about it and see if I if I'm misleading kind of the audience here. My understanding in Calvinistic doctrine in tulip is that it is God who chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. That he predestines before anyone was created who he would choose to regenerate. meaning total depravity, which is the tea and tulip, that we're all dead, that we can't we can't have faith in Christ, we can't repent, we can't do anything good at all, we can't want to follow God, we hate God, and then it's not until that he chooses to regenerate us that uh we're able to accept him. So, he changes us first and then then we repent and have faith. And so the purpose of that tweet was to basically say if God chooses not to regenerate somebody then logic it logically follows that he wants them to go to hell because if he didn't want them to go to hell he would just save them. So tell me where I'm where I'm misunderstanding there and kind of your response.

[00:02:44]>> Okay. Yeah. So I would want to nuance it a little bit. Uh I think nuance is is really really important especially in these difficult doctrines like predestination.

[00:02:55]So there would be one sense in which I could say God desires all men to be saved. Um second Peter 3:9. Um now there are Calvinists who take that other ways.

[00:03:07]I am more of a moderate Calvinist but um regardless um so let me let me illustrate. I desire to lose weight, but I desire to eat ice cream. Both of these desires are true desires, and I can confess both is true, but only one of them I'm actually going to do. So God can desire all to be saved on one sense and then in a greater sense or desire desire his glory and manifesting that via giving some people justice. And so that's what he does. Um and I would want to touch on Ephesians 1 because really that's that's the big text that really shows yeah God God's the one who chooses people for salvation. I I can't I have no way to get around that.

[00:04:01]>> So, help me understand if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you kind of saying that God has kind of two conflicting desires? That he wants to save everybody and just to steal a man you that he has a you said a greater desire to manifest his justice. So that that desire to over that that desire to display justice through sending or having some people to go to hell or sending them to hell or however you want to say it overrides his will for all to be saved. Am I understanding that correctly?

[00:04:31]>> Yeah, I wouldn't use the word conflicting. Uh but yeah. Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

[00:04:36]>> And and if if he Okay, so this is this is one of our struggles as Latter Day Saints. We really like the doctrine of agency, free will, call it, but the ability to for for everyone to get a fair chance, right? We believe in a fair chance so much that we would say that we would say through revelation, we've learned that God, if someone doesn't even have an opportunity, if someone doesn't have an opportunity here on this earth to to receive a witness and to accept him, that they will guaranteed get that opportunity in the next life.

[00:05:07]So when when Calvinists say that, which which by the way, I really commend you and all Calvinists who are willing to kind of bite the bullet to say God's sovereignty and creation from nothing really does mean that he pred predetermines that this is exactly what he wants. Um I don't know if you saw the James White Jacob Hansen debate um when they talked about did God you know for ordain uh all things or decree all things including great evils that are done by individuals and James White just said yeah and I think that actually is the most consistent position. It's it's fun when I talk to non-Calvinist Protestants. I try to actually do my best to actually give your position and say, "Why are you not why don't you have the Calvinistic position given your understanding of the attributes of God, including total sovereignty?" So, um my my my concern as a Latter- Day Saint is how is it fair to pick and choose? And and and just to be frank with you, it kind of just kind of seems sick to us that God would need to or want to rather like send conscious beings to be eternally consciously tormented or tortured for eternity when you say like to display his justice. So help me how you reconcile that. I assume you would just say that he like God can do what he wants. That seems to be kind of the response I get. But as a Calvinist, does that bother you at all?

[00:06:41]>> Uh, so, so real quick, I want to work randomly, but I'm working towards a place. So, when Dr. White said that God ordains all evil, I would like for us to touch on that later because I love Dr. White.

[00:06:56]He's brilliant. Uh, I wish there was a little more nuance there. uh because there are there are there are ways to nuance it that doesn't sound as uh rough. I agree with you that uh well let me ask this first. Do you hold to God's exhaustive fornowledge?

[00:07:14]>> I personally do but not not all Latter-day Saints do.

[00:07:17]>> Okay. Because it seemed like Jacob didn't in the discussion.

[00:07:20]>> He doesn't. He's he's an open theist.

[00:07:23]>> Okay. So this so this is is a big thing then because if before God creates he um all knows 100% all future propositions when he chooses to create those are concreted and it's certain. So there's no such thing at that point as categorical free will. Uh there's contingent free will like we can do whatever we want. conditional like maybe like a narrow free will like at the moment of decision there's nothing externally that's stopping us from going left or right but categorically will never override God's fornowledge so I think that's kind of tough for your position but as far as the election thing um I'm going to just say God is the greatest conceivable being um being as awesome as he is the greatest thing he could do for his creatures is to manifest the full range of attributes and the only way that can be done is through a fall redemption and passing by some people and saving others. So for his elect, he chose to manifest his full range of attributes for his own glory and for our greatest good. And your arguments respectfully sound like the guy in Romans 9 who's like, "Well, that's not fair. Why does he still find fault? who can resist his will. And again, that's why I'm like, let's go to Ephesians 1 because that's the that's the spot, bro.

[00:08:53]I've never had anyone like be like, well, it's not teaching that. It's either you're like, yeah, it's teaching that or I don't believe it. Now, Leighton Flowers has his way of dealing with it. But, uh, he don't want these hands. You don't want these hands, Leon.

[00:09:07]>> Have you ever had a one-on-one with Leighton before?

[00:09:09]>> I've had two.

[00:09:10]>> Okay. And how did those go? For those who don't know who Leighton Flowers is, he's like the most prominent anti-calvinist that I know of anyway online.

[00:09:18]>> Yeah, he's he's definitely the most prominent uh they went well. I really love Dr. Flowers. He's a nice guy. Um >> do do you guys consider each other brothers in Christ?

[00:09:30]>> Absolutely. That was something that I wanted to touch on at the beginning of this is like I'm I know me and Dr. Flowers see God differently in the sense that we understand his economy differently, but we understand him onlogically the same. We believe he's triune in nature. We just like it would be like if someone says Jerry drives a blue van. Well, no, I don't. I drive a a red van, but they're still talking about the same guy. Mhm.

[00:09:59]>> It's it's interesting that you would say it like that because that's actually the same argument because I know that we don't believe God onlogically is the same, right? You might believe God is, you know, immaterial and timeless and spaceless and all those things.

[00:10:13]Sometimes when Latter-day Saints talk about Jesus Christ, well, often we're told that we worship the wrong Jesus Christ. But we would actually kind of use a similar analogy to what you've used is what we're saying is whoever the New Testament is talking about the the man Christ Jesus. That's the person that we're referring to. Now, we disagree on lots of things about him, adjectives about him like kind of you describe not just adjectives but but qualities of him, sure, but whoever that person is, that's who we're trying to to uh worship. So that's kind of a little tangent, but I think it's interesting that you would mention that.

[00:10:48]>> Can I ask a question off of that?

[00:10:50]>> Sure.

[00:10:51]>> Do you believe because I watched Jacob with God logic, do you believe that Jesus is Yahweh by identity or just by predication?

[00:11:00]>> He can rightly be called Yahweh. We view the word God as a title that can be used for an individual or for the council, the Godhead with the father, son, and spirit. But yeah, he can rightly be called Yahweh.

[00:11:14]>> Yeah. The the reason I'm saying by identity or predication is cuz like that's something metaphysics Mike that guy gets on my nerves. I love him but he gets on my nerves. He's a unitarian.

