Debate Teacher Reacts: James White vs. Trent Horn

Know a very famous person who shall remain unnamed who's publicly said he's never asked for forgiveness from anybody, right?

So there could be Who could he be referring to?

Oh That's right Welcome back to another debate teacher reacts.

It's sure boy Nate Sala. I'm the president of wise disciple We are a Christian nonprofit organization dedicated to giving you the tools you need to live effectively as Christians in today's culture now,

I'm upset All right. Can I start the video off with the grievance? I'm upset because it is currently

December the 2nd and in Las Vegas right now It's still like 75 degrees outside Like what the what do

I need to contact my local weatherman to voice my concerns like I need my fireplace my stockings my hot

Chocolate Vegas has not gotten the memo. Okay, it's unbelievable and Speaking of unbelievable.

What a great segue Nate. Thank you Speaking of unbelievable as of this recording. I just heard that William Lane Craig debated

James White's on Molin ism Yeah, okay Right pinch yourselves ladies and gentlemen, because I'm not sure this is really happening.

No, it is real It didn't happen and I guess I'm wondering then Next episode of debate teacher reacts

All right well today's video is based on your votes and you all told me that what you want to see is

Trent horn versus James White on The issue of eternal security now, you'll excuse me if I'm having deja vu here but a couple of months ago you all wanted to see me react to James White versus Layton flowers and then

Look what happened right a lot of folks got upset because their guy didn't win

But that's just how the cookie crumbles ladies and gentlemen I don't know what to tell you so before we get to the end of this video and your guy loses for some reason and then you get mad and accuse me

Of being a Protestant or a Catholic or a communist or something? Let me give you my criteria for this debate

All right here it is for you. Ready? There are four categories that I'll be paying attention to number one who is engaging with the topic better than the other

Okay, in other words like who is answering the topic question in a more robust fashion

If I remember this topic is framed in the form of a question So who's going to answer the question more fully and efficiently?

All right number two who is laying a better framework now? I've said this before but laying a framework is essentially narrating to the audience or the judges

How to think through the issues and judge the debate now Obviously a particular interlocutor will lay a framework in a manner that is more advantageous to their position, right?

But nevertheless that is vital to a debate in terms of strategy I mean a lot of times in debates things get very technical, you know

Folks in the audience can easily get lost in the weeds particularly judges. All right, sometimes judges in real tournaments

They're just parents or other adults who are stepping in because they're always looking for judges at tournaments all right, and sometimes these judges don't have the technical background to follow all the arguments and evidence and so more often than not

Whoever lays a better framework wins the debate even if they slip in some of these other categories

Laying a framework is very important By the way If you want to see a very good example of laying a framework take a look at Kevin Bacon's opening statement as the prosecutor

And a few good men. That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about here Number three who is handling the

Word of God better than the other? I hope we can agree both Catholic and Protestant that a lot of the battle in this debate will come down to the scriptures

I mean the Bible obviously is a source that both sides will not dispute. They'll both be appealing to this source

So it's it's gonna come down to the the opponent's interpretations of the scripture

Who is a better exegete who is handling the word better than the other and number four?

Who is asking more challenging questions in cross -examination in other words who is providing more clash than the other guy?

All right, so that's it now This isn't an exhaustive list of things that I'll be looking at but these are the big pieces of criteria

That I'll be using to judge this particular debate. All right you with me so far Good, let's get right into it

Testing party time all right mr. Horne you said something in your rebuttal period that if I understood it correctly

Changes everything and that's why it confused me You said something along the lines and I was writing as fast as I could

God wills to save all that he has chosen to persevere And he talked about the gift of perseverance.

Do you hold the position that there are? people that God gives the gift of perseverance to who will

Never lose their salvation, but then there are other Christians who are truly born again But he doesn't give them the gift of perseverance and they may or may not make it.

Is that the position you're taking? That's the position that I that's why I cited

Augustine on that point. He talked about how Perseverance to the end there you could have two pious men or two

Regenerate justified people and one is given perseverance to the end and another has not that ultimately

Coming into union with Christ is by the grace of God So God can elect to give someone grace so that they come into faith so they come into the body of Christ and He might give other people grace that will sustain them through all the way to the end and some people

I think I would say all people are given enough grace to come to know God because God desires the salvation of all people but ultimately not everyone will be saved and those who are saved do so because God has elected them to Be saved to final salvation horn said some things here that are not

Articulate And you know, he's in the hot seat. Okay, he's in the hot seat in crossfire

So he's doing his best But if I understand what just happened horn appears to share White's position to a degree that is

White's position Is that when God saves his elect those individuals will not fall away because God's saving them an election keeps them saved but it sounds like horn also takes this position for Some individuals

God will save them and ensure that they never fall away, but that's White's position

So why are they debating right now? I mean, it sounds like they both agree

Maybe horn can explain further here, but you just said there at the end confused me because so there are people

Someone could be elected to come to Christ, but not necessarily to stay with Christ So he elects

Yes, but some could also be elected to come to Christ and stay with Christ and not fall away

That's what horn just said That's the only thing that makes sense of Jesus saying they fall away or Paul saying they're severed from Christ or they fell from grace

That the definition of a temporary believer would be someone who had grace and then fell from grace

It doesn't make sense to say you fall from grace if you never had it It'd be like saying, you know, hey don't mess around on the monkey bars kid

You and you you have fallen from the monkey bars if that was a roundabout way of saying well He was never really on the monkey bars in the first place.

