Trent Horn debate with James White: watch here!

[MT1926]

I don’t doubt what you say as i have no experience with these animals…

However, the self centeredness…the stubborness…that sounds more like goats?

Of course Jesus uses the analogy of seperating sheep(saved) and goats(unsaved).

So do you have experience with goats? And in your opinion why would Jesus use this analogy if the animals are so similar?

Blessings

I don’t raise goats, but from what I understand of them they act similar to sheep, just a bit more ornery. I would also say from what I understand they are quite a bit harder to herd and don’t really follow a shepherd, which might be the difference Jesus is referencing. Sheep can be a pain, but do listen to the authority of the shepherd. As for goats, well good luck. I would guess goats could be taught to herd, but sheep instinctively follow the shepherd (like the saved).

I believe Jesus calling us sheep has a lot of hidden meaning. You’ve got me wanting to learn a bit more about goats now. My wife’s gonna be mad at you when I bring home goats.

 

[LatinRight]

Actually what I caught was Jesus saying you were wrong in your interpretation. And yes the scriptures speak to us and we will be held accountable for our misinterpretations.

**Just curious how can God be a just God if he holds us accountable for something that can be so easily misinterpreted by so many different people? ** That would be like getting fired from a job for breaking a rule that was never explained to you. Doesn’t seem fair to me unless God left us a visible teaching authority to guide us into all truths.

God bless MT1926 and Lenten_ashes,

John 12:48 ;
“He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him – the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.”

Jour question MT1926:

Just curious how can God be a just God if he holds us accountable for something that can be so easily misinterpreted?

The answer of the RCC:

Quote: CATHOLIC SENSIBILITY, DEI VERBUM 21

The Church has always VENERATED the divine Scriptures JUST AS she VENERATED the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful THE BREAD OF LIFE from the table of BOTH of GOD’S WORD and of CHRIST’S BODY.

For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and THE FORCE AND POWER IN THE WORD OF GOD IS SO GREAT THAT IT IS STANDS AS THE SUPPORT AND ENERGY OF THE CHURCH, THE STRINGS OF FAITH for Her (children), THE FOOD OF THE SOUL, THE PURE AND EVERLASTING SOURCE OF SPIRITUAL LIFE.

“For the WORD OF GOD IS LIVING AND ACTIVE” (Hebr.4:12) and it **HAS THE POWER TO BUILD YOU UP and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:32) ** End quote.

THE SCRIPTURES referred to as the “BREAD OF LIFE”** in direct association with a reference to the Eucharist.**
Please see: John 1:1; Matt.4:4; Luke 4:4.

We have access and **we are able to eat the “BREAD OF LIFE” in TWO ways: **
The Church offers to the faithful the bread of life FROM THE EUCHARISTIC table of BOTH of GOD’S WORD and CHRIST’S BODY.

When in faith, we are READING or HEARING the Word of God we consuming the BREAD OF LIFE, in which He (Jesus), Himself is consumed and we unite ourselves to Christ.

The Catholic Understanding of the Bible by Fr. John Harden SJ.

Quote: “The Scriptures are holy because their main author is the all-holy God. But they are also holy because they are able to sanctify those who READ the Bible as NO OTHER LITERATURE in the world is capable of doing.

**St. Thomas does not hesitate to speak of the Scriptures as a KIND OF SACRAMENT.

SIMULAR to what happens when we receive BAPTISM or the EUCHARIST.**

The same Holy Spirit who first inspired the Bible CONTINUES TO ENLIGHTEN those who now READ the Bible.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

WE CANNOT OVER EMPHASIS!

When in faith, READING or HEARING the Word of God we are consuming the BREAD OF LIFE, in which He (Jesus), Himself is consumed and we unite ourselves to Christ.

[CCC 108]; Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.”
Christianity is a religion of the “Word” of God, “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living.”
If the Scriptures are not remain a dead letter, **Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.” **End quote.

The Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn Page 48

Quote: One of the great Scripture scholars of the early church, Origen (third century), urged Christians TO RESPECT CHRIST’S PRESENTS IN THE GOSPEL as they RESPECT HIS PRESENCE IN THE HOST.

“You who are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any small part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost.

For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect.

But if you are so careful to preserve His body, and rightly so, HOW DO YOU THINK THAT THERE IS LESS GUILT TO HAVE NEGLECTED GOD’S WORD THAT TO HAVE NEGLECTED HIS BODY?” End quote.

ACCORDING TO ST. JEROME

This famous excerpt from Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah (Nn. 1.2: CCL 73, 1-3) is used in the Roman Office of Readings for the Feast (liturgical memorial) of St. Jerome on September 30.

In it, St. Jerome firmly insists that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. A strong exhortation from a Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church to Christians urging all to recognize that serious Bible study is a necessity, not an optional luxury. End quote.

SUMMARY

**Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures. **

The same Holy Spirit who first inspired the Bible CONTINUES TO ENLIGHTEN those who now READ the Bible.

