Back in September 2018, Kwaku El (LDS) had a debate with Jeff Durbin (see Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism") and James White (Reformed). I offered a very brief review of the debate at:
The White/Durbin vs. Kwaku El Debate
Interestingly, some Protestant apologists who consider "Mormonism" to be a "cult" (hardly biased towards Kwaku!) admitted that White/Durbin lost the debate.
Sam Shamoun
On the Reformed blog "Triablogue," Shamoun wrote the following comment on the post, "Debate with a Mormon":
Opening statements: 30 mins each
Rebuttal: 15 mins each
Cross-ex: 15 mins each
Conclusion: 10 mins each
Robert Boylan
irishlds87ATgmailDOTcom
The White/Durbin vs. Kwaku El Debate
Interestingly, some Protestant apologists who consider "Mormonism" to be a "cult" (hardly biased towards Kwaku!) admitted that White/Durbin lost the debate.
Sam Shamoun
On the Reformed blog "Triablogue," Shamoun wrote the following comment on the post, "Debate with a Mormon":
It's me Sam Shamoun using the ben malik moniker. I am
listening to it now and I'm at the 104 minute mark. I can say that the young
man being interviewed has yet to turn to the Bible because White hasn't allowed
him to by constantly interjecting. It's not a bad thing, but I still wanted to
hear the man's biblical case. Moreover, this young man is quite articular and
well read, and very sharp, since he was able to address and correct many of
Jeff Durbin's false assumptions and misinterpretations of what the young man
was saying.
White's exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11 is clearly wanting since he assumes that his view of the text is the contextual one, or the only plausible interpretation of the passage. In reality, both Daniel Wallace and Denny Burk have argued that Philippians 2:6 actually teaches that the Son is not functionally equal to the Father and didn't try to be. They base this on their extensive examination of the use of the articular infinitive, i.e. to einai("the being")which both men claim can only mean within this particular context that Jesus did not grasp at being equal with God. Here is a link to Burke's thorough discussion of this point for those interested in reading his arguments for themselves: http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/on-the-articular-infinitive-in-philippians-2-6-a-grammatical-note-with-christological-implications
And: https://bible.org/article/meaning-harpagmos-philippians-26-overlooked-datum-functional-inequality-within-godhead
White's definition of humility is also lacking, since one can be humble by not seeking after something that doesn't rightly belong to them. In other words, knowing one's station in life and not seeking to attain a status that s/he doesn't deserve is a sign of humility.
Besides, even the argument White uses to show that Jesus and the Father are two equals, with Christ voluntarily setting aside that equality, doesn't work either. The gist of White's argument is that the context of Philippians 2 is an exhortation to fellow believers to treat others as better than themselves. White argues that just as all believers are equal to one another in the sight of God, so are Christ and God. And just as Christ did not cling to, or exploit his equality with God, but voluntarily humbled himself before the Father, believers are too do likewise and set aside their equality in humble service to each other.
The problem with this claim is that, though we are all equal in one sense, there is another sense in which believers are not equal, namely, in terms of positions of authority. After all, the same Paul talks about levels of authority within the body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31), and the NT even tells us to submit to those who are in leadership over us, i.e. the bishops etc. As such, this actually comports with the view of Wallace and Burk, namely, there is a sense in which Christ and the Father are not equal, since the Son by virtue of being the Son is subject to the Father in terms of authority, though being equal to him in essence, power, honor and glory.
Final point. White made a blunder around the one hour, four minute mark when he said, "Isaiah 6, when Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting on the throne, that was Jesus! That was the One WHO WOULD BECOME THE SON in the incarnation."
