Quotables from Sufficiency of Scripture Conference

Between being starstruck and my eagerness to absorb all teachings in the conference, I still manage to jot down some quotes from the guest speaker, Dr. Steve Lawson. Last June 17 was a real treat for me as I enjoyed and be biblically equipped by this conference. Here’s a few which I was able to catch. You can check out Dr. Lawson over his website, http://www.onepassionministries.org and head over http://www.higherrockchurch.org to see future conferences by Higher Rock.
“Every book, every chapter, every verse, every word, every letter, every jot [in the Bible] is the breath of God.”—Dr. Steven J. Lawson, “Sufficiency of Scripture for Faith and Practice” #stevelawsoninmanila #scriptureissufficient #higherrockconference
“You don’t need a PhD to understand the Bible. God knows how to communicate.” —Dr. Steven J. Lawson, “Sufficiency of Scripture for Faith and Practice” #stevelawsoninmanila #scriptureissufficient #higherrockconference
“A worldly message, produce a worldly life.” —Dr. Steven J. Lawson, “Sufficiency of Scripture for Faith and Practice” #stevelawsoninmanila #scriptureissufficient #higherrockconference
“You will either be on fire for God or in fire of God in judgment.” —Dr. Steven J. Lawson on the Bible as a consuming fire, “Sufficiency of Scripture for Faith and Practice” #stevelawsoninmanila #scriptureissufficient #higherrockconference
“How can the Word of God dominate your life? Give [the Bible] preeminence in our life.” —Dr. Steven J. Lawson, “Sufficiency of Scripture for Faith and Practice” #stevelawsoninmanila #scriptureissufficient #higherrockconference
“The Bible is the highest arbitrator. The Bible is the supreme judge.” —Dr. Steven J. Lawson on the Authority of the Scripture, “Sufficiency of Scripture for Faith and Practice” #stevelawsoninmanila #scriptureissufficient #higherrockconference

Book Review: A Practical Guide to Culture by John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle

If parents are feeling the heat of this demanding culture and want their kids to stand for God, here’s a book that help them navigate through the tidal waves. “A Practical Guide to Culture” promises to avoid alarmism in a culture that is getting harder and harder to be a Christian.
Putting the word “practical” on the title doesn’t mean that you’ll dive in immediately to the advice and put it into action. Stonestreet and Kunkle first unpack the meaning of culture. And boy they sure did define it so clearly in the first part of the book and gradually opens other boxes of truth surrounding the word culture.
The authors want us to change the question Christians usually ask when culture comes to their doors. Rather ask “Where do we draw the line?” or “Have we lost the culture?” we need to go back to the Story of God to know the real question. The better question should be “What is our salvation for?” This question is essential as we know what culture is and what can we do to it.
The practical part of the book is seasoned with godly wisdom, true life stories, and well research information, mixed with grace without compromising the gospel. Every chapter is short but solid. You will always some take away that will leave you informed and ready to put in action.
The last chapter is as important as the practical stuff in this book. It’s building the Christian worldview for our kids. Some books left this vital part after they shared the practical part. It’s a good thing that the authors included this, not as fillers but as essential part in the foundation of our kids. For us readers we should not skip this part.
“A Practical Guide to Culture” is clear, precise and readable book on navigating your kids in this culture. If you have read plenty of books on culture, consider this a diversion from the buzz other books on culture is generating. You don’t want noise, you want practical book. You don’t want an edgy, radical just a simple cool book that will help parents raise their kids biblically ready to face this culture.

My verdict: 5 out of 5

The Quotable Round-Up #57

Here are some of the quotes from the book “We Destroy Arguments” by Stephen Feinstein. If you enjoy these quotes, please buy the book at your nearest Christian bookstore or on Amazon. Feel free to share this post over your social media. God bless you and enjoy your week!