Those who misinterpret the Bible is their own mistake because they don’t listen the voice and the interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

God bless,

LatinRight

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I don’t raise goats, but from what I understand of them they act similar to sheep, just a bit more ornery. I would also say from what I understand they are quite a bit harder to herd and don’t really follow a shepherd, which might be the difference Jesus is referencing. Sheep can be a pain, but do listen to the authority of the shepherd. As for goats, well good luck. I would guess goats could be taught to herd, but sheep instinctively follow the shepherd (like the saved).

I believe Jesus calling us sheep has a lot of hidden meaning. You’ve got me wanting to learn a bit more about goats now. My wife’s gonna be mad at you when I bring home goats.

Haha…well my evagelical background taught me that sheep are stupid, but actually works to their advantage because they can be molded. Goats, OTOH, were said to be hopeless because of their stubbornness.

Anyway enjoy learning a slightly different perspective since i have no real life experience with them.

And the goats are said to be like garbage disposals. Tell the misses they will keep the area clean for ya

Blessings

 

[LatinRight]

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.

God bless Lenten_ashes,

As I have the Evangelical background I know a bit of Calvinism.

There are some different forms of Calvinism these days.

Calvinism is very close to the Catholic Thomism – (Thomas Aquinas 1225 – 1274).

If we understand the Catholic school of Thomism, in general we understand the Protestant school of Calvinism.

**PREDESTINATION

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 Fr William Most

What does the Catholic Church teach on Predestination?**

Fr. Most himself leans toward a school of thought known as Thomism, which he develops in summary as follows:

Predestination is gratuitous: …for even before God considers human merits, He predestines, and because the sole and total cause of predestination is the goodness and love of the Father which moves spontaneously WITHOUT stimulus, merit, or condition.

God’s grace appears to all men (e.g.Tit. 2:11), and man’s initial “response” is the omission of resistance, which he identifies as an “ontological zero,” meaning man does NOTHING, to enter a state of justification.

In a related paragraph:

The SECOND STAGE follows, in which grace moves us further, so that **we do MAKE A DECISION: **

**“It is God who . . . works in you both the WILL and the PERFORMANCE.” **

Of course, we do actively cooperate with grace in the SECOND stage.

The entire process need not take more than one instant of time. (#82)

So, in summary the initial response is one of omission of resistance, followed by a positive response in grace.

Thomism emphasize the role of grace in human actions.

Aquinas said, “God changes the will without forcing it.

But he can change the will from the fact that He himself operates in the will as He does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9.

Similarly, the Council of Orange says that **“in every good work, we do not begin.” **(#329.2)

In other words, when God commands, He capacitates the hearer to respond.

Yet the ability to respond is also His gift.

**ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION
Fr. William Most

On human interaction with grace: Every good work, even good will, is the work of God:**

De gratia Christi 25, 26:
"For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it."

De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32:
“It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good. . . . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, PROVIDING MOST EFFECTIVE POWERS TO THE WILL.”

God is the ultimate mover in the order of man’s meritorious decisions: [F]or God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Phil. 2:13)

It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, BY APPLYING EFFICACIOUS POWERS TO OUR WILL, who has said, I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do them. (Ez. 36:27) … (St. Augustine, On Grace & Free Will, #32)

John 15:5; “… for without Me you can do nothing.”

Strictly speaking only a person in the STATE OF GRACE can merit, as defined by the Church (Denzinger 1576, 1582).

2 Tim.1:9; “God who saved us and called us with holy calling, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS, but ACCORDING TO HIS OWN PURPOSE …”

Eph.1:11; “… being predestined ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE of Him …”

John 6:44 … NO ONE can come to Me unless the Father DRAWS him.

John 6:65 I have said to you that NO ONE can come to Me unless it has been GRANTED to him by My Father.

John 15:16 … You DID NOT choose Me, but I CHOSE YOU …

Continue

 

[LatinRight]

Continuation

SUMMARY OF OUR ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION

Our calling, our salvation and our predestination NOTHING TO DO with our works, but everything to do with GOD’S OWN PURPOSE.

God have been called us, saved us, predestined us, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS, but ACCORDING TO HIS OWN PURPOSE.

John 15:16 … You DID NOT choose Me, but I CHOSE YOU …

When God commands, He capacitates the hearer to respond.

Yet the ability to respond is also His gift.

John 15:5; “… for without Me you can do nothing.”

De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32:
"It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good. . . . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, PROVIDING MOST EFFECTIVE POWERS TO THE WILL."

**The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a *DE FIDE *Dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

THE CATHOLIC DOGMA. – The predestination of the elect**

Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, has

been IRREVOCABLY FIXED FROM ALL ETERNITY. Nor could it be otherwise. For if it

were possible that a predestined individual should after all be CAST INTO HELL or that

one not predestined should in the end REACH HEAVEN, then God would have been

MISTAKEN in his foreknowledge of future events; He would NO LONGER be omniscient.

