Trent Horn debate with James White: watch here!

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lenten_ashes said:
Agreed. He would be a valuable asset if this ever happened. I honestly don’t know how someone with that amount of formal education and level of intellect can be a Calvinist - I understand maybe protestant as you cant fathom some Church teaching, but not Calvinism, that is a horrible belief system that contradicts the bible, 2000 years of Church teaching and common sense.

Thing is, his sister Patty is a Catholic convert and to make matters worse, some on the Catholic side have taken jabs at him for this, so I think at this point it has become personal.
Click to expand...
Anything is possible with the power of the Holy Spirit. Dr. David Anders was a Calvinist and he came home. I remember him saying it was an intellectual battle trying to get around all of the verses he couldn’t interpret without causing contradictions. Then he said one day I realized if I became Catholic all of these contradictions go away. I love his Called to Communion show learn something new every episode.
 
It’s a slow go. Took me forever to get through Dr. White’s opening statement. I finally figured out why I have such a hard time listening to White. He does it in all his debates. He starts off saying his central issue is:
God will not fail to save each and every one of His elect people. None shall be lost. This is the thesis I will be defending this evening. Which he goes on to say this is very different from the common “Once Saved, Always Saved”. Other than these 2 statements he never goes on to say how they are different. In fact he gives the same Bible quotes used by OSAS. The only reason he does it, is so he can later say no what you are referring to is OSAS, that is not what I am talking about here. He did the exact same thing in the Sola Scriptura debate.

He goes on to say the Blessed man is the one imputed to Christ and according to Paul every single believer in Christ is that Blessed man.

I wish Dr. White would tell us what is the difference between OSAS and Once Elect Always Elect??? Just because you change a word doesn’t change the meaning.

That’s why it is so difficult for me to listen to him, I swear he is preaching to the uninformed who can’t see how he makes little changes or emphasizes words to make it sound like it is fact. He can makes statements that everyone who believes in Christ is Blessed. Then go onto say well accept for you Catholics because you don’t believe in penal substitutionary attonment, which by the way is unbiblical but you can’t prove it because if you do I will just change my terminology.

One hour to go :banghead:
 
MT1926 said:
It’s a slow go. Took me forever to get through Dr. White’s opening statement. I finally figured out why I have such a hard time listening to White. He does it in all his debates. He starts off saying his central issue is:
God will not fail to save each and every one of His elect people. None shall be lost. This is the thesis I will be defending this evening. Which he goes on to say this is very different from the common “Once Saved, Always Saved”. Other than these 2 statements he never goes on to say how they are different. In fact he gives the same Bible quotes used by OSAS. The only reason he does it, is so he can later say no what you are referring to is OSAS, that is not what I am talking about here. He did the exact same thing in the Sola Scriptura debate.

He goes on to say the Blessed man is the one imputed to Christ and according to Paul every single believer in Christ is that Blessed man.

I wish Dr. White would tell us what is the difference between OSAS and Once Elect Always Elect??? Just because you change a word doesn’t change the meaning.

That’s why it is so difficult for me to listen to him, I swear he is preaching to the uninformed who can’t see how he makes little changes or emphasizes words to make it sound like it is fact. He can makes statements that everyone who believes in Christ is Blessed. Then go onto say well accept for you Catholics because you don’t believe in penal substitutionary attonment, which by the way is unbiblical but you can’t prove it because if you do I will just change my terminology.

One hour to go :banghead:
Click to expand...
Very trenchant insights! 👍
 
MT1926 said:
It’s a slow go. Took me forever to get through Dr. White’s opening statement. I finally figured out why I have such a hard time listening to White. He does it in all his debates. every single believer in Christ is that Blessed man.

I wish Dr. White would tell us what is the difference between OSAS and Once Elect Always Elect??? Just because you change a word doesn’t change the meaning.

That’s why it is so difficult for me to listen to him, I swear he is preaching to the uninformed who can’t see how he makes little changes or emphasizes words to make it sound like it is fact. He can makes statements that everyone who believes in Christ is Blessed. Then go onto say well accept for you Catholics because you don’t believe in penal substitutionary attonment, which by the way is unbiblical but you can’t prove it because if you do I will just change my terminology.