White's exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11 is clearly wanting since he assumes that his view of the text is the contextual one, or the only plausible interpretation of the passage. In reality, both Daniel Wallace and Denny Burk have argued that Philippians 2:6 actually teaches that the Son is not functionally equal to the Father and didn't try to be. They base this on their extensive examination of the use of the articular infinitive, i.e. to einai("the being")which both men claim can only mean within this particular context that Jesus did not grasp at being equal with God. Here is a link to Burke's thorough discussion of this point for those interested in reading his arguments for themselves: http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/on-the-articular-infinitive-in-philippians-2-6-a-grammatical-note-with-christological-implications
And: https://bible.org/article/meaning-harpagmos-philippians-26-overlooked-datum-functional-inequality-within-godhead
White's definition of humility is also lacking, since one can be humble by not seeking after something that doesn't rightly belong to them. In other words, knowing one's station in life and not seeking to attain a status that s/he doesn't deserve is a sign of humility.
Besides, even the argument White uses to show that Jesus and the Father are two equals, with Christ voluntarily setting aside that equality, doesn't work either. The gist of White's argument is that the context of Philippians 2 is an exhortation to fellow believers to treat others as better than themselves. White argues that just as all believers are equal to one another in the sight of God, so are Christ and God. And just as Christ did not cling to, or exploit his equality with God, but voluntarily humbled himself before the Father, believers are too do likewise and set aside their equality in humble service to each other.
The problem with this claim is that, though we are all equal in one sense, there is another sense in which believers are not equal, namely, in terms of positions of authority. After all, the same Paul talks about levels of authority within the body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31), and the NT even tells us to submit to those who are in leadership over us, i.e. the bishops etc. As such, this actually comports with the view of Wallace and Burk, namely, there is a sense in which Christ and the Father are not equal, since the Son by virtue of being the Son is subject to the Father in terms of authority, though being equal to him in essence, power, honor and glory.
Final point. White made a blunder around the one hour, four minute mark when he said, "Isaiah 6, when Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting on the throne, that was Jesus! That was the One WHO WOULD BECOME THE SON in the incarnation."
Elsewhere, commenting on a review of the debate by Steve Hays (Reformed), Shamoun stated the following on facebook:
Steve Hays
On the above-mentioned blog post, "3 Mormons," Hays reviewed the debate. While levelling some arguments (often poor) against Kwaku's arguments, he was forced to admit from the get-go that:
I'm sorry to report that in terms of overall performance, I think Kwaku won the debate.
One area he believed White/Durbin failed at was on the nature of the being of God in Trinitarian theology:
4. Kwaku thinks
Christians believe God is an "energy consciousness everywhere but not
anywhere". An "intangible spirit essence everywhere". He asked
Durbin to define "spirit". Durbin said "immaterial". Kwaku
asked "immaterial what"? If not consciousness or person,
then what? That's a good question. Durbin never gave a good answer.
In response to Isa
6, he then asked how Yahweh was sitting down when you don't believe he has a
body. How is he sitting down if he's everywhere? To which White responded, why
would you have to have a physical body to sit down? But that's a bad
answer.
White said Isa 6 is
a vision of "the one who'd become the Son in the Incarnation".
Presumably, White misspoke. I assume he meant to say that's a vision of the one
who'd become Jesus in the Incarnation. White believes in the eternal preexistence
of the Son, right?
It is quite telling that Kwaku, who has no qualifications in theology and was pretty much a neophyte in debates managed to defeat White/Durbin on their "home turf" (it was on the Apologia Radio show after all). If White/Durbin wish to have their theology challenged by a Latter-day Saint with formal training in theology and related fields, I will simply reiterate my debate challenge to them from my initial review of the debate:
White, Durbin, and any other Protestant apologist can consider this an open challenge to a moderated, public debate with a neutral (e.g., Catholic) moderator on the topic of Sola Scriptura, namely the following debate thesis the Protestant apologist will defend and I will critique (the thesis can be changed accordingly to be more concise):
Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, which teaches that the 66 books of the Protestant canon of the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith to which all other standards of faith are to be subordinated, is taught by the Bible
Opening statements: 30 mins each
Rebuttal: 15 mins each
Cross-ex: 15 mins each
Conclusion: 10 mins each
Robert Boylan
irishlds87ATgmailDOTcom