God’s unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful

figure of the “Book of Life” (liber vitæ, to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which

contains the names of ALL THE ELECT and admits NEITHER ADDITIONS NO ERASURES.

(2) The second quality of predestination, the DEFINITENESS of the number of the elect,

follows NATURALLY from the first. For if the eternal counsel of God regarding the

predestined is UNCHANGEABLE, then the number of the predestined must likewise be

UNCHANGEABLE and DEFINITE, subject NEITHER to ADDITIONS nor to

CANCELLATIONS. Anything indefinite in the number would eo ipso imply a lack of

certitude in God’s knowledge and would DESTROY His omniscience. End quote. Emphasis added.

God bless.

Latin Right

 

[Ernie07]

This thread as well as the debate between Dr. White and Mr. Horn always goes the way of “my interpretation is better than yours”. The protestant will take a scriptural passage according to their beliefs and the Catholics will use a passage (many times the same one) and will come up with a completely opposite point of view. Rarely do people agree and the best that can be hoped for is that we remain friends and “agree to disagree”. What a waste of time and energy. I’m confused why Catholics defend the faith this way as it gives credence to the doctrine of self interpretation.

Why not just go the route of aligning ourselves with what Jesus said about His Church? Jesus said He would build His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail over it. So, who is that Church today? Isn’t that the real question? Today, we have so many different variations and groups who call themselves Christians, each with varying versions of the truth. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, Calvinists, non-denominational…the list goes on…each with varying versions of the truth. So, who has the real version of truth?

Unlike today there was only one group that even claimed to be the Church Jesus spoke about in Mt 16:18 in the first 800 years of the Church. There weren’t any denominations or groups. It simply identified itself as the universal Christian Church. And if we believe Jesus keeps His word then we know that that one single universal church taught the truth (for I think we can all agree that if for example, Jesus’ Church taught idolatry then certainly the gates of hell will have prevailed). So what did that one universal Church believe? For if you don’t align yourself with The Church’s beliefs then you’re in error. Seems simple. What am I missing?

There is historical evidence (based on ecumenical or regional councils) of the early single universal Church of the 1st 800 years believing in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, Infant Baptism, Mary as Mother of God, Mary as ever-virgin, a 73 book Bible, Church’s authority to interpret truth and scripture (evidenced by excommunications) among others. You can find people in every century that believed in these beliefs all the way up to the present day Catholic Church. And that makes sense because Jesus said He would protect His Church and He keeps His promises. Just ask Dr. White or any other Protestant-based group to prove that they are part of the church that Jesus said He would build. Ask them to name 1 Christian, yet alone one group claiming to be the true Church who believed in the Eucharist is just a symbol, rejection of infant baptism, Mary is not the Mother of God, Mary is not ever-virgin, 66 book Bible, and private interpretation of the Bible. There isn’t one person that believed these collective beliefs for many, many years so it’s as if they’re saying the Church got it wrong for a long period of time. What is dangerous about that line of thinking is that it undermines the power of Jesus by calling into question His ability to do what He said…protect His Church. If they don’t care or can’t be convinced that they have no means to validate their beliefs with the single universal Church of the first 800 years and that their beliefs are therefore man-made how in the world will you be able to convince them on any individual belief?

It’s not about us…how smart we are…how awesome our interpretive capabilities are…it’s about what is verifiable truth. So, why go through all of the “my interpretation is better than yours” type debates and arguments. Both sides make great and on the surface very plausible arguments, but that’s not really the point. If great apologists like Trent Horn, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Karl Keating, and many others can’t convince people like Dr. White and the throngs that believe like him then maybe a different, simpler strategy is needed. It’s not about winning an argument. Rather, it should be about validating and proving that Jesus kept His promise.

Please help me understand where my thinking is flawed. Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[MT1926]

What a waste of time and energy. I’m confused why Catholics defend the faith this way as it gives credence to the doctrine of self interpretation.

Seeking the truth is never a waste of time. The truth will always be the truth even if no one believes it and a lie will always be a lie not matter how many believe it.

I have said many times I do not post to prove the other guy wrong, I post the Church’s teachings for that one Catholic that might be a bit shaky in their Faith. I want them to read what is taught and not be convinced by the other guys interpretation.

Why not just go the route of aligning ourselves with what Jesus said about His Church? Jesus said He would build His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail over it. So, who is that Church today? Isn’t that the real question?

You have just asked the million dollar question. To you and me it looks like common sense. However, when you ask who is that Church today? You will get as many answers as denomination. Anywhere, the church is the body of believers, the church is where 2 or 3 are gathered. The church is me and Jesus. The church is me and my Bible. I can go on and on and on. Basically, your question here still reverts back to interpretation, which as you stated was a waste of time and energy.

So what did that one universal Church believe? For if you don’t align yourself with The Church’s beliefs then you’re in error. Seems simple. What am I missing?