[00:11:25]>> Um he's always using that identity would be like you know one is one. He is the true highest Yahweh. And then predication would be like he is like Yahweh or he can have the titles of Yahweh.

[00:11:40]>> I I don't have a problem and I hope I'm understanding you correctly. I don't have a problem saying that the father actually relationally is the most high that he is the most high god that he serves a function at the top of the hierarchy of god which is the three individuals three beings we would say um but in a in a different sense Jesus Christ and we'd say the holy the holy ghost or the holy spirit they are equal in power and knowledge and so and they are three separate beings would be our doctrine but the father sits at the top as the most high god Yeah. And so the the reason I'm I'm saying that is because I I know that you would use a similar analogy and I know you're agreeing with me um but we we would be like well onlogically it's different. you're you're uh we hold a trinitarian view and I don't want to misrepresent you but it sounds like a tritheistic sort of view maybe even like heenotheistic polytheistic ultimately >> um yeah I would say we're monulturous we we reserve a special type of um worship to the father we I it is appropriate to say we worship the son and even the spirit But uh the father is the most high and we would say that Jesus Christ actually leads us to that conclusion that we worship him.

[00:13:04]>> So um okay so unless there anything else you want to say on this kind of tangent that we're on I have another question for you regarding >> I know we're on a tangent. I do kind of this this christologology is really important to me because this I mean ultimately bro I wouldn't care if you became a provisionist but I would rather you become a Protestant because I I I believe that you you need to be saved and I and I'm you know so I'm trying to approach this with that sort of love and care like hey let's talk about the important stuff not my own little woohoo go club. Mhm. So >> for for our audience, can you define provisionist for us?

[00:13:45]>> Yes sir. Basically it's basically the idea that God has provided the means necessary for salvation which would be Jesus Christ and his death is a vicarious atonement for all without exception. And then when you believe in Jesus that's when you become the elect. Uh that's you know you're you become elect when you're united to Christ by faith essentially.

[00:14:12]>> Uh that's kind of our position. Want should we talk about self sotology for a second then?

[00:14:19]>> I I I want to get there. Could we could could I ask you a quick question though because you believe Jesus is Lucifer's spirit brother, right?

[00:14:28]>> Uh it depends on what sense you mean that. That's an old like anti-LDS Protestant trope that has been used against us. It's it's a it's a logical implication of some of our doctrines, but we would we probably wouldn't say it like that.

[00:14:42]>> Yeah. The re Well, the reason I was asking I had this like little link from church of Jesus Christ.org that somebody asked the question, well, how can they Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their character is so utterly opposed?

[00:14:58]>> So would you say Jesus is the creator of Satan then? Well, we don't believe that any individual soul, including Satan, are created. We don't believe Jesus is created. We don't believe Satan's created. We don't believe God the Father's created. We don't believe you or I are created. Uh we believe that we are are co-eternal with God would be our the nature of our doctrine. And so, um no, I wouldn't say that Jesus Christ participated in creating the spirit body of Satan. So the way that I kind of view it and there's a couple different camps of of understanding this. We would say that before I would personally would say and I think probably the majority of Latterday Saints would agree with me that uh we we started as a being we would call it an intelligence >> and that the father offered us a path of exaltation to become like him and he gave us a spirit body. How did we get the spirit body? How was that created?

[00:15:56]We don't know. What we do know is that we accepted a spirit body. And so in that sense, that was, and this isn't controversial to us, but we believe there's a heavenly father and a heavenly mother. Now, a lot of people will will caricature us. Have you ever seen the Godmakers films from the 80s that the Protestants made? It's like that cartoon, >> you know, of God and his all of his wives. We don't have any set doctrine on that or how they created spirit bodies or things like that, but we >> there have been people who like kind of took stabs at it though. I heard >> I think it was Ezra Taft Benson said some weird stuff about it. But >> uh potentially, yeah, there there have been prophets who have had personal opinions on how that stuff works, but none of it's ever been binding or or doctrine for the church as far as I can tell.

[00:16:41]>> But um so I'm trying to answer your question about Jesus Christ and Lucifer being brothers. If you want to say that Jesus Christ was given a spirit body from the father and the mother, which which we do believe in, and Lucifer was given a spirit body, and you want to call that, say that they're siblings, and in that way, we're all kind of siblings, spirit siblings, then sure, I I'm not necessarily going to run away from that. I don't really think that makes too much of a difference. Um, to you it may, right? Because you may say, "Well, Jesus Christ is the creator of Satan, and in our doctrine, he's not."

[00:17:14]Um, but we would say that Christ is the creator of the earth, of the universe, you could even say. Um, we obviously don't believe in creation from nothing, but that he formed and fashioned from existing material under the direction of the father. Um, that being said, that's that spirit pre premortal life is what we call it. We call it our first estate or like our first place that we were.

[00:17:38]You could say that once Lucifer fell that he basically like gave up his birthright or he he like excommunicated himself essentially. And so in that way they're not brothers. They're not spiritual brothers. So it depends on what time you're talking about and what's what the context is. So in a way I can see where people are getting that.

[00:17:58]But Latter- Day Saints today, we we really don't think about it like that considering where Lucifer is now.

[00:18:04]>> Yeah. I think the reason that a lot of people would say that is because some of the early prophets and I could I could find >> stuff. I got I got a bunch of quotes that I could I have quote mind. Uh some of them seem to indicate that the our spirit bodies were created by heavenly father and heavenly mother through some sort of heavenly procreation according to the language that I I read. But >> I know that that's not >> doctrine. Well, like I said, there are like we allow a lot of um leeway for individuals, including prophets and apostles, to have personal opinions. And so something becomes doctrine or binding of the church when it's presented to the church as doctrine. And as far as I know, that hasn't been presented to the church because there are competing views on that. Um, I think the the outstanding view has always has been and still is today that we actually don't know how.

[00:19:01]You may you may logic your way to a certain way or you may you may think that it happened in a certain way, but we just don't know for sure. And I don't know any apostles who have declared this is how it is because they would have to be claiming a revelation from God. And and I am unaware of anyone who's ever said that.

[00:19:19]>> If I if I can find one, I'll I'll let you know. Yeah, I'm I'm not sure. Uh, I like I said, I haven't really looked at my notes. I've been >> And just to be frank with you, it's really actually very inconsequential for us. Even though it may be a big deal for you in our in our worldview and the way we see things, it really makes no difference at all.

[00:19:36]>> Yeah. The reason I'm asking is because um we believe Jesus is creator >> of Satan. Um, and I'm just I'm just curious like in Ephesians 6 it says to put on the full armor of God so that you can because we don't wrestle against flesh and blood. We wrestle against the rulers and authorities or principalities and powers.

[00:19:59]>> Powers. Yep. Dominions.

[00:20:01]>> So principalities and powers, dominions in that context would be Satan, fallen angels, all that.

[00:20:10]>> Ephesians Yeah. Ephesians 1 says similar. There's like a prayer he's offering to God where where Paul's like, you know, Jesus is or well, he's he's praying and he he's like Jesus is seated above all the rule and authority.

[00:20:24]>> So all the fallen angels, Jesus is >> ahead of her. He's got all authority in heaven and on earth. And then in Colossians 2, it says at the cross, >> he thwarted the principalities and the powers. So Christ victor. Well then in Colossians 1:16 though it says all things were created through him and it lists principalities and powers as one of them. So how do you understand that in your world view where there's not this creation x nihilo and Jesus really isn't the one who formed the spirit body of Satan or anything like that when Colossians 1:16 says he's the creator of all things and specifically lists demons. Yeah, I would have to look at those verses in person. Does it say demons or does it say are you referring to principalities and powers to being the demons? Is that right?

