Trent Horn debate with James White: watch here!

[MT1926]

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

I will be honest with you, I can’t really say I know the reformed view. I’ve been studying 2 to 4 hours a day for a couple years now and don’t fully understand the Catholic view as of yet. The only think I do know is Jesus did establish a Church. I don’t know this because I was told, I know because it is the only thing that makes sense. I run a business, I have a wife and 5 kids and I own a farm, we raise sheep. All of these have given me a view of God’s plan for salvation.
If I don’t have authority over my business, everyone would be able to work how they want and my business would be doomed to fail. If Jesus left us without an authority we will easily do what we want or convince ourselves of what we think He wants and not what He wants.
My family has shown me that God wants a family relationship with us. Families care for one another and spend time together. Families also have a father, like God is our Father. Fathers don’t want kids that sit back and say my dad is the greatest. They want kids that love. That work hard and care for their brothers and sisters.
My wife has taught me what sacrifice is. The struggles and the pain has opened my eyes to what St. Paul means when he says husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church.
Finally, my sheep have taught me why Jesus is the shepherd and we are the sheep. People think sheep are stupid. Far from it, they are quite intelligent when it comes to getting what they want. I think the real reason Jesus calls us sheep is because sheep are self centered. They will do what ever it takes to get what they want. I have seen them step on each other, trample their babies, head but, kick, push and nearly choke themselves to death just to get what they want.

Basically what I am saying is my life has shown me that God left us a Church, guiding us like visible shepherds to the truth. I also truly believe we are saved by grace through faith and good works. Nothing pleases me more than seeing my children help others I can’t imagine our God would want anything less.

Hope this doesn’t come across as a rant. I am interested in how others view salvation and try to keep an open mind. It’s just difficult listening to Dr. White because he just preaches what he believes and tells us what he believes the passages mean but doesn’t give us the why it’s descriptive and nothing is prescriptive.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

Basically what I am saying is my life has shown me that God left us a Church, guiding us like visible shepherds to the truth.

Yes, and when we separate ourselves from this Church, the Catholic Church, it leaves us in chaos and confusion–so much so that now there are tens of thousands of different denominations, which is the rotten fruit of the idea that one can read the Bible divorced from the lens of the Faith which gave us this Bible, the Catholic Church.

It’s just difficult listening to Dr. White because he just preaches what he believes and tells us what he believes the passages mean but doesn’t give us the why it’s descriptive and nothing is prescriptive.

God Bless

Right. And the inconsistent position he holds is that he says on one hand, “You [the CC] can’t tell others how to read the Bible!” while also saying “You [other Christians who disagree with him] are reading the Bible incorrectly!”

 

[MT1926]

I’ve been enjoying responding to others on the debate and wanted to post a reply I posted. I have an Ignatius Bible, but it doesn’t really get into the predestination undertones of John 6. Can you read through my reply and tell me if I’m Ok with what I said? or is my theology off? I don’t think I contradicted any Catholic teachings in what I wrote but would like some confirmation.

Thanks

I follow what you are saying but it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

I agree with the statement all given are persevered. That seems pretty plain with what John 6:39 says about the “elect”, as Dr. White would call them. However, If we back up and read verse 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." He doesn’t say he who is “given” to me. So it appears that there can also be a group of “non -elect” Christians that can also come to Jesus and if they believe and persevere to the end they to will be saved.

It just seems to me that the word given should be in a lot more verses or at least the first verse if the given (elect) are the only Christians Jesus is talking about here.

Also, after verse 39 is verse 40 which says the will of the Father (“elect”) are the, “every one who sees the Son and believes”. So if we are reading John 6 literally it could easily be interpreted that the only “elect” are the ones who physically saw Jesus (I’m thinking the Apostles).

You mention verse 44 as having no human work around. However, in verse 44 John says Jesus used the word draws not given. Those words have 2 different meanings. I agree that the word given means God handed them to Jesus. But here John uses the word draws showing us that there is another group of individuals, whom God gives that initial Grace to pull them near Jesus (but aren’t “given” to Jesus), it’s clear from the text that the drawn(non-elect) can also be saved.

Continue on and compare verses 45 and 46 which once again seems to be talking about 2 groups of individuals. Verse 45 everyone who has heard and learned (non-elect saved) comes to me. Verse 46 only the ones from God (the given elect) have seen the Father, which would be explained with verse 40 that tells us the elect are the ones who physically saw Jesus.