Interpretation is the missing element. Not only do people interpret the Bible how ever they are moved to, but they also interpret history to fit their theology. Or as I mentioned a few posts earlier they will even interpret the Webster’s dictionary to make it say what they mean.

If they don’t care or can’t be convinced that they have no means to validate their beliefs with the single universal Church of the first 800 years and that their beliefs are therefore man-made how in the world will you be able to convince them on any individual belief?

Once again it is not about trying to convince anyone of the truth. Only the Holy Spirit can write the truth on their hearts and minds. Our duty is to put the truth out their for other Catholics who are not confident in their faith.

It’s not about us…how smart we are…how awesome our interpretive capabilities are…it’s about what is verifiable truth. So, why go through all of the “my interpretation is better than yours” type debates and arguments. Both sides make great and on the surface very plausible arguments, but that’s not really the point.

I just wanted to point out that you are not presenting “your” interpretation you are presenting the Church’s authoritative presentation. It all comes back to authority. When someone says the Catholic Church is wrong, I always make a point of telling them (and anyone who reads my post) that they have free will to reject or say they don’t agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, they have no authority to outright say she is wrong, unless they can prove that authority was given them by Jesus.

If great apologists like Trent Horn, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Karl Keating, and many others can’t convince people like Dr. White and the throngs that believe like him then maybe a different, simpler strategy is needed. It’s not about winning an argument. Rather, it should be about validating and proving that Jesus kept His promise.

Please help me understand where my thinking is flawed. Thanks.

-Ernie-

By any chance have you listen to their conversion stories. I think I remember everyone of them was converted by seeds being planted by others. That the Holy Spirit grew into some of the greatest defenders of the Catholic faith. For Tim it was Sargent Matt Dulla’s strong Catholic understanding that planted the seed.

All we can do is plant the seeds and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

Also, for me anyway, I have found defending the Catholic faith has brought me closer to the Church than sitting back and reading. When I write I am applying what I learn, which helps me get a better grasp on the Church’s teachings. Also, responses from others, especially when they use a story or a funny comment to explain something really makes it stick in your mind. Finally, when I dialogue with others, especially anti-Cs, it really reinforces my faith when I can see all (yep on my own don’t even have to research it that much anymore) of the holes in their arguments or when they quote scripture out of context.

 

[PRmerger]

If great apologists like Trent Horn, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Karl Keating, and many others can’t convince people like Dr. White and the throngs that believe like him then maybe a different, simpler strategy is needed. It’s not about winning an argument. Rather, it should be about validating and proving that Jesus kept His promise.

Please help me understand where my thinking is flawed. Thanks.

-Ernie-

I think your thinking is flawed where you create this false dichotomy:

Either use the apologetics methods of Horn, Hahn, Staples, etc…

OR

try a “different, simpler strategy”.

Why not do both?

The fact that White hasn’t been convinced is irrelevant.

Jesus, who, incontrovertibly, surpassed the apologetics acumen of Horn, Hahn, Staples, etc…wasn’t able to convince the majority (the majority!) of those who heard him…so the fact that he wasn’t successful in this measure is no testament to whether the apologetics style is worthy.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I think your thinking is flawed where you create this false dichotomy:

Either use the apologetics methods of Horn, Hahn, Staples, etc…

OR

try a “different, simpler strategy”.

Why not do both?

The fact that White hasn’t been convinced is irrelevant.

Jesus, who, incontrovertibly, surpassed the apologetics acumen of Horn, Hahn, Staples, etc…wasn’t able to convince the majority (the majority!) of those who heard him…so the fact that he wasn’t successful in this measure is no testament to whether the apologetics style is worthy.

Right.

Proof is different than persuasion.

Some folks just don’t want to believe no matter what.

 

[Ernie07]

Hi MT1926,

I have no idea how to copy certain quotes like you did so I’ll just copy and paste the old fashioned way!! One thing you stated was, "Interpretation is the missing element. Not only do people interpret the Bible how ever they are moved to, but they also interpret history to fit their theology. Or as I mentioned a few posts earlier they will even interpret the Webster’s dictionary to make it say what they mean.
Once again it is not about trying to convince anyone of the truth. Only the Holy Spirit can write the truth on their hearts and minds. Our duty is to put the truth out their for other Catholics who are not confident in their faith."

I guess I’m not sure how you “interpret history” unless you mean they make it up. The point I was trying to make is that there isn’t a person that believed in those collective beliefs I pointed out in the Church of the first 800 years. And that’s also why I use Church Councils rather than individual quotes of Church Fathers. I learned this lesson when an anti-Catholic showed me instances when Church Fathers used the word “symbol” when speaking about the Eucharist. Then I’m back to the “my interpretation is better than yours” debate. At the very minimum when I use the formal decrees of Church Council teachings it is a belief of a collective set of people. There’s no history to interpret unless you make something up or claim a hidden set of believers. I’m not sure what you mean by interpreting history.