“Christians are not out there to prove that a god exists, but instead that the biblical God exists. We are to prove that this biblical God has made Himself clearly known to all people at all times with clear distinct revelation that has left people without excuse. You cannot accomplish this by using piecemeal arguments that only demonstrate one sliver of the Christian worldview at a time. Instead, the Christian worldview as a whole is what is to be presented. Yet, it is even more than this. Christianity must be presented not only as an entire system, but as the only system of truth that is even possible.” – Stephen Feinstein, “We Destroy Arguments”

“When 1 John 4:8 declares that God is love, we need to ask, “Love of what?” If the answer is love of the world, then the divine attribute of love depends on the existence of the world, once again removing the independence of God and the creator-creature distinction. Furthermore, an attribute by definition is something that God must possess to in fact be God. If love could not exist until the creation existed, then God also could not have existed as God until He first created the creation! The position becomes logically self-defeating. Yet, if God is one, and yet three persons, then God can share love in an absolute sense being an absolute person and still be absolutely independent of creation. John 17:24 clearly teaches that the Father and Son loved each other in eternity past, thereby demonstrating from Scripture that God’s attribute of love is independent of the creation. Thus, the Trinity actually is necessary in order to keep every single one of God’s communicable attributes intact.” – Stephen Feinstein, “We Destroy Arguments”

“Under the Christian, metaphysical worldview God is only one God and is a perfect unity, but is also a unity of a plurality (three persons). Since God is a unity of plurality, it is not difficult to see creation in a similar light. We are all made from the dust of the ground making us one with creation (unity), but we are different ontologically from plants, animals, rocks, and other humans (plurality). There is no absolute unity devoid of plurality, and there is no absolute plurality devoid of unity. Only the Christian worldview accounts for this, and even though many secular philosophers and pagan religions reject a universe of both one and many, nearly all people live their day-to-day lives as though it were true.” – Stephen Feinstein, “We Destroy Arguments”

“Dependence on God leads to consistent and true knowledge and a consistent view of reality that makes learning and discovery possible. Independence from God leads to millions of inconsistencies on various views of reality, and it renders the idea of true knowledge and standards as impossible.” – Stephen Feinstein, “We Destroy Arguments”

“Atheism can be theoretical or practical, or both. The theoretical atheist outright denies the existence of God, whereas the practical atheist just lives as though there is no God. Based on the definition of practical atheism, agnostics truly are atheists just in disguise. After all, if they truly did not know whether or not God existed, would they not show up to church every other week and try to live in obedience to Scripture half of the time in order to shore up their bets? Yet, just about every agnostic most of us have ever met never goes to church and live their lives as though no God exists. Their words do not comport with their actions but instead are a mere attempt to take some misconstrued highroad of humility.” – Stephen Feinstein, “We Destroy Arguments”

“Ultimately, the combination of atheism and idolatry is the unbeliever’s way of suppressing the truth of God that is within them, and yet being able to navigate through the world with set standards. When the Christian apologist begins to critique unbelieving thought, unbelievers will move thoughtlessly back and forth between these two positions making it difficult to pin them down. For example, when you press their relativism to its conclusion, they will then appeal to reason (their idol) to support the items that they feel are absolutely true. When you then push them with reason into a self-defeating position, they will effortlessly move right back into their atheistic relativism. It will take patience and skill to reveal this to them, and ultimately it will take the work of the Holy Spirit.” – Stephen Feinstein, “We Destroy Arguments”

“If a Christian presuppositionalist pushed epistemology with such atheists, he could easily reveal to the atheist the impossibility of objective truth in an atheistic worldview. Thus consistent atheism requires the extreme of relativism, which itself is self-defeating. After all, would not a declaration that there is no absolute truth be in of itself an absolute truth? Furthermore, the atheist who holds to relativism is never consistent with it. After all, he acts as though reason and logic are trustworthy (absolute) and would seek justice if robbed (a moral absolute). Thus, the unbeliever committed to atheism in either its theoretical or practical form is left in a state of absolute certainty (rationalism) and absolute uncertainty (irrationalism) simultaneously and cannot account for it.” – Stephen Feinstein, “We Destroy Arguments”

The Quotable Round-Up #56

Here are some of the quotes from the book “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” by Dr. Jason Lisle. If you enjoy these quotes, please buy the book at your nearest Christian bookstore or on Amazon. Feel free to share this post over your social media. God bless you and enjoy your week!