If we break down John 6 to be a literal interpretation as Dr. White suggests (and I don’t disagree), then we have to take what each verse says and not interpret the other verses based on our interpretation of verses 39 and 44.

It seems pretty clear from John’s writing that Jesus is speaking of 2 different groups of people in these verses, the elect Christians and the “persevering” Christians. Since no where in scripture does it give a guaranteed assurance that we are one of the given (elect), I am going with the explanation that the given are the Apostles (who physically saw Jesus) and we are the ones that God draws. Since we are drawn and not given it makes sense that we can freely walk away and lose our salvation, after we are initially drawn.

There are still other unanswered questions from John 6, but I think I’ve already asked quite a bit, so we will leave it here for now.

God Bless

 

[in_servitude]

Regarding Trent’s response to prescriptive and descriptive verses:

At 1:02:05 in Part II of this debate, Trent responds to White’s method of determining if a verse is prescriptive or descriptive.

How do you know if a warning in scripture describes what the elect will do? Whether prescribing: if you do this - you will be saved, if you do this, you will lose your salvation.

How does my opponent know? He knows because his theology does not allow any of the clear, common sense, on-the-face-readings [of the] verses, no matter how much they sound like genuine warnings that you can fall away. Because my opponent’s theology has to be true first, the bible has to fit it. [But, I say] Our theology should come from the bible, not the bible from our theology.

Here is a link that will take you to the point in the debate where Trent gave his response.

 

[PRmerger]

.Our theology should come from the bible, not the bible from our theology.

I must have missed that part of Trent’s response.

I think he misspoke.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

And the Church chose which texts reflected this good news…

Thus, the Bible does come from our theology.

The Tradition came first. Then came the Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

I must have missed that part of Trent’s response.

I think he misspoke.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

And the Church chose which texts reflected this good news…

Thus, the Bible does come from our theology.

The Tradition came first. Then came the Scripture.

Now, it’s true that if one professes to be a Bible Alone advocate, one cannot have the faith first, and then read the Scriptures to adapt to this theology.

 

[in_servitude]

I must have missed that part of Trent’s response.

I think he misspoke.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writing.

And the Church chose which texts reflected this good news…

Thus, the Bible does come from our theology.

The Tradition came first. Then came the Scripture.

Yes, and White made some hay from this in his very next comment (it happened to be time for his closing remarks.) But, Trent’s main point was that the way White decides what is prescriptive and what is descriptive follows his theology that one cannot lose salvation. One cannot establish which verses are prescriptive or descriptive on an objective basis. It is inherently subjective, as White readily admits.

I do think that Trent does a good job of arguing within the confines of what someone else views as their authority. White claims to look to the bible for authority. And, I think that if Trent had time, he’d be able to point out that a person who looks to the bible as their only authority should get their theology from the bible and not the other way around.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, and White made some hay from this in his very next comment (it happened to be time for his closing remarks.) But, Trent’s main point was that the way White decides what is prescriptive and what is descriptive follows his theology that one cannot lose salvation. One cannot establish which verses are prescriptive or descriptive on an objective basis. It is inherently subjective, as White readily admits.

I do think that Trent does a good job of arguing within the confines of what someone else views as their authority. White claims to look to the bible for authority. And, I think that if Trent had time, he’d be able to point out that a person who looks to the bible as their only authority should get their theology from the bible and not the other way around.

 

[Sr_Brando]

Now, it’s true that if one professes to be a Bible Alone advocate, one cannot have the faith first, and then read the Scriptures to adapt to this theology.

Sola Scriptura means, the only infallible authority today is the written word of God.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t eliminate other authorities in a Christian’s life. The doctrine just instructs us to remember all other authorities today are fallible.

Hence, during the days of Jesus and the other Apostles, Sola Scripture is not applicable and a straw man characterization. The written word of God was not the only sole infallible authority during Jesus’ life and the Apostles’ lives.

 

[Sr_Brando]

I honestly thought the debate was pretty even at first. After reviewing it more thoroughly, I have to side with James White’s position. Trent lost this one especially that statement, “Our theology should come from the bible. Not the bible from our theology.” That undermines his Catholic stance over all.
That is why James had to take note of it in his closing remarks. I think Trent will need to take that back, he is not protestant.