You also stated,** “By any chance have you listen to their conversion stories. I think I remember everyone of them was converted by seeds being planted by others. That the Holy Spirit grew into some of the greatest defenders of the Catholic faith. For Tim it was Sargent Matt Dulla’s strong Catholic understanding that planted the seed. All we can do is plant the seeds and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.”** I’m not saying that at some point you don’t convert by engaging in belief by belief arguments, but just not to start there. Everyone I see or hear debating immediately goes to the “my interpretation is better than yours” type argument. Yes, you’re preaching the truth and planting seeds, but why not first plant the foundational seed of the one true Church? And don’t just use the passages of Peter and the keys or the rock, but use historical arguments first. I just think going back to the historical beliefs of the Church first is way more compelling and effective…then have your “my interpretation is better than yours” discussion.

And I totally agree with your views on defending the faith in speech or talk helps to refine and deepen our faith. But, far too often I see people get on their high horse in defending the faith because it is an interpretation they believe so deeply in. Then, the seeds a person is planting are ones that have arrogance scattered amongst the truth. I’ve seen too many posts and heard too many Catholics and non-Catholics espouse their faith in an incredibly arrogant manner (myself especially included!!)

Thanks for the dialogue.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I think your thinking is flawed where you create this false dichotomy:

Either use the apologetics methods of Horn, Hahn, Staples, etc…

OR

try a “different, simpler strategy”.

Why not do both?

The fact that White hasn’t been convinced is irrelevant.

Jesus, who, incontrovertibly, surpassed the apologetics acumen of Horn, Hahn, Staples, etc…wasn’t able to convince the majority (the majority!) of those who heard him…so the fact that he wasn’t successful in this measure is no testament to whether the apologetics style is worthy.

Totally agree on doing both, sorry if I didn’t explain myself properly. I’m just saying that most apologists either gloss over or don’t even use the single biggest differentiator the Catholic Church has…that we can validate and prove that Jesus kept His promise! Start there first and hit it hard. Any debate I’ve seen is played by the rules of our opponents in the sense that it is based on interpretation. And when this is done, as another poster has stated, you listen with your preconceived notions (i.e. White won the debate if you’re a non-Catholic, Horn won if you’re a Catholic). So, why not change the game? For instance, when questioned about a particular belief (Eucharist, salvation, Mary…) why not first agree on the ground rules? And those ground rules are a 73 book Bible and Church + Bible as co-sources of truth and authority? Those questioning you won’t agree to that, but now you’ve changed the game and the discussion to where I’m strongest. It’s how I sell my products and how I sell Catholicism…I use sell and evangelize as synonyms. Get the competition to play where you are strongest…and where the truth can truly be revealed! I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[MT1926]

Hi MT1926,

I have no idea how to copy certain quotes like you did so I’ll just copy and paste the old fashioned way!!

You just hit the quote button at the bottom of the persons post you are referencing, instead of hitting the post button at the bottom of the page. It will open a new window with the post quoted. Then you can break it up from there. You will notice on the new window the brackets at the top that says QUOTe=… in brackets, then at the bottom says “/Quote” in brackets to end the quote. If you want to break the quote up as I do just copy and paste the end quote where you want to end the first response.

Then I highlight the next part of your text I want to address and hit that quote button on the second line up above. Then type your response below that quote.

I guess I’m not sure how you “interpret history” unless you mean they make it up.

That’s pretty much it or they say we have no proof of that being true, the Catholic Church fabricated that, but they have no evidence to prove it was fabricated. How often do you hear Catholics added books to the Bible. Or an outright refusal to admit who collected and preserved the books of the Bible, as if it just fell in our laps.

The point I was trying to make is that there isn’t a person that believed in those collective beliefs I pointed out in the Church of the first 800 years. And that’s also why I use Church Councils rather than individual quotes of Church Fathers.

I totally agree with you here, but will refer to the historical response above or sometimes being hit with Church councils or Church Fathers aren’t divinely inspired.

I learned this lesson when an anti-Catholic showed me instances when Church Fathers used the word “symbol” when speaking about the Eucharist. Then I’m back to the “my interpretation is better than yours” debate. At the very minimum when I use the formal decrees of Church Council teachings it is a belief of a collective set of people. There’s no history to interpret unless you make something up or claim a hidden set of believers. I’m not sure what you mean by interpreting history.

I remember hearing on Catholic answers live that the Church Fathers used the term symbol because the Church teaches the Eucharist is the real presence and it is also a symbol. It’s not “either/or” it is “and/both”.

I’m not saying that at some point you don’t convert by engaging in belief by belief arguments, but just not to start there. Everyone I see or hear debating immediately goes to the “my interpretation is better than yours” type argument. Yes, you’re preaching the truth and planting seeds, but why not first plant the foundational seed of the one true Church?