“Imagine an evolutionist responding to the Christian’s claim that God is the basis for morality by saying, “I say we don’t need God to know right from wrong. You have every right to follow your own standard! Don’t let others tell you what to do. It is your right as an American to think for yourself!” Such a speech might be followed by thunderous applause — even though it is logically absurd and self-refuting. (How could we possibly obey the instruction to not let others tell us what to do?) But by invoking powerful emotions like patriotism and the desire to feel autonomous, the arguer may sway many people with this fallacious speech.”

“Special pleading is the fallacy of applying a double standard. That is, the arguer has applied a standard to his opponent that he does not apply to himself. The duplicity may be subtle and due only to a choice of words: “I’m firm, but you are just stubborn.” Or it may be more obvious. “You can’t tell other people what not to do!” is a clear case of special pleading since the arguer obviously does not apply this standard to himself.”

“Fallacies of ambiguity are arguments that are faulty because they use words or phrases that are unclear or have more than one meaning. There are six common fallacies that are usually listed under this category: equivocation, amphiboly, accent, reification, composition, and division.”

“It should also be pointed out that the relativist cannot possibly live according to his own professed worldview. He may profess a fairy-tale land where truth is subjective and contradictions are acceptable, but he must live in God’s universe and must abide by God’s absolute objective truth if he is to function. Remember, even the most ardent relativist looks both ways before he crosses the street. Moreover, he expects the motorist to abide by the same laws he does — to stop at the stop sign, for example. Just like all of us, the relativist knows in his heart of hearts the biblical God.”

“Worldviews are a bit like kidneys. Everyone has them — you can’t live or function without them. Yet, most people are unaware of their own …until something goes wrong with them. To force the unbeliever to think through his worldview, we want to give him the intellectual equivalent of a kidney stone (for his own benefit!). We remind him of information that he already knows to be true but which he has not carefully considered — information that his worldview cannot process. Like a kidney stone, this procedure may be very painful for the evolutionist; he’s not going to be happy about it. But his erroneous worldview must be exposed for the folly it is if he is ever going to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

“If evolution were true, science and reasoning would not be possible: there would be no basis for logic, nor would there be any basis for uniformity in nature. So if evolutionists were consistent with their worldview, they would not be able to reason or do science. Yet evolutionists are able to reason and to do science. Thus it follows that evolutionists do not consistently rely upon their own worldview. They rely upon creationist presuppositions!”

“Presuppositions are assumed at the outset, before any investigation of evidence; they are pre-supposed and control our interpretation of evidence. We are often not aware of our presuppositions, but they are always present. Just as we are always breathing, even though we are not often conscious of it until we stop and think about it, likewise, our presuppositions are constantly guiding our understanding of our experiences.”

The Quotable Round-Up # 55

Here are some of the quotes from the book “The Fallacy Detective” by Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn, The Fallacy Detective . If you enjoy these quotes, please buy the book at your nearest Christian bookstore or on Amazon. Feel free to share this post over your social media. God bless you and enjoy your week!