One hour to go :banghead:
Click to expand...
I read some facebook page comments from the CA page that Trent did good overall, especially the closing, but did not do good with the Q and A portion due to White’s experience.
 
PRmerger said:
Debate is now on youtube:

youtube.com/watch?v=oFs3vnTlnnw&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...
This is just part 1…opening and rebuttal.

I think Trent held his own, citing the cutting of branches in Romans and the passage in Hebrews in his rebuttal. I think James W offered his interpretation of the passages he cited. Trent’s passages, especially Romans on the branches, did not really need much interpretation…pretty much self explanatory I would say.

Can’t wait for part 2.
 
Watched live but feel asleep bfore Q&A. Hope its uploaded soon
 
Does anyone know what this “prescriptive/descriptive” application means?

White says “The descriptive way allows for the passages I presented to be true and then applies them to the application passages as to how Christians live their lives.”

I understand the definitions of these words but, he gives no reasoning, other than that is the only way his interpretation can be true.

However, how does he know how his descriptive passages get applied to the prescriptive passages? Especially when he is taking St. Paul’s descriptions and applying them to the Gospels (Jesus teachings). In my mind it would be the other way around. White keeps saying you Catholics put man above Jesus then goes and puts St. Paul’s words as authority over Christ’s words?
 
MT1926 said:
Does anyone know what this “prescriptive/descriptive” application means?

White says “The descriptive way allows for the passages I presented to be true and then applies them to the application passages as to how Christians live their lives.”

I understand the definitions of these words but, he gives no reasoning, other than that is the only way his interpretation can be true.

However, how does he know how his descriptive passages get applied to the prescriptive passages? Especially when he is taking St. Paul’s descriptions and applying them to the Gospels (Jesus teachings). In my mind it would be the other way around. White keeps saying you Catholics put man above Jesus then goes and puts St. Paul’s words as authority over Christ’s words?
Click to expand...
It’s all a part of his convoluted, nonsensical magic act.

He wants the world to believe that because he has a PhD, the text doesn’t actually say what it actually says. Just trust him and his formula because he said so.😛

No thanks, Dr. White. I’ll go with the brain and eyes God gave me and trust the Church that Jesus left for us.
 
So I watched the 2nd half of the debate, finally. 🙂

I have to say that I thought Trent mopped the floor with Dr. White. But I am obviously a biased Catholic.

Are there any sort of, on the fence folks who watched it and would like to provide their thoughts?

Thank you
 
Thanks for the info. PRmerger.

I watched a little of it already and I see James White is up to his old errors in this area.

He assumes if you are “born again” you are automatically one of “the elect”.

This is a sneaky bait and switch.

I’ve seen him called on it in the past.

Maybe Trent Horn will call him on it too (I haven’t seen enough of the debate yet to know).

I’ll definitely be watching this debate though.

Thanks again for posting the updated information.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
So I watched the 2nd half of the debate, finally. 🙂

I have to say that I thought Trent mopped the floor with Dr. White. But I am obviously a biased Catholic.

Are there any sort of, on the fence folks who watched it and would like to provide their thoughts?

Thank you
Click to expand...
I tend to agree here, but like you, I am biased. There were a few points Trent made that seem to be no brainers to me, but of course Dr. White made his illogical arguments against them.

The “descriptive vs prescriptive” stuff seems like it’s something White made up and only he knows when to apply either one. This is poor form on all parts and I think Trent should have pressed him more on this, and maybe one day someone will.

I think the Q and A portion was balanced, as each had a few tough questions and a few softballs thrown their way.

Closing Statements were easily owned by Trent, in which he neatly summed up his arguments, which crushed everything White already did.

Earlier I said I don’t really have an issue with James White other than he’s not one of us, and I maintain that. He is a very intelligent man, and I feel he’s also a very faith-filled man who really believes what he’s saying, so while I feel these debates are fun to watch and good for PR, we still need to pray that he realizes what’s going on, and joins us on the right side of the river.

On a different note, and kinda random, but did he lose a lot of weight? I seem to remember that he was a good bit bigger in his younger days.
 