I don’t disagree. I think it’s a judgement call of who you are speaking to. Your way sounds good to me also. Quite often I prefer to ask the person how they came to that interpretation, rather than saying your wrong and I am right. Sometimes they have a good reason, but quite often it is because they were told so.

And I totally agree with your views on defending the faith in speech or talk helps to refine and deepen our faith. But, far too often I see people get on their high horse in defending the faith because it is an interpretation they believe so deeply in. Then, the seeds a person is planting are ones that have arrogance scattered amongst the truth. I’ve seen too many posts and heard too many Catholics and non-Catholics espouse their faith in an incredibly arrogant manner (myself especially included!!)

Thanks for the dialogue.

-Ernie-

Yeah it can be very easy to get up on that high horse. I try my best not to, but I’m sure I have in the past. That is why I try my best to ask questions even when I present facts. However, I am only human and no where close to being perfect.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Any debate I’ve seen is played by the rules of our opponents in the sense that it is based on interpretation. And when this is done, as another poster has stated, you listen with your preconceived notions (i.e. White won the debate if you’re a non-Catholic, Horn won if you’re a Catholic). So, why not change the game? For instance, when questioned about a particular belief (Eucharist, salvation, Mary…) why not first agree on the ground rules? And those ground rules are a 73 book Bible and Church + Bible as co-sources of truth and authority? Those questioning you won’t agree to that, but now you’ve changed the game and the discussion to where I’m strongest. It’s how I sell my products and how I sell Catholicism…I use sell and evangelize as synonyms. Get the competition to play where you are strongest…and where the truth can truly be revealed! I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

I can’t imagine any protestant apologist willing to debate under those rules. However, if you ever hear of one let me know and I will be sitting in the front row.

Yeah I think anyone who says so and so won is pretty much biased. Actually the only reason I listened to the debate was to hear what Dr. White had to say and if he gave any good sound logic to his argument. Really wanted to understand what the heck this descriptive/prescriptive argument was about, but never did get a clear answer. I didn’t really listen to Trent because I already new the Catholic response to the question.

God Bless

 

[Ernie07]

I can’t imagine any protestant apologist willing to debate under those rules. However, if you ever hear of one let me know and I will be sitting in the front row.

Yeah I think anyone who says so and so won is pretty much biased. Actually the only reason I listened to the debate was to hear what Dr. White had to say and if he gave any good sound logic to his argument. Really wanted to understand what the heck this descriptive/prescriptive argument was about, but never did get a clear answer. I didn’t really listen to Trent because I already new the Catholic response to the question.

God Bless

They will absolutely not agree, but that’s OK. Rather than defending their attack of the Eucharist, the Immaculate Conception, etc. on their “translation” terms you’ve changed the dialogue. As soon as they provide their point of view the natural question, “is, so who believed as you believe?”. “The Church of the first 800 years did not believe that”. Their response is then something to the effect of, “so what does that have to do with anything?”. Glad you asked!! If you could give me 5 minutes I’ll let you know. The game has now been changed to our advantage. And it plants the foundational seeds critical to evangelizing.

The fact that they won’t give us credit that our beliefs can be traced to the one universal CHRISTIAN Church at the time (I specifically don’t use the term “Catholic” because it makes it sound like they are “Catholic” councils) shouldn’t deter us from using this approach. We allow ourselves to get bullied into playing their Bible-alone game when we should stay on the one true Church argument as long as possible.

And this is just the intellectual part of our evangelization process. Once we convey the one true Church argument then we need to promote the greatest personal relationship and encounter one can have with Jesus…with the Eucharist at Mass. We need to teach every Catholic that as Scott Hahn states, “The Mass is heaven on earth”. An “on fire” Catholic who knows their faith is unstoppable!! But, I get excited and digress!! Haha!

-Ernie-

 

[MT1926]

we need to promote the greatest personal relationship and encounter one can have with Jesus…with the Eucharist at Mass. We need to teach every Catholic that as Scott Hahn states, “The Mass is heaven on earth”. An “on fire” Catholic who knows their faith is unstoppable!! But, I get excited and digress!! Haha!

-Ernie-

I enjoy listening to Dr. Hahn. Have you listened to his talk “The Fourth Cup”? He goes into an explanation of what Jesus was referencing when he said “It is finished” on the cross? I thought it was mind blowing.

stpaulcenter.com/media/audio/the-fourth-cup

Also, wasn’t sure if you saw this thread from this morning.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1042742

Dr. Hahn is having a free online Bible study for lent.

 

[LatinRight]

Right.

Proof is different than persuasion.

Some folks just don’t want to believe no matter what.

God bless Lenten_ashes,

Yes I agree, “some folks just don’t want to believe (the truth) no matter what.”

**If we want to know the truth we should know the Book of Life.

THE BOOK OF LIFE

“The book of Life is a list which contains the names of ALL THE ELECT and admits neither ADDITIONS no ERASURES.”**

1. God has completed the Book of Life before the foundation of the world by taken out the names of the reprobates for their vehement rejection of God and His grace.
2. From the completion, the Book of Life admits neither additions no erasures.