“Circular arguments assume the thing they are trying to prove. Some circular arguments can be very difficult to catch and unravel. They make you feel like you want to take your brain out and look at it.” — Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn, The Fallacy Detective
#fallacydetective #circularreasoning #badarguments #criticalthinking

“It is important to recognize that everyone has a bias and that we need to understand and to manage our own biases. We need to be aware of the assumptions which we are making. Keep asking, “Why do I think this is true?” There is nothing wrong with having assumptions, just as long as we have the correct assumptions.” — Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn, The Fallacy Detective
#thefallacydetective #badarguments #assumptions

“To be aware of assumptions, you need to learn a healthy sense of suspicion – suspicion of everybody, including yourself. If someone is deceived, he is thoroughly convinced that he is not deceived – he does not know what his assumptions are. How can we make ourselves aware of our assumptions? We can’t. No one can be totally objective. We can only try to be as objective as we can.” — Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn, The Fallacy Detective
#thefallacydetective #badarguments #assumptions

“The straw man fallacy distorts an opponent’s position just enough to make it weak. The new argument that is created is called a “straw man” because it is easy to knock down. (“I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your argument down.”) The original argument was not as easy to knock down.” — Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn, The Fallacy Detective
#thefallacydetective #strawman #badarguments #rational

“If it is wrong to appeal to someone who isn’t an authority, then it is just as wrong to appeal to many people who are not authorities. The general public is rarely a proper authority on any subject.” — Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn, The Fallacy Detective
#thefallacydetective #applealtothepeople #badargument #logical

“We are appealing to an authority when we claim something is true because an authority said it was true. This can be good if we do it in the right way. However, if the person we are appealing to is not actually an authority in the area we are discussing, our appeal is faulty.” — Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn, The Fallacy Detective
#thefallacydetective #appealtoauthority #badargument

“It seems that people think that if an idea came out of the Russian Revolution or was first proposed by a criminal, then it has to be bad. The idea may be bad, but it is not necessarily bad because of the source. If an argument was made up by a bad person or came out of a bad historical event, it doesn’t mean the argument is bad itself.” — Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn, The Fallacy Detective
#thefallacydetective #geneticfallacy #badarguments

The Quotable Round-Up # 54

Here are some of the quotes from the book “The Reason for God” by Tim Keller. If you enjoy these quotes, please buy the book at your nearest Christian bookstore or on Amazon. Feel free to share this post over your social media. God bless you and enjoy your week!

“The Bible itself has taught us to expect the abuses of religion and it has also told us what to do about them. Because of this, Christian history gives us many remarkable examples of self-correction.” – Tim Keller, The Reason for God  #skeptics #atheist #God #bible

“What is the answer, then, to the very fair and devastating criticisms of the record of the Christian church? The answer is not to abandon the Christian faith, because that would leave us with neither the standards nor the resources to make correction. Instead we should move to a fuller and deeper grasp of what Christianity is.” – Tim Keller, The Reason for God  #skeptics #atheist #God #bible

“Extremism and fanaticism, which lead to injustice and oppression, are a constant danger within any body of religious believers. For Christians, however, the antidote is not to tone down and moderate their faith, but rather to grasp a fuller and truer faith in Christ.” – Tim Keller, The Reason for God  #skeptics #atheist #God #bible

“Think of people you consider fanatical. They’re overbearing, self-righteous, opinionated, insensitive, and harsh. Why? It’s not because they are too Christian but because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving, or understanding—as Christ was.” – Tim Keller, The Reason for God  #skeptics #atheist #God #bible

”Violence done in the name of Christianity is a terrible reality and must be both addressed and redressed. There is no excusing it. In the twentieth century, however, violence has been inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. Societies that have rid themselves of all religion have been just as oppressive as those steeped in it. We can only conclude that there is some violent impulse so deeply rooted in the human heart that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs of a particular society might be—whether socialist or capitalist, whether religious or irreligious, whether individualistic or hierarchical. Ultimately, then, the fact of violence and warfare in a society is no necessary refutation of the prevailing beliefs of that society.” – Tim Keller, The Reason for God  #skeptics #atheist #God #bible

“A central message of the Bible is that we can only have a relationship with God by sheer grace. Our moral efforts are too feeble and falsely motivated to ever merit salvation. Jesus, through his death and resurrection, has provided salvation for us, which we receive as a gift.” – Tim Keller, The Reason for God  #skeptics #atheist #God #bible