[00:21:12]>> It says it says rulers and authorities or principalities and powers depending on if you're on ESV or KJV.

[00:21:18]>> Yeah, I'm not sure. I mean, at this point, it would just be our interpretation versus yours probably, but we wouldn't we probably wouldn't see him in order to be aligned with our own doctrine. That that would include that Jesus is creating those demonic or devilish individuals.

[00:21:38]>> I mean, I don't think he created them evil, just to be clear.

[00:21:41]>> Sure. But yeah, he didn't he didn't create them give them their spirit bodies, maybe. But we do believe that.

[00:21:47]Well, I guess they wouldn't have mortal bodies, would they?

[00:21:50]>> Yeah, I'd have to look at those verses in particular. I haven't considered that. It's a great question.

[00:21:55]>> Thank you.

[00:21:56]>> At the end of the day, I will say this.

[00:21:58]It our our paradigms, and you know this, I'm just saying this kind of for the audience, are so different. I assume you're a solo of Scripter. You would say that the the Protestant cannon is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians. We obviously fully reject that and we have our reasons for that. And our our our paradigm is that God speaks and he can speaks however he can speak however he wants and he does that today through apostles and prophets obviously. So that kind of is just the basis for everything that we view. And so I I do like to tell just Protestants in general typically when they come at us with a critique which you did it very kindly. It's not always that kind. But to me, it seems like they're imposing their paradigm and solos scriptorera and their interpretation upon us. They're saying, "Well, Latter- Day Saints teach this, but the Bible says this." And I want to say, "Well, hold on. Remember that our final authority is not the Bible." So, so it's you're not really giving an internal critique. You're kind of taking your worldview and assuming you're right and then judging me by that standard.

[00:23:06]And so that's why I I always tease Protestants, especially those at apology at church. I have some videos with them where I basically say, "You have to justify your standard. You you literally have to prove soul scriptura before you can start to force necessary interpretations of the biblical text to prove us wrong." And I'm not asking you to do that, but just so we can kind of be clear is is that we're just coming from totally different places. Um >> yeah, >> it's an external critique on us rather than internal.

[00:23:35]>> That's true. But to show where I'm trying to make it an internal is because I think you would agree that that God's let's say I agreed with you. I I I don't I'm a cessationist. Um leaky leaky cessationist. Um but I let's say I agreed with you that there's modern day revelation. Um I think you would agree with me that modernday revelation will not contradict previous revelation from God.

[00:24:02]>> Yes. But it can clarify. And we also don't believe the Bible's infallible. So is it so one option, I'm not saying this is the case, one option for us is we could say God revealed that that verse is actually wrong, that that's not or or at least we understood it wrong. Right?

[00:24:18]So again, that's there's a presupposition there that the text is correct or that that book should even be in the cannon. Like that's another question that I tease Protestants with is how do you even know you got the right cannon? RC Sproul, you probably know him. I think he's most famous or he's he's one of the individuals who made the phrase famous that that Protestants have a fallible list of infallible books. And I'm like, that's kind of just him saying that you actually don't know what should be in the canon. And so so anyway, again, I'm not I'm not pressing you on that, but I'm just telling you that's kind of our our view is just so so different from your standard compared to ours. And I think that's why most Latter-day Saints when we talk at least more recently we do debates and things solar seems to be the number one topic because that kind of that determines where we go. It's our starting point or not. Right.

[00:25:10]>> Yeah. And I'll just say for for the for the canon thing I think Michael Krueger from Reformed Theological Seminary does a phenomenal job. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time there. That's a whole debate.

[00:25:21]>> His book I have I got it from Apology of Church. They gave it to me. the uh something uh the re understanding of the canon or canon revisited or something like that. I'm trying to remember his book.

[00:25:31]>> That sounds that sounds right.

[00:25:33]>> Yeah, they give me a really nice hard hard coverver copy I've had for years.

[00:25:36]But um Okay.

[00:25:38]>> Yeah. Yeah, it's good. So, let me let me give you another concern I have with with Calvinism. And feel free to press me on any Latter-day Saint doctrine that you want.

[00:25:47]One of the um kind of one of the again the tease questions that I use when I talk to Calvinists is is I say well what's the what's the good news for the non-elect because your doctrine says that there there is a good news and I assume it's Jesus Christ has died but then the L and Tulip says but he didn't die for everyone.

[00:26:10]So, so is there any good news for the non-elect who are going to who who were created seemingly for the purpose of going to hell? Maybe God was using them for some sort of like Judas. Maybe he used them for him for a time and then he discarded him into hell and that was his purpose. Is there any good news for those individuals? And if so, what what is that good news?

[00:26:32]>> Yeah. So, uh I think I think God says, "Whosoever will, let them come and take freely of the waters of life." There's a general call given to all men uh the whosoevers and I believe Jesus's death is of infinite value. So let's say the impossible occurs and reprobate Rob turns and trusts in Jesus. There is enough merit in the blood of Christ for that man's salvation. But Jesus efficaciously redeemed his elect where we see he's the propitiation for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world where God sent his son into the world um not to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him and when you look at the Greek of John 3:16-17 it indicates a purpose and John 42 or Job 42:2 says that no purpose of God's can be thwarted. So if God intends to save the world through sin in Jesus, he's going to save the world. Thus either you have universalism, >> he efficaciously saves all or he saves a particular people. Well, John 10, Jesus says he dies for his sheep. Matthew 1, he come came to save his people from their sins. So I want to hold both truths and say yes, he efficaciously redeemed the elect while at the same time saying uh there's enough merit for the blood of Christ or wi with the blood of Christ to redeem a thousand worlds.

[00:28:07]So it's it's infinite in that way. But God to I guess let's go back to our first our first conversation of God in order to show his justice allows some to perish. He pass he knowingly passes over them and instead of regenerating them and and giving them a new heart to come unto him, he just lets them go. The reason I asked that that question though is because it seems like that it it applies to me like as a Latter-day Saint I wonder like I I kind of again I put this on Twitter, you know, more recently and I just say like when is the God of Calvin gonna regenerate me? I I say he's being a big meanie. Like I'm I'm waiting. Like I if Calvinism is true, I I want to be regenerated, but I'm I'm concerned that he may never do that. And so if he chooses not to, like am I just anticipating an eternal conscious torment? Like why am I here?

[00:29:03]Like this isn't fun. If if I'm predestined to go to hell, like this doesn't this it's not it's not a good feeling. So like how how should I what what should I be doing in the meantime? I mean, I'm a Latter- Day Saint, right? I think I'm following God.

[00:29:17]I'm trying to follow God. But according to your doctrine, I'm totally depraved.

[00:29:22]I can't choose God. I hate the real God.

[00:29:25]I I don't know if I'd say I hate Trinitarianism, but I obviously have a a distaste for it. Um, that being said, I do think that Trinitarians do so much good in that latter hence, we actually wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the Trinitarians holding on to to a majority of true principles and true faith that came out of the apostolic age. So my question is like what should I be doing as a Latter-day Saint assuming I'm not elect like what should I do? Should I just Does it matter? Does it matter what?

[00:29:59]>> It does. It absolutely matters what you do because God has ordained the ends and the means. So I'm going to say the means of salvation is scripture. So read read read tons of scripture. pray obviously, but um >> but but if I read a certain amount or pray a certain amount, is that going to change my election or non-election though? I understand that it won't.