ELECT

Every elect of God predestined to heave, they CANNOT lose their salvation.

REPROBATES

Before the foundation of the world, the names of the reprobates taken out from the Book of Life for their vehement rejection of God and His grace, they are ALL predestined to hell.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD

Concerning the Book of Life, there are only two groups of people in the world.

1. God’s elect, ALL predestined to heaven, they cannot lose their salvation.
2. Reprobates, for their vehement rejection of God and His grace they are ALL predestined to hell.

In my opinion, Mr. TRENT HORN vs. Dr. JAMES WHITE debate instead of “Can a Christian Lose salvation?"
**Should be debated on: **
**“Can be reprobates saved, whose names for their vehement rejection of God and His grace taken out from the Book of Life before the foundation of the world?” **

This would be a far easier debate.

Anyone have an idea: Can be reprobates saved?

Please keep in mind, according to RCC teaching:
If a reprobate would die in the state of grace, would end up in heaven and God would lose his omniscience.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND ALSO

John 6:44 … NO ONE can come to Me unless the Father DRAWS him.

John 6:65 I have said to you that NO ONE can come to Me unless it has been GRANTED to him by My Father.

John 15:16 … You DID NOT choose Me, but I CHOSE YOU …

Would God draw the reprobates to Christ and would God grant the reprobates to go to Christ and would Christ chosen the reprobates who are already predestined to hell for their vehement rejection of God and His grace? – This would also make the Body of Christ a mixture of the Bride of Christ and the reprobates who are predestined to hell.

**What do you think Lenten_ashes, and members of the CAF: **

As ALL reprobates PREDESTINED TO HELL for their vehement rejection of God and His grace, can be reprobates saved?

If yes, would it be possible to call the Body of Christ any longer, (as the Body of Christ is a mixture of the Bride of Christ and the reprobates who are predestined to hell) “royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people???

Thanks in advance.

God bless.

LatinRight

 

[MT1926]

I’m going to jump in here because you left me a little confused with what point you are trying to make.

**

“The book of Life is a list which contains the names of ALL THE ELECT** and admits neither ADDITIONS no ERASURES.”

1. God has completed the Book of Life before the foundation of the world by taken out the names of the reprobates for their vehement rejection of God and His grace.
2. From the completion, the Book of Life admits neither additions no erasures.

I am not familiar with the teachings about the Book of Life. Can you direct me where the Catholic Church teaches on this subject? The only thing I found so far is a response from Jimmy Akin in which he says:

The question is: Does the fact that one’s name was written in the book of life when one came to God and received initial salvation mean that one’s name will stay in the book of life until the last day, when one would receive final salvation?

The answer is: No. Scripture indicates in dozens of places that one can lose salvation, and it does so in specific connection with the book of life metaphor.

In Revelation 3:5, Jesus states: “He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.”

The implication is that if you end up giving in to sin, your name will be blotted out of the book of life and you will be denied before God and the angels, something Jesus elsewhere emphasizes (Mt 10:33, Lk 12:9).

As Jesus puts it, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22, 24:13; Mk 13:13).

Concerning the Book of Life, there are only two groups of people in the world.

1. God’s elect, ALL predestined to heaven, they cannot lose their salvation.

1. Reprobates, for their vehement rejection of God and His grace they are ALL predestined to hell.

In my opinion, Mr. TRENT HORN vs. Dr. JAMES WHITE debate instead of “Can a Christian Lose salvation?"
**Should be debated on: **
**“Can be reprobates saved, whose names for their vehement rejection of God and His grace taken out from the Book of Life before the foundation of the world?” **

Anyone have an idea: Can be reprobates saved?

I am not sure how this would be a far easier debate? This would still leave us wondering who are the elect and who are the reprobates. That is the entire point of the debate. Sure only the elect can be saved. However, there is no way of knowing if you are one of the elect until judgement day.

Please keep in mind, according to RCC teaching:
If a reprobate would die in the state of grace, would end up in heaven and God would lose his omniscience.

Doesn’t make any sense. How can a reprobate die in a state of grace if the definition of a reprobate is the “vehement rejection of God and His grace”? I would say if a reprobate accepts God’s grace before they die they are no longer reprobate. God would have known this from the get go. You are basing this entire argument on knowing who the elect and reprobate are, we don’t know is the whole point.

John 6:44 … NO ONE can come to Me unless the Father DRAWS him.

John 6:65 I have said to you that NO ONE can come to Me unless it has been GRANTED to him by My Father.

John 15:16 … You DID NOT choose Me, but I CHOSE YOU …

I’m not sure where you are going with these verses. Could you give your interpretation please. I just finished a dialogue with a guy about these verses (actually he refused to answer my questions about these verses) and he was reading way to much into them to get them to say what he though they said.