 

[Sr_Brando]

One last thing for now, I’ll be back on later, is the theme in this thread about the prescriptive and descriptive argument. The very same question was asked in the debate q/a time. I transcribed it below.
Part 2 - 1:00:54

Question: How do you determine if scripture is prescriptive or descriptive?
James: Consistency. The whole issue this evening is we have all these texts, many texts that I presented, that clearly, in their context, present Jesus saying, “I will not lose any of my people. I will sovereignly choose my people. The father sovereignly chooses people. I know my sheep.” By the way, sheep do not choose their own shepherd. Shepherds choose the sheep. Uh and so, "I’m not going to lose any of them. I give them eternal life. " “Well, it doesn’t necessarily say that they won’t jump out of his hand.” as if this has something to do with the exegesis of the text. You take these clear texts that are didactic in form and then you look at these other texts that are going, “Well this might mean this” or “It’s actually talking about something in the Christian life, but i-i-it could possibly apply to this.” And, in each one of them, I’ve given you a properly descriptive understanding. “He who endures to the end will be saved.” Why? Because, the faith that saves is the gift of the Holy Spirit of God and will endure. So, you simply allow that which is clear to determine that which is not.
Trent: How do you know if a warning in scripture describes what the elect will do whether prescribing, uh, you know, giving them say, “Hey, if you do this, you will be saved. If you do this, you will lose your salvation.” How does my opponent know? Well he knows because his theology does not allow any of the clear, common sense, on-the-face reading verses, ee, no matter how much they sound like genuine warnings that you could fall away, because my opponent’s theology has to be true first, the bible has to fit it. The. Our theology should come from the bible. Not the bible from our theology.

So James’ answer is pretty clear. The rule he uses is consistency in allowing clear didactic texts to interpret ambiguous texts. This is not theology.

Parables, analogies and metaphors fall into the category of being unclear. You need clear scripture, usually following right afterwards, to make sure you don’t misunderstand the parable, analogy and metaphor. That, I believe, is common sense. Anyone can do that if they try.

That’s why I think Trent missed his chance to rebuttal James’ answer to that question. James didn’t give a theological answer. He gave a normal Protestant Sola Scriptura answer on how to interpret the bible. Trent’s rebuttal to James’ answer to the question attacked the wrong hill in my opinion.

Oh, and lastly for this post, James White didn’t bring up the concept of descriptive or prescriptive texts of scripture. Trent did.

 

[MT1926]

Sola Scriptura means, the only infallible authority today is the written word of God.

The definition of the word infallible means incapable of making mistakes.

Making or not making a mistake is an active decision making process, something written can not be infallible, because it can not act or make decisions.

The Bible is inerrant, which means it contains no error. That is until fallible men pick it up and try to interpret it’s inerrant meaning. The only possible way of the Bible remaining inerrant is if Jesus left us an infallible authority to interpret it’s meaning.

Also, written words, even from God, can not have authority unless God left an authority to govern those words.

God Bless

 

[pablope]

Sola Scriptura means, the only infallible authority today is the written word of God.

Hmmm…really, first time I ever heard this definition. Can you provide source, and chapter and verse (scriptural support) where you got this definition?

Sola Scriptura doesn’t eliminate other authorities in a Christian’s life. The doctrine just instructs us to remember all other authorities today are fallible.

 

[MT1926]

One last thing for now, I’ll be back on later, is the theme in this thread about the prescriptive and descriptive argument. The very same question was asked in the debate q/a time. I transcribed it below.
Part 2 - 1:00:54

So James’ answer is pretty clear. The rule he uses is consistency in allowing clear didactic texts to interpret ambiguous texts. This is not theology.

Parables, analogies and metaphors fall into the category of being unclear. You need clear scripture, usually following right afterwards, to make sure you don’t misunderstand the parable, analogy and metaphor. That, I believe, is common sense. Anyone can do that if they try.

That’s why I think Trent missed his chance to rebuttal James’ answer to that question. James didn’t give a theological answer. He gave a normal Protestant Sola Scriptura answer on how to interpret the bible. Trent’s rebuttal to James’ answer to the question attacked the wrong hill in my opinion.

Oh, and lastly for this post, James White didn’t bring up the concept of descriptive or prescriptive texts of scripture. Trent did.

You might want to rewind a bit to the part where Dr. White says the descriptive way allows the passages HE presents to be true. Then we apply this to the application passages to see that they tell you how a Christian lives there life.

HUH? What kind of consistency is that?