[00:30:23]>> It it will not. But here's the thing. We do not we don't we don't know what God has decreed, but we know that there are means and ends, and we know that whoever wants to be saved will be saved. If you truly want to come to faith in the true biblical Jesus Christ, do not sit on your hands and wait for him to regenerate you. Flee to him. Run to him from the wrath of God. And and people are going to hate that. Second Corinthians 4 or 2:16 says that it's the the stench of death to some people when the gospel is presented. Some people see that light and flee from it. Other people are drawn to it. Um, that's just the nature of it.

[00:31:09]>> But am I able to run to the light before he regenerates me? My my understanding is that might be a contradiction of total depravity. Like if I'm just dead because a lot of Calvinists will say like, "Oh, we're the only true denomination who believes we're actually saved by grace because we believe we're actually dead. We can't move. We can't make a choice. God has to zap us." And I use that word kind of jovially, but God has to regenerate us and and bring us back to life. regenerate, not generate, but regenerate us because we were we're fallen in Adam. We were with Adam as our fed as our federal head. We fall with him and now we're just laying here dead.

[00:31:47]And so my question is, if you're telling me to like read and pray and like come to the light and come come to God, isn't it in your own doctrine that I'm I'm not even able to do that? Well, you all men are uh totally unable to respond positively to the gospel call until God does something. But again, man is responsible for what he does. Acts Acts 4 >> says that they did >> the guys who crucified Jesus did what God predestined to take place and they were still responsible.

[00:32:24]>> Yeah. And I'm not I'm not even fighting you on the culpability of that. like I I can even accept that. But I'm just asking you like what should I do until I'm regenerated? Like should I just keep being a Latter- Day Saint because I don't I don't know if there's anything else I can do or if I do, does that mean that God wanted me? I mean, I just actually don't know how it works in your in your doctrine because cuz to me again, I kind of tease Calvinist. I say, "Well, Calvinism is my backup plan because if God predestined me to to be a trinitarian or be a true a true believer of Jesus, the correct Jesus in in Protestantism or whatever uh whatever denomination, then eventually I will be called in this life, right? Eventually I will accept it. But if I'm not, is not being a Latter-day Saint the best thing that I can do? I don't know of another religion that that would cuz if I'm going to hell, I'm going to go to hell."

[00:33:17]So why not make the best of this life?

[00:33:18]And it seems to me that the best life I can live actually over Protestantism is actually Latter-day Saintism. So does that make sense? I I hope I'm not trying to Oh, absolutely. I I think I think the numbers show that we're doing better than any other group in almost any relevant category.

[00:33:36]Not that that matters for salvation, but I'm just saying if if I'm going to go to hell, shouldn't I try to make this life as good as possible? And so again, does that make sense? I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just fig trying to figure out like if Calvinism is true, what am I supposed to be doing before I'm regenerated, if I get regenerated at all?

[00:33:54]>> Yeah. Again, uh there's there's means that God uses and a lot of times the the Puritans would just they would they would record, man, I had this desire to be saved, but uh I didn't feel like I was regenerate. They would labor in prayer and and read in the word, and that's the means of grace. And ultimately, yeah, God is sovereign, but we aren't, you know, we're not the ones who we can't control and manipulate God.

[00:34:22]>> And we're just going to have to trust in his goodness that those who seek him will find him.

[00:34:27]>> And I know you're going to be like, "Well, you can't seek him if you're totally dead, depraved, dead in your sins." And I'm like, "Yes, that's true."

[00:34:34]But he gives you the desire to seek him.

[00:34:37]Um, well, I won't quote that. So, we'll go there. So, let me let me just ask just a this is kind of a tease question again of like is it really my fault that I'm a Latter- Day Saint? Like I understand culpability, yes.

[00:34:51]But like it seems like okay, if Adam's my federal head, if if I'm if if I receive the consequences of what Adam did as if I did it, which I understand that. I'm not arguing that necessarily.

[00:35:04]But now I'm dead and I'm a Latter-day Saint. I'm spiritually dead. I'm a Latter- Day Saint. like it doesn't seem like I can do anything different.

[00:35:14]Does that make sense? I'm just trying to figure out like >> if there's nothing I can do, then it seems like I'm just waiting to go to hell.

[00:35:23]>> Categorically, categorically you're going to do what God has decreed for you to do. Just like categorically you're going to do what God knows you're going to do. But at the same time, you can do whatever you want to do. So, I'm trying to activate your Wter, right? And I'm praying God's going to use me to activate the water in you to make a shift.

[00:35:43]>> Okay, I understand that. A and at the same time, nothing you can do will change my election or non-election, but God can use you to activate my election or or regeneration rather. Is that fair?

[00:35:56]>> That that's true. But all of this is just what Ephesians 1's talking about.

[00:36:00]And I and I want to look at it because I really want you to say >> Yeah. Do you want to share your screen or something with us? Actually, you know what? I'm gonna use the KJV because it's a lot it's a lot it illustrates my points a lot better. Uh share screen.

[00:36:16]Uh this one.

[00:36:19]>> Okay, perfect. Just loaded. Okay, I can see it. Ephesians 1. Okay.

[00:36:23]>> Yes. Yes. So, and interestingly, this is one of the prison epistles, which is why I connected Ephesians and Colossians with the whole principalities and powers thing. But it says, "Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless, well, holy and without blame before him in love, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will."

[00:37:02]So clearly we see that he has chosen us.

[00:37:07]That would be Paul and the the saints in Ephesus, which of course applying this would apply to God's elect of all time, which you know you're elect if you're trusting in him currently. And he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. He chose this particular people, the us to be represented by Christ before creation. And look with the purpose that we should be holy and blameless before him or and then you know at the same time he chose us he predestined us to adoption you know so the Bible's the one saying it not not me >> yes and again this is where I would I would first point out before I engage with the text that it's important to realize I'm not using soul scriptor I'm not I'm not assuming this is the soul infallible rule.

[00:38:01]>> That being said, I don't have a problem.

[00:38:04]There's probably a way to interpret this that fits perfectly into our doctrine. I will say that often we would substitute interpretationally the word predestined for for ordained.

[00:38:16]And our idea of that is simply that God may call to us because we believe in a premortal life, right? Mhm.

[00:38:22]>> So, so for our concept of ford ordination is that God may for ordain us while we're in the pre-mortal life to do something on earth or even in the life after. But that it's our choice. It's our opportunity. It's an opportunity given to us that we have to choose when we come to earth or in the next life. So again, I can see how you can read that and from your paradigm, I totally see how you're getting this. But yeah, from a Latter- Day Saint, we wouldn't say it's a necessary reading in the way that you're reading it. So you're saying that it would be elected for like a purpose?

[00:38:58]>> Yeah. Because we we also have the concept of election, but ultimately it's the individual who chooses to accept that election. It's it's never thrust upon them against their will.

[00:39:09]>> Yeah. The the reason I I'm wondering because it sounded like the election was unto service and this says that the purpose is that we should be holy and without blame before him. So that's that's literally holy is hagos saints and without blame. Well that's that's justification language. And then he predestined us unto adoption. You become a child of God when you trust in Jesus.

[00:39:37]So he predestined us unto that specific thing.

