Trent Horn debate with James White: watch here!

[MichaelP3]

Of course. I never “rely on other posters for my point all the way.”

So I think we can agree that any reference to “Professors in Greek” was quite irrelevant.

No one needs to be “Professors in Greek” in order to read and interpret the Scriptures.

All the Protestant reformers would be turning over in their graves if that were your point, Michael.

And at this point I would have hoped we got to the point that that was not the point.

So the rest of my post?

 

[PRmerger]

I think, unless Michael can offer a refutation, this point has been made quite incontrovertible by all of us Catholics here:

JW’s assertion that there’s prescriptive and descriptive ways to interpret Scripture is a man-made tradition.

We have no way to know how JW would read a verse and determine if it’s prescriptive or descriptive.

And we have no way to decide, should there be a disagreement on JW’s view, who is correct.

Unless…

we agree that the magisterium has authority.

 

[MichaelP3]

I think, unless Michael can offer a refutation, this point has been made quite incontrovertible by all of us Catholics here:

JW’s assertion that there’s prescriptive and descriptive ways to interpret Scripture is a man-made tradition.

We have no way to know how JW would read a verse and determine if it’s prescriptive or descriptive.

And we have no way to decide, should there be a disagreement on JW’s view, who is correct.

Unless…

we agree that the magisterium has authority.

Can’t disagree with you there!

(PS. You still didn’t answer my question asked 7 times?)

 

[PRmerger]

Can’t disagree with you there!

Well, that’s a very Catholic thing for you to endorse.

We need a magisterium then.

 

[PRmerger]

So Merger, why did Trent not challenge this?

I have no idea.

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct this is not a “White idea” in fact everything I found pretty much contradicts White’s use of the prescriptive/descriptive theology.

Interesting.

The writers actually pointed out that people will dismissively make everything descriptive. (as White does).

Yep.

I think I liked best what this one writer said.

So I guess the best way I can summarize this post is as follows: If you’re never being challenged to grow, you’re making everything descriptive; if you’re being challenged to stab someone in the stomach until the dung falls out, you’re making everything prescriptive. Somewhere, in the middle, is where sweetness and light dwell.

I think he summed up the elect White (who believes if we think Jesus is challenging us to be better we aren’t saved) pretty well with that statement.

#truth

 

[MichaelP3]

Well, that’s a very Catholic thing for you to endorse.

We need a magisterium then.

You know perfectly well what I meant But that is a topic for another thread and we discuss it so many times at Non-Catholic forums. I invite you

I have no idea.

Me neither.

You see Merger. This still gives me hope we can have a good correspondence in future. You don’t need to agree with me, but we can be nice.

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t need to agree with me, but we can be nice.

Oh, I am always nice, Michael. Always.

 

[MT1926]

Not to jump into the middle of the 2 of you again. But I believe Trent did address this. He didn’t specifically address the prescriptive/descriptive theology, however if you listen to his rebuttal he went through each one of White’s descriptive verses and rebutted why they could not be descriptive. I think if he tried to call White out on how he says everything is descriptive, it would have changed the entire debate from salvation to sola scriptura.

Anyhow, I am glad that you finally pointed me to where I can find more info on this prescriptive/descriptive nonsense.

 

[PRmerger]

Not to jump into the middle of the 2 of you again.

Just so you know, in a forum discussion, there’s no such thing as jumping in to the middle of 2 people’s dialogue.

All members are welcome and, indeed, encouraged, to give their opinions.

 

[MichaelP3]

Not to jump into the middle of the 2 of you again. But I believe Trent did address this. He didn’t specifically address the prescriptive/descriptive theology, however if you listen to his rebuttal he went through each one of White’s descriptive verses and rebutted why they could not be descriptive. I think if he tried to call White out on how he says everything is descriptive, it would have changed the entire debate from salvation to sola scriptura.

Anyhow, I am glad that you finally pointed me to where I can find more info on this prescriptive/descriptive nonsense.

Google is your friend!

 

[MT1926]

Just so you know, in a forum discussion, there’s no such thing as jumping in to the middle of 2 people’s dialogue.

All members are welcome and, indeed, encouraged, to give their opinions.