“In many areas of life, freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones, the liberating restrictions. Those that fit with the reality of our nature and the world produce greater power and scope for our abilities and a deeper joy and fulfillment. Experimentation, risk, and making mistakes bring growth only if, over time, they show us our limits as well as our abilities. If we only grow intellectually, vocationally, and physically through judicious constraints—why would it not also be true for spiritual and moral growth? Instead of insisting on freedom to create spiritual reality, shouldn’t we be seeking to discover it and disciplining ourselves to live according to it?” – Tim Keller, The Reason for God  #skeptics #atheist #God #bible

Debate Aftermath: Delighting Grace Interviews Bro. Conley of TrueIglesia.org

Two weeks after the debate between Christian apologist Dr. James White and INC minister Joe Ventilacion, we can still feel the heat of it as discussions spills over the social media about this religious group in the Philippines. In this interview, we will talk to from someone who witnessed the debate first hand. Conley of True Iglesia Ministry will  fill us in with the behind the scenes on this Trinity Debate.

By the way, you might want to check my first interview with Bro. Conley about True Iglesia by clicking this link: https://delightinggrace.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/finding-the-true-church-delighting-grace-interviews-conley-of-trueiglesia-org/
Delighting Grace: First off we from the Philippines is quite clueless of this debate. So we want to know how this debate came about?

Bro. Conley: In 2011, the Iglesia Ni Cristo bought the small ghost town of [Scenic, South Dakota]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenic,_South_Dakota), about an hour away from [Rapid City]. It was not clear what they intended to do with the town and it remains unclear what their plans are. I’m not convinced they have clear plans; however, they have taken this venture seriously enough to send Joe Ventilacion, their principal debator, to be the resident minister at the closest locale.

As a side note, in the past, Ventilacion has gone by “Jose”, but has recently started going by “Joe”. The whole church seems to be adopting more culturally sensitive branding. In English-speaking regions, I see their banners more frequently have “Church of Christ” on them than they used to.

Continuing on, the [South Dakota Apologetics]( http://sdapologetics.com/) group encountered the INC at a yearly Christian music festival in Rapid City, spoke with them, and quickly discovered that their beliefs were way outside the pale of orthodoxy, especially in regards to the Trinity. They additionally discovered that the INC had been engaging the Native American population in the area, adding confusion about Christianity to the mission field. SD Apologetics asked Ventilacion if he would be willing to debate (he was), and they asked White if he would be willing to come debate (he was). In 2014, my friend Nic (who also works on True Iglesia) and I had asked Dr. White if he would be willing to debate the INC, and at the time, he said no. However, I think the personal appeal about the damage the INC was doing in the region spoke to Dr. White’s heart and he responded.

Delighting Grace: I see. How was the crowd before, during and after the debate? Do you feel some sort of heat in the air or is the room so quite?

Bro. Conley: Before the debate, the INC crowd was somewhat aggressive. Nic and I had banners and tracts that advertised True Iglesia, and this made many of them quite upset. Several came over to us and told us that our tracts were untruthful. We asked what was untruthful, but no on was able to produce a clear answer. One man said that the comic portrays the typical member as never reading the Bible, but he reads the Bible every day. When I asked him what book of the Bible he had been reading lately, he didn’t have an answer.

Several people stole tracts when we weren’t looking. There is a post on FB from an INC member admitting to this. Someone else saw tracts in a trashcan cut up with scissors. Many would come by and take a handful of tracts at a time. We would say “Isa lang po!”, and they might put one back, but they would run away with several.
During the debate, the atmosphere was intense as well. The recording does not pick up too much of it, but the INC audience had some significant responses at various points. In addition to answer the Ventilacion’s questions, they would say “aww” at the end of every cross examination, as though if he had had one more minute, Ventilacion would have been able to defeat White.