[00:39:42]>> Yes. And again, I I think where the contention may be is that word predestined. What does that exactly mean? And again, in a Latter-day Saint view, we wouldn't say that it's necessarily God picking and choosing because then because this one verse, if that's how it really was interpreted in our paradigm, it would contradict basically everything else. So in the in maybe in the same way that you wouldn't rely your entire theology on one verse, but you'd take it as a whole or in context. So but again, I can totally see from your from your foundational axioms or or paradigms how you'd come to that conclusion. And I and I actually applaud you because again I think to hold solos scriptor which all Protestants apparently do and to hold the trinitarian conception of God. I think you are the most I I think you probably make the most of those two systems combined. I think other people non-calvinists uh really struggle to reconcile some of these verses and there they have ways to do it obviously like you said Leen Flowers and others. Um but I do think the Calvinistic way to look at the world given those two presuppositions of soul scripter and the nature of God that the perfect being theology that you hold um I think it makes total sense.

[00:40:53]>> So are are you saying God can like predestin something but it not necessarily take place?

[00:40:59]>> Well again we wouldn't use the word predestined. We we would we would interpret that word the word we would use to distinguish is for ordination that God can tell you like hey I I want you to do this. It's my desire that you fulfill this role or be saved or whatever it is. But at the end of the day, I cannot thrust it upon you because of the of the law of justice. I'm not able to do it against your will. And you always get a choice. That's like I said from the beginning. That's a really big thing for us is God is not able to override the free will of the individual. the the individual. Now in this life there may be cases where the individual uh like bad things happen that are out of their control but on a salvific level and on an eternity level the individual gets a choice including coming to earth and being in this injust world which which may limit their ability to make choices. So anyway, that's how we >> The reason I'm asking is because like if this is a you're for ordained to this purpose, but you could choose to do it or choose not to do it.

[00:42:04]>> That's odd cuz like in Acts 4:28, >> it says that they the Gentiles, Pontious Pilot, Herod, all those who crucified Christ did what God's plan predestined to take place. It's the same Greek word.

[00:42:18]Uh, I pulled it up just to check because there's a lot of different Greek words that are translated as predestined. And uh, was it possible that the cross couldn't have happened?

[00:42:29]Um, theoretically, yes. We would say that there there was a possibility and it would be in Jesus Christ's choice because we also believe that people can't thwart God's plan. But we also wouldn't say, again, this is kind of another caveat, we wouldn't say that God would predestin or for ordain Satan to or Lucifer to become Satan or for the Jews to kill Jesus Christ or the Romans or whoever you want to say did it. Um, but but I again I don't have a problem. This is actually why I do believe in God's exhaustive fornowledge because I do believe that he knew what was going to happen and I do believe that we are responsible for actions that that knowledge does not equal causation on his part.

[00:43:12]>> It's kind of like the you probably heard this before. Um the way I like to view it is like if you watch the Super Bowl all the way through and then you rewind it, you know it's going to happen because you just watched it, but you didn't cause any of those actions.

[00:43:25]That's probably not a perfect one for one on God's knowledge. But that's one way to look at it. So yeah, again, I I think the paradigms are just so different here in the way we view scripture and our interpretation of that compared compared to you. But I see where you get there.

[00:43:38]>> That that that's that's true that the the paradigms are really different. I just want to point out though that in Ephesians and in Acts 4, precience isn't mentioned in one of those times. And the reason I think that God ordained even uh Satan's fall, all of this, well, two reasons. Number one, Christ is the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world or from the foundation of the world. If that's the case, and it was always God's plan for Christ to go to the cross, the prerequisite for the cross is sin to die for. Thus, the fall of Satan and the fall of Adam were 100% certain. I don't think he forced Adam to fall. Uh I don't think he was the efficient cause, the efficient cause, but he did for ordain it. And this is why I hold to that. Uh this Isaiah 46.

[00:44:31]I'm sure you're in these texts all the times with Protestants, especially 40-48.

[00:44:37]But it says, "Remember the former things of old, for I am God and there is no other. I'm God. There is none like me.

[00:44:43]Declaring the end from the beginning."

[00:44:46]And this here is a mirrorism uh which encompasses not only the beginning of time but also uh the the end of time and from ancient times things not yet done saying my counsel shall stand I will accomplish all my purpose. So there's a clear parallel between his declaring and then his saying and he's saying he's going to tell you what's going to take place in time. He's going to accomplish his purpose infallibly. And then he gives an example in verse 11, calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. That would be uh Cyrus. He's going to do God's will. I actually was wanting to possibly uh see if you knew that one just as a kind of gotcha moment, but I was like, I'll just explain it.

[00:45:40]>> That's good. And to be honest, you may know the Old Testament better than I do, especially if you're using it to to debunk Latter- Day Saintism. Um, I'm sure there are lots of verses that you could pull up to Latter- Day Saints where we haven't read them in a very long time and may be unsure of their meaning. I will say that like Isaiah 46:10, declaring the end from the beginning. I I you may use you may use this verse and I may even use this wor verse to show that God knows the eternity or however you want to view that. End from the beginning or past, present, future. Um but but I want to make one comment kind of about what you're saying that I think it is how do I want to say this?

[00:46:20]Oh, I lost my train of thought. Oh. Oh, you said like God predetermining things in in a way. I think even in my own view in a way in the way that you're saying it I think I would actually be okay with saying that God has predetermined all things but I wouldn't say that he has ordained all things. I think he has ordained some like I wouldn't say that he's ordained you know the abuse of children maybe like James White would say or maybe even you would say but I I'm okay saying that maybe he's ordained the um the restoration of the gospel or the sacrifice of Jesus Christ or the coming forth of the apostles. I think there are some good salvific positive salvific things that God wanted to happen or things that needed to happen in order for the salvation of of us of people.

[00:47:10]But I wouldn't be comfortable saying that that he pre-ordained or forained all things or or decreed all things. But again, if you want to say that God knowing the future has it be set, um I'm kind of okay with that because I don't believe that God knowing the future causes us. Maybe kind of like you, it doesn't cause us to do what we're doing.

[00:47:33]>> So anyway, that's just another framework that we would work through.

[00:47:36]>> Yeah. And I understand what you're saying, but in this in this context, I don't think he's he's using any sort of precience. He's saying my counsel is going to stand. In Isaiah 14:26, he uses uh Assyria as an example of his sovereign purpose for all nations and uses the same I will accomplish my purpose type language.

[00:48:00]>> And then the the the Septuagent is using the word boule and now sometimes it uses boule to be like God's uh his will of his revealed will of course like thou shalt not murder. we could violate that. But most often, particularly in Ephesians 1:11, he uses boule to say uh to refer to his decreative desire. Uh he works all things according to the counsel of his will and and so I don't think there's a a precience thing here. Uh he does have exhaustive fornowledge. The question will be why? I say because he's declared the end from the beginning, saying his counsel's going to stand. And throughout time, he works all things according to the counsel of his will. Real quick, though, I want to touch on the abuse of children because this is huge.

[00:48:51]>> Yeah.

[00:48:52]>> This God ordaining whatsoever comes to pass, and let me let me pull this down because I want people to see my face for saying this. God ordaining whatsoever comes to pass is not him being the efficient cause of all things.

[00:49:09]I believe that God renders certain every proposition in history, but he doesn't actively ordain it. So is there's an active decree and a passive decree. Actively would be something where God reaches down in time and changes somebody's heart. passive would be he's rendered certain that uh I'm gonna like yell at my kids later or something which was quite possible because I've been sick lately or or or even harm them in some I mean you could do anything to them right >> right so God if God ordains something like that uh something evil it's passive where he renders it certain but he's not the efficient cause of it and I I like to use Aristotle's four causes was to explain that quite a bit. Uh like so there's the Sorry, give me a second.

