Firstly I see numerous other posters joined in here. You all must understand I neither have the stamina or time to answer every one. The extent to what my mere little opinionated post regarding opinions has brought, is somewhat mind blowing. I referred it to a certain poster whom I have conversed with many times and that was the intent.
You have to admit, though, that you made an interesting assertion, and one that pricked up more than a couple ears!
I was not just stating that we are not proficient in Greek as an independent statement.
Hmm… that
does seem to be the gist of your assertion, though. You (perhaps unwittingly?) made what’s known as an ‘appeal to authority’, so we’re trying to understand what the particular ‘authority’ is that you’re relying upon. Is it White’s grasp of the Greek language? If so, it should be blindingly easy to state the requirement. (It might take a certain degree of skill to
apply it, of course, but I think we’re just interested in what makes the assertion of a distinction between “prescriptive” and “descriptive” – as White posits it – a reasonable heuristic.) If White’s point is valid, it should be relatively easy to substantiate. If the claim is merely “you’re not White, so you can’t possibly understand his argument”, then that’s an argument that simply doesn’t hold up.
- Why did Trent not challenge that? - And also, why later on even referring to his own statements in the same way? So my question isn’t anything to do with a limitation on us when trying to understand Scripture, that’s a very funny thing to say to a Protestant. But rather that someone who is obviously proficient in many things, have all the reasons to want to challenge that, but didn’t? Maybe he didn’t agree with it, but that just means he didn’t think it mattered.
That was my take on it. Horn was ignoring White’s unsubstantiated assertion as the non-starter that it is. He
might have responded “quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”; but, his lack of response tends to lead in that direction, implicitly.
If you have the time to discuss the question, though, it’s a good one to address in the context of the debate. After all, the crux of the “prescriptive vs descriptive” assertion is that it’s purely an interpretative stance. So… who has the authority to make this assertion – and on whose authority may we discard it? If we accept the assertion on its face, who has the authority to categorize verses as ‘prescriptive’ or ‘descriptive’? As in many debates between Catholics and non-Catholics – especially in debates that hinge on interpretative stances – this one comes down to the question “upon what authority do you interpret Scripture the way you do, and why should I interpret it that way myself?”
)