After the debate, unfortunately, the INC members seemed to feel that they had won. I spoke with several who said they were very happy with how it went. When I would ask people why they felt it went well, the most common answer I got was “Dr. White was not even able to find the word ‘Trinity’ in the Bible!” Of course, that wasn’t the point of the debate. The word “Bible” is not even in the Bible. I am praying that a few open minded people will have heard the truth despite this tendency of the INC to shut their ears and declare victory.

Delighting Grace: Wow. What was your first impression of JV as the debate begins? How about James White is he tense or relax?
Bro. Conley: I only encountered Dr. White before the debate, not Mr. Ventilacion. White has debated over 150 times, so he was focused, calm, and ready. During White’s opening statement, Ventilacion often made what appeared to be nervous smiles. If you listened to the debate, you will know that in the opening statement, White short-circuited all the arguments that Ventilacion would make. White very clearly said that if the focus was on proving monotheism or that there are distinctions between the Father and the Son, it would show that Ventilacion has no idea what was being discussed. Of course, this was the entirety of Ventilacion’s argument. White said that if John 17:3 were to be brought up, it would show that Ventilacion was not engaging the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, this is where he immediately went.
Delighting Grace: In one point of the debate, JV told the crowd that INC doesn’t base their doctrine on grammar. Some of us was shocked with that. What’s your reaction with that statement as you sat there?

Bro. Conley: That was a pretty incredible gaff, but I understand what Ventilacion meant. Basically, he is saying that there are concerns to consider in addition to grammar that may require us to have some flexibility with how we read Scripture. However, it really is true that the INC’s presuppositions are so incredibly strong that they are not willing to allow the Bible to speak for itself; they demand what it must say. It is not merely that they have concerns in addition to grammar, but that at many points they are willing to entirely discard with grammar. If we don’t let God speak for himself, all we have are the words of men.
Delighting Grace: Did you get to talk to some INC members in that debate?
Bro. Conley: Yes! Because INC members believe that only a minister can explain the Bible, debates are one of the few times that they open up to discuss their faith. I was very happy for this opportunity.

Most of the members I spoke to were very hostile, especially the older ones. A lot of the conversations I had were similar to the one about Bible reading that I described earlier. Another question I would often ask is “what is the gospel”? I’ve never had an INC member—even an INC minister—provide an answer, so it gives me a good opportunity to explain that the gospel is the good news that even though we are sinners incapable of doing anything that could in any way merit salvation, God sent his Son to die so that those who trust in him alone for their salvation (not the church, not baptism, etc.) can have eternal life.

On the other hand, the younger INC members were very friendly. One commented that she liked my shirt (it has a Filipino flag design). Another discussed Nic’s camera with him. However, only one that I spoke to seemed truly open. He was a teenager who was trying to figure out whether or not he would stay in the INC. I told him an open mind is a good mind. I’ve been praying for him.
Delighting Grace: Will be praying for that teen. What’s your favorite moment of the debate and why?
Bro. Conley: I’d have to say it was the gospel presentations. Not only did White explain why the Trinity is biblical, he explained why it is essential to the gospel. If you don’t have the true Jesus, you do not have a Jesus that saves. If you do not believe that Jesus is the great I AM, you will die in your sins (Joh 8:24).

Other moments include the very memorable “we do not base our doctrine on grammar” gaff, and the discussion about Hebrews 1:10-12. The last time I spoke to you, I had mentioned that I believe this to be the most powerful passage when discussing the deity of Christ with the INC. They have no answer to explain why Jesus is said to be the eternal one who created the heavens and the earth in that passage. They have no scripted response. Ventilacion was unable to do anything except avoid the question.
Delighting Grace: I see that your ministry or website, True Iglesia is there on the location of the debate. Which is cool by the way. So how did you prepare to make your ministry presence be felt by those attending?
Bro. Conley: Nic and I coordinated with SD Apologetics in order to work alongside them as associate members. My wife (who did all the art for the comic) made a couple of banners that we could put up, and she also ordered a batch of printed versions of the comic. Nic and I also recorded [a pre-debate podcast episode]( http://www.regularreformed.com/2017/03/28/episode-40-true-iglesia/) with the Regular Reformed Guys. I was astounded at how many INC members and non-members alike had listened to that episode prior to coming to the debate. A lot of people used it in order to prepare. Even Dr. White said he listened to it multiple times in order to prepare, so I am very thankful to the Regular Reformed Guys for asking us on to their show.
Delighting Grace: Wow that so great! True Iglesia is an awesome website in reaching out INC.Also the social media accounts of True Iglesia is valuable specially during the debate. How did it do in terms views and visitors both website and social media? What are the reactions of the readers and followers of your platforms?
Bro. Conley: The traffic we received wasn’t quite what we had during the INC centennial in 2014, but it has been significant. We are still currently receiving about 8x the traffic that we normally get.