[00:50:02]>> Mhm.

[00:50:04]>> There's the material cause, the formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause.

[00:50:10]Like if you're building a wagon, the the material cause is the wood, the formal cause is the blueprint, the efficient cause would be me building it. The final cause would be the purpose for which I build it. Say >> carrying bricks or something. Now, concerning the fall, cuz I'm going to use the fall, even though we can really apply all evil there, but we're going to use the fall mainly uh as the best example. The material cause there would be Adam, Eve, and Satan. The formal cause would be God. He planned it as indicated by the fact that Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Talked about that earlier. The efficient cause would be Satan, Adam, and Eve. God didn't like manipulate the decisions that they made. And then the final cause would be God. God planned to redeem them uh for his glory and our good. And this is the beauty of Calvinism though because no matter what you no matter what occurs in your life, it occurs for a good purpose. God works all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose. I'm trusting in Jesus. I know I'm one of the called. I love him. So whether um my family gets murdered or I get a better job, God in his infinite wisdom has ordained these events whether actively or passively for my good and his glory to make me more like Jesus.

[00:51:38]>> Is it only is it only the good for those who love him? Like is there does that extend to because I know like the scripture say like it rains on the just and the unjust. So there is some common, if you will, grace.

[00:51:52]>> Mhm.

[00:51:53]>> But but I assume you would say there's some special grace or special divine favor for the elect that he chooses. Is that fair to say? AB: >> Absolutely. Because he he he says, "Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves the church. I'm not supposed to love my wife like I love somebody else's wife."

[00:52:11]>> Right.

[00:52:12]>> And he has a particular love for his church, his elect.

[00:52:15]>> Okay. Let me let me ask you actually ask you just two really quick questions.

[00:52:18]Maybe they'll be really quick and then I want to give you the final if you want to ask me any questions or if anything else you want to talk about. I want to ask you this question because it kind of actually relates to exactly what you just said. One of my other biggest concerns is in some of the confessions at least in the London Baptist confession and the Westminster confession. Do you hold either of those?

[00:52:37]>> Yeah, I'm a Westminsterian.

[00:52:38]>> Okay. So, it's on the Westminster confession. There's a line in there that says that there are some who think they're saved and think they're in favor with God and they're actually not. And so, I've talked to some of the Apologia guys and they've told me that there are such thing as like deceived individuals amongst the believers, but that eventually they will fall away to show that they were never of of the elect.

[00:53:04]And so one of my other kind of major pillar concerns with Calvinism is my my critique is and I'll just say it straight rather than not to play gotcha.

[00:53:12]I I don't see a way that a Calvinist can have assurance of salvation if your own theology says that there are some who think they're saved and they're actually not. So can you tell me what what you think about that? Can you have a shirt to salvation? How is that possible if your own confessions say that it's possible that you think you're saved and you're actually not? Like how do you how do you square that with assurance salvation?

[00:53:42]>> So also in the western minister, it also says that there are ways that we can know infallibly that we are of one of the elect. Um though often God uses our our assurance can rise and fall over time. So if I like fall into grievous sin, >> God will remove his hand as a means of making me look back to the cross and and run to Christ in and in in fear and and and and of in fear of judgment, but also in like, you know, this trust and love for him. So there's that we can know infallibly according to the confession.

[00:54:22]Uh but also Mark 4, the the parable of the four soils, that's where we're getting that from. There are some that uh grow up, >> right?

[00:54:32]>> Uh and they don't bear fruit because they're they're choked out. Um and how would I know? Well, I deal with this um pastorally, not often, but quite a bit, especially.

[00:54:46]>> Are you Are you a pastor?

[00:54:48]>> I'm a pastoral intern.

[00:54:49]>> Oh, okay. Very cool.

[00:54:51]So, I deal with this quite a bit where especially those who grew up in like Armenian churches and are afraid that they can lose their salvation. They're like, you know, they they're like, "Man, I've been sinning lately and I can't stop. I think I lost my salvation." I'm like, "Well, dude, do you love Jesus?"

[00:55:08]Like, well, yeah, of course I do. I'm like, "Okay, well then >> shut up." Like, >> yeahility.

[00:55:15]>> If you were totally depraved, you wouldn't love Jesus. So, but I'll say this as well. Romans 8, the spirit bears witness to us that we're children.

[00:55:22]There's that subjective type thing.

[00:55:24]There's the objective type of measures that are given in first John, which would be like obedience to his commands, love for the brethren, things like that.

[00:55:33]And then also um when we're going to communion and partaking of the sacraments, that is a way of getting assurance because I am testifying to my brother when we partake of the cup together. I recognize your profession of faith. you are one of the elect. So there's lots of different ways that uh your assurance can be strengthened. Uh ultimately I would say for most people there's going to be a rising and falling of assurance throughout time. But I think generally as time goes on our of our assurance increases. But here's the ultimate thing that it's always going to be. When I look at myself, I'm gonna say, "How can I be saved?" But when I look to the cross of Christ, I'm going to say, "How could I not be?"

[00:56:22]>> How could I not be?

[00:56:23]>> That's good. I I asked this question because I have a friend. Did you ever watch my debate with Jacob Hansen at Apology of Church on Solura with Daniel Constantino and Oscar Dunlap? Did you ever see that? It was a 2v2.

[00:56:35]>> I actually watched part of it today.

[00:56:37]>> Okay. So So here's something crazy. And I only say this because he's given me permission to talk about this. Daniel Constantino, the Hispanic guy in in that in that debate, he's now fallen away and he he doesn't know he he doesn't confess Jesus Christ necessarily. I don't want to speak too much for him, but but it suffices to say that he's he's not a Christian anymore.

[00:57:02]>> Yeah.

[00:57:02]>> And so my concern is like he was so dedicated like his wife thought he was elect. He thought he was elect. His pastor Jeff Durban and James White thought he was elect. The other elders, his friends there, Oscar, who he debated with. It's funny, Daniel actually did a debate a couple years ago on the fact that you can't lose your salvation and now he's not a Christian. So if Daniel Constantino, who confessed Calvinism and Trinitarianism and and Jesus Christ in the same way you do, he was convinced that he was saved. They're now telling me that he was self deceived. What that tells me is that nobody's safe because Daniel and everyone in his life who was who were believers believed that he was elect. And apparently he wasn't. He tricked everybody including himself.

[00:57:55]And it seems like he's not the only one.

[00:57:56]There are other people who that's happened to. And so my concern, I hope that makes sense, is like if that could happen to Daniel, because three or four or five years ago, if I was to ask these questions to Daniel, he would have given the same answers that you gave me. He would have said, "Well, I can know infallibly and I know infallibly and I trust the scriptures and I would ask him."

[00:58:15]>> I doubt I doubt he would have because he's I mean, not everyone's not everyone's as brilliant as me, bro. Come on.

[00:58:20]>> Okay, >> that aside, that aside, I appreciate your humor. That aside, I I promise you, and I can probably show you videos of me and him talking where he said, "No, I know I'm saved." I mean, go go go watch the totality of that debate. He says, "I know I'm infallibly saved. There's not a chance that I'm that I'm reprobate."

[00:58:39]>> And now apparently he is. So to me, it follows that even you who are saying all these great things and I think you're genuine. But isn't that the purpose of Isn't that the meaning of the word selfdeceived? is that you're tricking yourself into thinking you are saved and you're actually not. So, how do you reconcile? Is there any way to reconcile it?