Thank you,

Got an update. I am listening to the debate while I’m working on my bills and Trent actually called White out and debunked the prescriptive/descriptive at the 1:10:22 mark.

He points out that White started with his theology of monergism to get to the descriptive passages and never gave a method of how he got there. He also states that this puts White in the predicament that he now has to prove that ever single prescriptive passage is actually descriptive or it proves he is not on authoritative ground.

I have to be honest the first time through I concentrated on White’s arguments and didn’t really listen to what Trent has to say. I just wanted to know what the heck this prescriptive/descriptive was.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you,

Got an update. I am listening to the debate while I’m working on my bills and Trent actually called White out and debunked the prescriptive/descriptive at the 1:10:22 mark.

He points out that White started with his theology of monergism to get to the descriptive passages and never gave a method of how he got there. He also states that this puts White in the predicament that he now has to prove that ever single prescriptive passage is actually descriptive or it proves he is not on authoritative ground.

I have to be honest the first time through I concentrated on White’s arguments and didn’t really listen to what Trent has to say. I just wanted to know what the heck this prescriptive/descriptive was.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have less respect for White now as I have seen a few dialogues he had with Muslims, and this guy is much more friendly with them than he is with Trinitarian Catholic brothers in Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

I would hate to have to refer to it a fifth (5th) time.

I realize this is a reply to PRmerger, whom I don’t know, so I won’t claim to know what y’all are discussing; for FWIW some would say that you do not (don’t) have to refer to it a fifth time, because of free will.

 

[MT1926]

I realize this is a reply to PRmerger, whom I don’t know, so I won’t claim to know what y’all are discussing; for FWIW some would say that you do not (don’t) have to refer to it a fifth time, because of free will.

Now this depends. According to Dr. White if you are one of the elect you lose you free will and would have to refer to it a fifth time. :yup:

 

[MichaelP3]

Now this depends. According to Dr. White if you are one of the elect you lose you free will and would have to refer to it a fifth time. :yup:

Not so sure if that depends on elect or not “according to the Reformed view”. Not that I am advocating this, please don’t assume that, but maybe google it first. As I stated, google IS YOUR FRIEND. Well with that statement it seems you need to.

But to the point of Peter J, I’m sure he meant it in a “nice” manner. As I know his posts and see it as the jest it is meant to be.

As to me on this thread, I see my correspondence with Merger as concluded

 

[Peter_J]

As to me on this thread, I see my correspondence with Merger as concluded

Ah, I guess I should have seen that coming. As they say, fifth time is the charm.

Incidentally I’m guessing MT was jesting too. But don’t quote me on that – nothing surprises me on discussion forums anymore.

 

[MT1926]

Not so sure if that depends on elect or not “according to the Reformed view”. Not that I am advocating this, please don’t assume that, but maybe google it first. As I stated, google IS YOUR FRIEND. Well with that statement it seems you need to.

But to the point of Peter J, I’m sure he meant it in a “nice” manner. As I know his posts and see it as the jest it is meant to be.

As to me on this thread, I see my correspondence with Merger as concluded

Sorry if I offended you, I was speaking directly about Dr. White’s view of free will and was not aiming it at you.

Not so sure if I can google it, because I wasn’t even speaking of the reformed view. I have listened to Dr. White in several debates and I don’t believe Dr. White even agrees with the reformed view. He seems to believe in his own view about the elect. He has yet to define who the elect are so I can only conclude that only those that agree with him are the elect.

 

[MichaelP3]

Sorry if I offended you, I was speaking directly about Dr. White’s view of free will and was not aiming it at you.

Not so sure if I can google it, because I wasn’t even speaking of the reformed view. I have listened to Dr. White in several debates and I don’t believe Dr. White even agrees with the reformed view. He seems to believe in his own view about the elect. He has yet to define who the elect are so I can only conclude that only those that agree with him are the elect.

Fair enough. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

I have listened to every debate of White I could find but can’t say I listened to them all. If this is truly what he said/meant, well it is not the Reformed view. But also, the Reformed view is not just a quick read, so don’t just go on what you hear from White to understand it.

Regards