We have received a few encouraging responses from fellow Christians telling us they’ve been blessed by our efforts. From the INC, we are largely getting hostile comments, even several deceitful comments. One group published a fake quote from SD Apologetics conceding victory. Another person posted a picture of White talking to Ventilacion and claimed that Dr. White had decided to convert and wanted to sign up for INC Bible studies.
Delighting Grace: I followed those forgeries over Facebook. How important is this debate for Christians and to INC members?
Bro. Conley: For the Christians around Rapid City, they considered this a very important opportunity to engage with their neighbors whose beliefs they were unaware of. They were all very pleased to meet and speak to INC members.
For the INC, the event seemed to have a far greater importance. The way they brought so many people and hyped up the event, I am under the impression that they are using this event to give their organization some sort of legitimacy. I was told by one member that they had been teaching on the Trinity and talking about the debate for weeks. Given that all their members are required to have regular attendance, and all their worship services have synchronized content, that means that every member was hearing about this. They additionally associate Scenic, SD with some secret plan of God, so they likely see this event as a sign of something to come for that venture.
Delighting Grace: How can a Christian make much of this debate as they study God’s Word and do apologetics?
Bro. Conley: There are several takeaways I would offer:

1. 
   The gospel is of prime importance when defending the faith. Evangelism cannot be divorced from apologetics.
2. 
   Truthfulness is key to the Christian walk. Some consider it acceptable to bend the truth when defending the faith, but that gives a bad testimony to Christ. The distinction between White and Ventilacion was clear in this regard. The debate trickery of false dichotomies and interruptions was strong on the INC side.
3. 
   To those seriously considering apologetics or ministry in general, it is important to know the original languages. They are frequently abused, so it is good to have a firm handle on them.
4. 
   Beyond this, I imagine many Christian had not heard several of the arguments that Dr. White made. I would recommend going back and walking through them (2Pe 1; Joh 12; Heb 1; Php 2).Delighting Grace: Those takeaways are great. One last question and its a biggie. This is a burning question for us all, do you think their will be a round 2 of the debate?

Bro. Conley: I hope so! The next day after the debate, Dr. White spoke with Mr. Ventilacion, and Ventilacion said that if they would do a debate in San Diego, he could bring 3,000 people. However, it is not a simple task to debate the INC since it is not easy to study the INC. Because their clearest material is only accessible to the ministers, in order to study them, you have to wade through hundreds of magazines and videos, or attend Bible studies in person. That’s the route I took, and it consumed a large portion of my time. Dr. White is a busy man, and he said he would only be willing to consider it if they would let him have a copy of their book titled The Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. They refused to do so. We can pray that someone would provide him a copy anyway! Maybe we can have an even bigger round 2 then. I’m hoping for a different topic, like whether you need a messenger in order to understand the Bible, whether official church membership is necessary for salvation, or how one can have peace with God. [As of this writing, by God’s grace, South Dakota Apologetics have obtained the said book.]
Delighting Grace: Again thank you Bro. Conley for this interview. So guys check out True Iglesia at www.trueiglesia.org. Read comicbook which is awesome. And oh dont forget to watch the debate by clicking this link: https://youtu.be/ZnElgAnN414