[00:59:00]>> Well, uh I would say 1 John 21:19, they went out from us because they were never really of us. But again, he he very well may be one of the elect and God draws him back. We we don't we don't know. And okay, ultimately when it comes to things like this, I'm leaving it in God's hands. Just like I do with the Trinity, the hypothatic union, God being sovereign and man being free. It's mysterious. Just like in your religion, there's the mysterious stuff of like, h we don't really know how we went from intelligences to spirit bodies, but it it kind of happened. Like there's mystery. To >> to push back on that, we don't have to talk too long about this because I want to kind of give you some time here. We would we would contend that your a lot of your mysteries are contradictions and we wouldn't say that ours are are contradictions like knowing how we got spirit bodies that's not a logical tension but again like you said God's fornowledge and our free will or what's the other ones you just gave like uh >> hypatic union >> hypatic union yeah we see that as a contradiction in nature it's like how can Jesus have all knowledge and not all knowledge at the same time and so anyway I'm not gonna press you >> that's easy >> that's easy Philippians 2 he He wait but I got an illustration and you're going to like it.

[01:00:14]>> Yeah. Go ahead. So when when he when he clothed him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him himself in flesh and became truly man 100% man human mind human will all of this stuff he maintained his same faculties that he always had had as true God but he like kind of cornered them off and only allowed so like let's say there's two computers right >> two computers in Jesus one computer is the divine computer the other computer is the human computer and both lead to his brain He severed this one, but God allows him to have access to this one >> when he says, well, like he had access to it anytime he wanted, but he's self-limited from having access to this.

[01:00:58]So, for instance, if you ask me what time it is, >> because I'm not looking at my phone, I could tell you I don't know. But if I pick up my phone and look at it, >> I would know. That's my illustration.

[01:01:09]>> Are you Are you saying that Jesus Christ has two minds? Is that appropriate to say?

[01:01:14]>> That's actually the uh the what one of the biblical ways of understanding the hypothatic union. Well, the >> right >> the biblical way.

[01:01:23]>> Yeah. And we and we again we don't have to dive into this. We would we would just say that one person having one person having two minds is a contradiction. And we could talk about the metaphysics behind that. But can can I respond to it? And then I have one final question for you.

[01:01:36]>> Okay. And I want to say one other thing.

[01:01:38]>> Yeah. Daniel Constantino isn't even in your system. It's like not even a big deal, bro. Well, he's going to go to like a lesser this celestial heaven or something, bro.

[01:01:49]>> He He has the chance to be exalted still because we we would say that those who only those who knowingly reject the gospel as it's presented to them or the truth as it's presented to them in their time uh are held responsible. So even for yourself, like heaven forbid you dropped over dead right now, our position would be if you were actually genuine, like God God's not going to punish you for you doing what you actually thought he wanted you to do.

[01:02:16]Our our position is that God will only hold you accountable to what you actually know or actually believe. That he's merciful enough to say, "Hey, Twitchie, from our point of view, Twitchy didn't understand my nature. He didn't understand my gospel." So I'm not going to punishment punish him according to things he didn't know. Same thing for Oscar. So yeah, we would say everybody who doesn't outrightly reject it, knowingly reject it, has an opportunity to be exalted still.

[01:02:43]>> Yeah. And so according to my understanding, they they won't be in the celestial realm. They might be in the what is it? Celestial or terrest I can't remember. Bro, >> they can if if they if they didn't have an opportunity or an understanding or a witness, I think is the best way to say it, here on earth, then they will be given the opportunity in the next life.

[01:03:02]But they can still be exalted. Very top tippy top.

[01:03:05]>> Yeah. But at the worst, they're not going to end up burning in hell for all eternity. That's just for like >> Oh, they can. They can if they want to.

[01:03:12]Um, we do have a doctrine that says if you outrightly knowingly reject Jesus Christ that you will go to hell. most people probably for a limited time to pay for your own sin and then you'll actually be given an opportunity after the millennium. So a lot of people say it's a thousand years of suffering in outer darkness. You will be given >> they like stop sinning in hell.

[01:03:31]>> Um I don't know. We don't we don't really have any doctrine on what outer darkness is. What we do know is that they would suffer on behalf of their own sin because they rejected Jesus Christ.

[01:03:41]And after they've suffered they are given an opport one last opportunity to accept Christ as savior. If they do, they would go to the bottom, the tlesial kingdom. But if they don't want to go there, if they say, "No, I hate Jesus."

[01:03:54]Regardless, then God allows them to stay there in outer darkness by their own choice.

[01:03:59]>> Okay.

[01:04:00]>> So, yeah, we do believe those are called sons of predition is the term we would use who stay eternally. So, one last question for you and then I want to let you kind of get the last word and say whatever you'd like to. This is not a Calvinistic critique, just general Protestantism.

[01:04:14]We kind of link arms with the Roman Catholics when we look at Protestantism and we see a lack of adjudicator or lack of authoritative interpreter for for scriptures. I actually actually just posted a tweet. Can I just read it to you?

[01:04:31]>> Posted a tweet today and I just curious about your response.

[01:04:35]>> Um it says, sorry I don't mean to be provocative. It says, "Protestantism dies on this one principle. No one gets the final say on the correct interpretation of scripture. They even go as far to say that scripture interprets scripture, which is such an incoherent thing to say, I don't even know where to begin. Without an authority able to interpret your canon, assuming you have the correct one and its correct content, you can never know even know if you have let's see, you can never even know if you are understanding it correctly. And asserting that it's clear enough in so much that no interpretation is needed is laughable and baseless. Can you you can assert something, but can you justify it? So, my critique is how do you even know that you're understanding the Bible correctly when there's so many different interpretations?

[01:05:22]I've heard, well, there's there's essential doctrines that we all agree on and then we disagree on the secondary issues. Would you take that route or tell me your response to that?

[01:05:30]Well, yeah, I do I do think that all Christians agree on the primary the primary issues and I don't know if your position or the Roman Catholic positions even better like okay I'm confessional so I think that we need to understand the scriptures through the confessions and creeds uh like they provide the guard rails now that doesn't mean I'm going to be perfectly infallible that doesn't in my interpretation. So for instance, my pastors take the Sethite view of Genesis 6:4. Are you familiar with that?

[01:06:06]>> No. No.

[01:06:07]>> Okay. Genesis 6:4 says, "The sons of God uh saw saw that the daughters of men were pretty," I'm paraphrasing, "and took wives unto them as many as they chose, and the Nephilim became because of that union." Well, I think that angels came and procreated with women to create these giant offspring. My pastors think that view is nuts.

[01:06:28]the conf.

[01:06:30]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[01:06:31]>> Okay.

[01:06:32]>> So, the confessions don't necessarily address that. So, there's minor issues like that that we could uh argue about, but issues like the trinity, deity of Christ, solid, all of that, we're bound by the confessions in a certain area.

[01:06:48]But again, I don't think the the the Roman Catholic views any better when I can find stuff in their previous cannons that contradict and and your uh stuff, you know, I can find things where prophets seem to contradict like, oh, there's no blacks in the priesthoods.

[01:07:05]Now there's blacks in the priesthood or Joseph Smith given false prophecies.

[01:07:09]Like how do you know your you can trust what your authority is saying about scripture when I can show that the foundation of that authority in and of itself is faulty. Now it would take more time to do that but maybe that's for another day.