I agree Trent should have jumped on him a bit more to give a better explaination but just because he didn’t doesn’t make Dr. White’s answer “pretty clear”. Personally I believe even if he did Dr. White still wouldn’t have given a good explanation. If the descriptive/prescriptive method of reading the Bible were so vital to understanding the Bible wouldn’t you think Dr. White would have an entire section of his web site dedicated to teaching this technique? How he comes to his conclusions is for him and him alone, he just wants the rest of us to follow him. If we follow Dr. White’s technique for descriptive/prescriptive basically all we do is take our passages, that we want to be true, and apply them to the passages that work against our theology. How does that make anything clear or help our fellow Christians?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

You might want to rewind a bit to the part where Dr. White says the descriptive way allows the passages HE presents to be true. Then we apply this to the application passages to see that they tell you how a Christian lives there life.

HUH? What kind of consistency is that?

I agree Trent should have jumped on him a bit more to give a better explaination but just because he didn’t doesn’t make Dr. White’s answer “pretty clear”. Personally I believe even if he did Dr. White still wouldn’t have given a good explanation. If the descriptive/prescriptive method of reading the Bible were so vital to understanding the Bible wouldn’t you think Dr. White would have an entire section of his web site dedicated to teaching this technique? How he comes to his conclusions is for him and him alone, he just wants the rest of us to follow him. If we follow Dr. White’s technique for descriptive/prescriptive basically all we do is take our passages, that we want to be true, and apply them to the passages that work against our theology. How does that make anything clear or help our fellow Christians?

Yeah, his argument wasn’t clear to me, it was convoluted.

And it sort of flies in the face of one of his primary pillars of faith, Sola Scriptura. I thought the bible was clear enough for the common man to read it and properly comprehend. But if i listen to White, ive got it all wrong and need a master’s in Divinity to have a shot at figuring this out.

 

[Duane1966]

I must have missed that part of Trent’s response.

I think he misspoke.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

And the Church chose which texts reflected this good news…

Thus, the Bible does come from our theology.

The Tradition came first. Then came the Scripture.

There is nothing wrong with what Trent said. He is trying to contrast two positions.

A tradition (Protestant) that formulated a multitude of theologies, and then tries to make the bible fit any of a number of theologies, to the point of ignoring the plain meaning of text, or ignoring text, or eliminating books, to try and make said theologies work.

A tradition (Catholic) that formulated a theology, that not one facet of it is contradicted by the text of Sacred Scripture.

What, in a nutshell, is the argument between Protestants and Catholics? We believe the other side is interpreting the Scriptures wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Sola Scriptura means, the only infallible authority today is the written word of God.

That’s not the definition of SS I’ve seen on this forum by other SS advocates.

Whose definition of SS should I believe?

Who is the authority that I can look to to see what the correct definition of SS is?

Sola Scriptura doesn’t eliminate other authorities in a Christian’s life. The doctrine just instructs us to remember all other authorities today are fallible.

Bible verse for this, please?

Hence, during the days of Jesus and the other Apostles, Sola Scripture is not applicable and a straw man characterization. The written word of God was not the only sole infallible authority during Jesus’ life and the Apostles’ lives.

Bible verse which states that SS was not applicable in Jesus’ time, but is applicable now, please.

 

[PRmerger]

There is nothing wrong with what Trent said. He is trying to contrast two positions.

A tradition (Protestant) that formulated a multitude of theologies, and then tries to make the bible fit any of a number of theologies, to the point of ignoring the plain meaning of text, or ignoring text, or eliminating books, to try and make said theologies work.

A tradition (Catholic) that formulated a theology, that not one facet of it is contradicted by the text of Sacred Scripture.

What, in a nutshell, is the argument between Protestants and Catholics? We believe the other side is interpreting the Scriptures wrong.

He was mistaken when he said this: “Our theology should come from the bible, not the bible from our theology.”

Our theology has never come from a book, no matter how holy.

Our theology has always come from Christ, through His Body, the Catholic Church.

And then the Bible reflects this theology.

 

[PRmerger]

So James’ answer is pretty clear. The rule he uses is consistency in allowing clear didactic texts to interpret ambiguous texts.

Where does the Bible tell us to do this?

 

[Duane1966]

He was mistaken when he said this: “Our theology should come from the bible, not the bible from our theology.”

Our theology has never come from a book, no matter how holy.

Our theology has always come from Christ, through His Body, the Catholic Church.

And then the Bible reflects this theology.

No. Listen carefully. He did not say our theology should only come from the bible.

If you are saying our theology should never come from the bible, then you face at least two problems.

1.) The Church has proclaimed that the Scripture is God’s word. So why ignore it as a source of theology. It is part of that original deposit of faith.

2.) If we are not going to use it at all for theology, why have it at all?