ShanPO said:
The “descriptive vs prescriptive” stuff seems like it’s something White made up and only he knows when to apply either one.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

And if someone disagrees with him, are they permitted to use their own intellect, informed by grace, to come to a different understanding of that particular verse?

JW: That verse is descriptive!
Christian: I disagree with you. I think it’s prescriptive!

JW has 2 options:
  1. Of course, if that’s what you’ve determined, after prayer and grace, then, that’s correct, and you can indeed lose your salvation.
  2. Nope. You are not permitted to interpret that verse in that way.
Now, if he opts for #2, then what is he but the magisterium to this disagreeing Christian, right?

IOW: as a parallel, he is doing to this Christian exactly what he opposes the Catholic Church doing to him.
 
ShanPO said:
I tend to agree here, but like you, I am biased. There were a few points Trent made that seem to be no brainers to me, but of course Dr. White made his illogical arguments against them.

The “descriptive vs prescriptive” stuff seems like it’s something White made up and only he knows when to apply either one. This is poor form on all parts and I think Trent should have pressed him more on this, and maybe one day someone will.

I think the Q and A portion was balanced, as each had a few tough questions and a few softballs thrown their way.

Closing Statements were easily owned by Trent, in which he neatly summed up his arguments, which crushed everything White already did.

Earlier I said I don’t really have an issue with James White other than he’s not one of us, and I maintain that. He is a very intelligent man, and I feel he’s also a very faith-filled man who really believes what he’s saying, so while I feel these debates are fun to watch and good for PR, we still need to pray that he realizes what’s going on, and joins us on the right side of the river.

On a different note, and kinda random, but did he lose a lot of weight? I seem to remember that he was a good bit bigger in his younger days.
Click to expand...
He did lose weight. He was skinny with some hair in the 90’s, then ballooned some i think in mid 2000’s then back to being skinny.

Agree on his descriptive/prescriptive methodology. I don’t think this is a thing, it’s just something he concocted to fit his own theological presuppositions. I thought Horn pointed that out well…it isn’t about what the Bible actually says for White, it’s about making it say what his theology wants it to say…

Anyway, I think what White is attempting to say is that Catholics are not interpreting this in the Spirit of the text like it was intended to be. He’s wrong of course, it’s a Catholic book not a Calvinist’s book, but that’s his angle, imo
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Anyway, I think what White is attempting to say is that Catholics are not interpreting this in the Spirit of the text like it was intended to be.
Click to expand...
Yet he’s opposed to the CC telling him (and other Christians) that he is not interpreting this in the Spirit of the text like it was intended.

 
ShanPO said:
I tend to agree here, but like you, I am biased. There were a few points Trent made that seem to be no brainers to me, but of course Dr. White made his illogical arguments against them.

The “descriptive vs prescriptive” stuff seems like it’s something White made up and only he knows when to apply either one. This is poor form on all parts and I think Trent should have pressed him more on this, and maybe one day someone will.

I think the Q and A portion was balanced, as each had a few tough questions and a few softballs thrown their way.

Closing Statements were easily owned by Trent, in which he neatly summed up his arguments, which crushed everything White already did.

Earlier I said I don’t really have an issue with James White other than he’s not one of us, and I maintain that. He is a very intelligent man, and I feel he’s also a very faith-filled man who really believes what he’s saying, so while I feel these debates are fun to watch and good for PR, we still need to pray that he realizes what’s going on, and joins us on the right side of the river.

On a different note, and kinda random, but did he lose a lot of weight? I seem to remember that he was a good bit bigger in his younger days.
Click to expand...
This is at the 1:26 point of the exchange, Trent citing Heb 10:28-29:

28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

When I read this, I come the understanding that the “he” is us, man. JW says that the “he” is Jesus…:eek:

Does anyone get the sense that the “he” is man, and not Jesus?

Trent pointed out that this is seems like a minority view…🤷
 
pablope said:
This is at the 1:26 point of the exchange, Trent citing Heb 10:28-29:

28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

When I read this, I come the understanding that the “he” is us, man. JW says that the “he” is Jesus…:eek:

Does anyone get the sense that the “he” is man, and not Jesus?

Trent pointed out that this is seems like a minority view…🤷
Click to expand...
That whole exchange had me scratching my head. Basically JW was saying that Jesus was sanctified by Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top