[01:07:22]>> Yeah. I I would say just to I think that's fair and I would just quickly respond by saying that now whatever there are different camps for Latter Day Saints on why the priesthood ban happened. Let me let's just assume that God actually wanted it. There are some Latter- Day Saints who just bite the bullet and say that's just what God wanted at the time for whatever reason.

[01:07:41]A mystery you might call it. Not a contradiction, but this is according to his wisdom. That kind of actually aligns with Old Testament when there was a time when only the tribe of Levi was able to have the priesthood and now it's a priesthood of all believers, right? that that there was that God can restrict like for example women can't have priesthood or never have been able to be priests and now or or rather uh God has always done that and maybe in the future he could allow them to be priestesses or whatever. So so on that one I think one of the responses is well God can give the priesthood to whoever he wants. So that one you may consider solved as far as >> Can I ask a question?

[01:08:19]>> Yeah.

[01:08:20]>> Clarifying.

[01:08:20]>> Yeah. So God's previously said that homosexuality and transgenderism is a sin. Could he could he affirm that in the future?

[01:08:28]>> I think there are certain topics that even God himself is bound by. And I would say marriage between a man and a woman is one of those eternal laws that even God can't contradict. Now, could there be an apostle or prophet who has a private interpretation? I hope they never would. I I I think if they ever went public with that, they'd probably be excommunicated from the church as they should. But no, I' I'd say there are barriers there. Just logical barriers like can God say that you know the the Book of Mormon is false? Like that would destroy our whole thing. So there are some doctrines or some sins even that I don't think you or practices. Yeah. I've actually I've actually like thought about like man what if I could like just get all the power and become like the Mormon president or like the pope or something and then be like God has infallibly declared that this religion is false.

[01:09:22]>> Yeah. Yeah. See, we don't we don't believe infallible even amongst our own prophets. But let me comment on one other thing you said about Jose Smith's prophecies.

[01:09:29]>> There's a couple ways to look at that.

[01:09:31]Um, we could say that um, and you might you might even consider this for the Old Testament, we could say alli all prophecies are conditional, right? For example, when Noah or not Noah, when Jonah went to preach to the Ninevites, he didn't give them a condition, but we still might assume the condition of repentance. He said, "God's going to destroy you in 40 days." And then he left. And then they did repent and God didn't destroy them. And Noah's all or Jonah rather is all mad. And we could say, well, even though he didn't say the condition, it actually was conditional in God's eyes. So, there are some things that Joseph Smith said, like for example, I forget one of them in Doctrine of Covenants, I'm pretty sure, where it says like if you live to be age 85, which he was only like 39 when he died or when he was killed, uh, you will see the face of the Lord or like that's the second coming. And so, that was a conditional prophecy where if he was to live. So anyway, I'm just saying there are different interpretations, understandings of Joseph Smith's prophecies in the same way that the Bible does it. Go ahead.

[01:10:29]>> I really got to touch on that last one, bro. Yeah, >> because because Okay, I understand. I I do agree Jonah is conditional based on chapter 4, him saying, uh, God, I knew you was going to do this. That's why I didn't want to preach to these people. That's why I knew you was going to save them. So, I know I think it's we can know it's conditional because of that. But but if you're saying if you live to be however many years old, you're going to see the return of Jesus, >> who's sovereign over how long that man lives, >> God is. Job 14:1-5 uh talks about that. Job 14:5 says, "He determines our days." And uh we can't Oh, come on, Jerry. This is a great Calvinist proof text, and you're forgetting it. Hold on. Let me look it up, brother.

[01:11:16]>> Yeah, >> let me look it up, bro. Uh Joe 14 file because my my people will will fuss at me if I get this wrong.

[01:11:26]Okay. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean thing? There's not one since his days are determined and the number of his months is with you and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass. So if God presented a contingent prophecy saying if you live to this age you'll receive see the return of Jesus then that would just happen because God determines how long we live right >> unless God didn't want him to live that long right we we actually do see and and you may disagree with this that God is actually God can respond and act in in uh how do I want to say this in not in accordance with but reacting to how humans are responding Like I mean just like take Nineveh we just talked about that because they repented God spared them. If they didn't repent as a people God would have destroyed them. So God's action was actually we would say it was actually dependent on their action. I don't know if you would say because God is immutable and impassible that that he's not uh like affected by our actions. Like that's one of the critiques that that Avery or God logic got in the debate with Jacob Hansen is he didn't know what impassible was and he said no we can you know we can we can impact God and it's like well isn't that heretical like God can't be impacted by us but our position would be that he actually can be he can actually respond to us.

[01:12:49]>> So I I think there's a view from man where we see God as passible and interacting and responsive. It's all throughout the Old Testament uh that there's an analogical view that we have of this relationship with him. But from his point of view, this is just the plan. Like even from your view with with you believing that God knows the the future, the repentance of Nineveh was guaranteed before he ever sent >> from his perspective. Sure.

[01:13:18]>> Yeah. Yeah. And so in that sense it's not really contingent because again as soon as he creates that's all concreted.

[01:13:27]>> Yeah, I can see where you're going and and I I know we got to go here in a second. I I would just say that again God's fornowledge is is not cause or our actions are rather not caused by God's fornowledge. If there's a relationship there that maybe his time is different than ours >> but I I can kind of see what you're saying but we wouldn't we wouldn't see it like that. In the interest of time, let me just give you the final word. Um, you're going to be speaking probably to over 10,000 Latter-day Saints. What do What would you What would you like to tell them? If you could tell them anything from uh your perspective, what would it be?

[01:14:02]>> Bro, you're gonna put me on a platform like that? I You're speaking to 10,000 of them, bro. I would just say >> if they if they listen to the end of the video, how are we going to know if they listen to the end of the video? Let's let's uh tell them to comment a specific word. Comment um do you have a favorite like movie or something?

[01:14:23]>> Uh Star Wars. We'll go with that.

[01:14:25]>> Okay. Comment Star Wars if you're still here with us. So now we're >> tell us your favorite Star Wars character.

[01:14:30]>> Okay. Yeah, that's that's great. Let's do that. And so and if you've never seen Star Wars, just tell us you've never seen Star Wars. So now we're going to know how many people you're speaking to.

[01:14:37]We can look back in the comments. So tell us, Twitchy, by the way, I've really appreciated you. Um I I will say you're probably in the top percentage of very kind Calvinists. We we often Latter Day Saints don't often get kind and um I was going to say respectable, but you know, a lot of people, they just like to dunk on us all the time. And it's not to say that we don't like to dunk on Protestants and we we have our conversations, but anyway, I just appreciate your your uh friendliness and cordialness. So, >> yeah. So, uh yeah, and if I'm in the comments, you'll see me be a little chippier than I am here where we're having a long form conversation, but I would just say comment section, >> we've Protestants, not just Calvinists. Love you guys. I would urge you just to reconsider, look into some of the things that we've talked about today, particularly the uh Ephesians 6, Ephesians 1, uh Colossians 2, Colossians 1, principalities and powers, things because uh we believe Jesus is the creator of all things and he's sovereign over all things. And then the the biggest issue for me is the triune nature of God. So I would want us to maybe have a just another discussion about that. And again, we love you guys.

[01:15:57]Uh I appreciate a lot of what you guys do, uh especially politically. Um but let's just keep the conversation going and um yeah, I I'll leave it there.

[01:16:09]>> Okay. Awesome. Thank you for coming on.

[01:16:10]Appreciate you.

[01:16:11]>> Yes, sir. Thank you.