Would God draw the reprobates to Christ and would God grant the reprobates to go to Christ and would Christ chosen the reprobates who are already predestined to hell for their vehement rejection of God and His grace? – This would also make the Body of Christ a mixture of the Bride of Christ and the reprobates who are predestined to hell. I thought the Bible says God wills all to be saved. Also:
Luke 5:32
32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Are the reprobates the sinners who haven’t yet repented?

As ALL reprobates PREDESTINED TO HELL

for their vehement rejection of God and His grace, can be reprobates saved?

If yes, would it be possible to call the Body of Christ any longer, (as the Body of Christ is a mixture of the Bride of Christ and the reprobates who are predestined to hell) “royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people???

Your question makes no sense. That’s why the debate would not work. You see it still comes down to definition. You can define reprobate but have no way of knowing who these reprobate are. Therefor, God could have know that the person would have acted like a reprobate there entire life, but accepted his Grace on these death bed and would have been written in the book of life. We would think they were reprobate but in all actuality they were the elected.

On the other hand we can have some knowledge of who the saved are by there belief in Jesus Christ as our savior. However, we have, nor do they have, any knowledge of their state of grace when they die. Therefore, they could lose there salvation from our point of view, but of course God new whether they would endure to the end or not.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

God bless Lenten_ashes,

Yes I agree, “some folks just don’t want to believe (the truth) no matter what.”

**If we want to know the truth we should know the Book of Life.

THE BOOK OF LIFE

“The book of Life is a list which contains the names of ALL THE ELECT** and admits neither ADDITIONS no ERASURES.”

1. God has completed the Book of Life before the foundation of the world by taken out the names of the reprobates for their vehement rejection of God and His grace.
2. From the completion, the Book of Life admits neither additions no erasures.

ELECT

Every elect of God predestined to heave, they CANNOT lose their salvation.

REPROBATES

Before the foundation of the world, the names of the reprobates taken out from the Book of Life for their vehement rejection of God and His grace, they are ALL predestined to hell.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD

Concerning the Book of Life, there are only two groups of people in the world.

1. God’s elect, ALL predestined to heaven, they cannot lose their salvation.
2. Reprobates, for their vehement rejection of God and His grace they are ALL predestined to hell.

In my opinion, Mr. TRENT HORN vs. Dr. JAMES WHITE debate instead of “Can a Christian Lose salvation?"
**Should be debated on: **
**“Can be reprobates saved, whose names for their vehement rejection of God and His grace taken out from the Book of Life before the foundation of the world?” **

This would be a far easier debate.

Anyone have an idea: Can be reprobates saved?

Please keep in mind, according to RCC teaching:
If a reprobate would die in the state of grace, would end up in heaven and God would lose his omniscience.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND ALSO

John 6:44 … NO ONE can come to Me unless the Father DRAWS him.

John 6:65 I have said to you that NO ONE can come to Me unless it has been GRANTED to him by My Father.

John 15:16 … You DID NOT choose Me, but I CHOSE YOU …

Would God draw the reprobates to Christ and would God grant the reprobates to go to Christ and would Christ chosen the reprobates who are already predestined to hell for their vehement rejection of God and His grace? – This would also make the Body of Christ a mixture of the Bride of Christ and the reprobates who are predestined to hell.

**What do you think Lenten_ashes, and members of the CAF: **

As ALL reprobates PREDESTINED TO HELL for their vehement rejection of God and His grace, can be reprobates saved?

If yes, would it be possible to call the Body of Christ any longer, (as the Body of Christ is a mixture of the Bride of Christ and the reprobates who are predestined to hell) “royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people???

Thanks in advance.

God bless.

LatinRight

Greetings LR.

With all due respect, this is sounding a bit confusing…like something a Calvinist would say?

I agree there are elect and those going to hell. But we don’t know who those people are.

In regards to the book of life, I read Rev 3:5 and it seems your name can be blotted out if you fall from grace:

Revelation 3:5New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Why does he mention that if you overcome he wont erase your name unless being erased is a possibility? Reformed response to this was found lacking imo.

I think Calvinists actually overthink things, really. I say let’s not try and figure out how God does it, just persevere until the end and let God be God.

 

[MT1926]

Came across this today:

youtube.com/watch?v=Z-PofAyvTJQ

It’s a debate review. What was most interesting about it was he reviewed the debate based on Dr. White’s post debate video “Accurately Evaluating Debates”.

He made a lot of good points and some funny ones as well.

Not sure who this guy is but I like his “logical” reasoning. Well worth the 13 minutes.

Let me know what you think.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

Came across this today:

youtube.com/watch?v=Z-PofAyvTJQ

It’s a debate review. What was most interesting about it was he reviewed the debate based on Dr. White’s post debate video “Accurately Evaluating Debates”.

He made a lot of good points and some funny ones as well.

Not sure who this guy is but I like his “logical” reasoning. Well worth the 13 minutes.

Let me know what you think.

God Bless

PR likes.