But so there are elect people That are not elected to salvation

Yes, and we see these examples in Scripture and John's oh so whites losing the thread here

He had that thread and now he's losing it. Let's see if he finds it again 670 Jesus said

I chose the twelve or literally I elected you twelve yet One of you is a devil

Jesus chose the twelve, but Judas was not elected to final salvation So all these other people are like the unique son of perdition

He's one example of someone who fell away a very famous one I will add but So you don't say anything special about being the son of perdition the one that was prophesied in the

Old Testament scriptures to function in a particular way Why there's something unique there just as there's something unique when

Peter accepted Christ, you know when Peter understood the revelation of God there were other unique figures in Scripture, obviously, they'll be you know, they're people have unique roles in salvation history

So it sounds like horn takes the Arminian position that God's saving grace is prevenient

Which means that it's available to all for the taking but with prevenient grace Only those who repent and follow

Jesus actually respond in a meaningful sense and are saved Everyone else rejects God's prevenient grace and are not saved

But then in the category of those who repent and are saved it sounds like horn is saying that some of those in that category

God ensures will not fall away and White needs to keep probing about that. The other thing is the phrase son of perdition which refers to Judas, right and also

The Antichrist, right it's a Hebrew idiomatic expression and it means the one who is destined for perdition

Like if you're the son of something then that something is your destiny Which is a little strange because then it sounds like horn is saying that all those who fall away were destined to fall away

If they're all like Judas, so now we're back into that election territory again, which runs up against his position

But maybe he'll explain there are many nameless people who are elected to come to Christ and don't stay

Most of the scripture passages that I mentioned it talks about nameless people who who fall away and Jesus warns nameless people

But real people who can fall away So you believe in the eternal security of the elect who are given the gift of perseverance?

to final salvation to final salvation Yeah, I mean God what I believe is that what?

And there it is right like like horn is arguing for the same thing that white is arguing for Except the difference is the number of people elected to salvation is

Smaller in horns view, I guess but this is whites position Those who are saved are elected to be saved and they won't fall away

This is kind of a big deal guys like up until this point horn has been killing it as a matter of fact horn did a great job in his opening and Rebuttal statements, right?

You should definitely go ahead and take a look at the full debate and take notes because this is how it should be done in Terms of good debate on both sides, right?

But when horn agrees with white here, this means he's essentially undermining his own arguments against whites contention

Okay, think about that. The topic of the debate is entitled. Can a Christian lose their salvation, right?

Horn began his opening statement by saying the answer to this question is yes But now it appears that he's saying the answer is yes and no

It's yes for some and no for others because for some people God will save those whom he chose to persevere

Unless horn has some very like very unique definitions for these words He has undermined his own contentions if I were white at this particular point

I would try to get horn to like back up his statement about perseverance with some arguments and evidence because ultimately like whatever he says

To support himself should undermine his own contentions. So, let's see what happens. I believe that the elect

Who are given the gift of perseverance to final salvation will never fall away I the only so the only difference between us is that I don't believe that God elects people that he joins them with Christ Christ dies on their behalf all the rest of that stuff and Then he doesn't give them the gift of perseverance

Yeah, the difference between you and I is I believe God is sovereign. He can do as he pleases well, that's an interesting way of putting it, but that that doesn't really answer the question because It sounds like You're you are admitting

That the will of man in the case of the elect who are given the gift of perseverance

Will not be able to undo The decree of God in the final salvation of those individuals, right?

Well, what you're saying is that when God wills something it's necessarily going to come to pass

That is true in some cases that God wills the creation of the universe and here it is

But God can will other things and I gave the example earlier that for example God certainly wills that no member of the elect sin or at least

An uncontroversial example would be commits a serious sin like has an abortion or commits adultery

I think you and I would be clear God doesn't desire Anyone especially a member of the elect to do that But they they still do so God can will for something to to come to pass

But it might not because he's willed to decree other things like man has free will we can describe the prescriptive and Descriptive will of God at another point but prescriptive will versus his decree to will but it sounds like what you're saying

Is that in the case of the elect? that God gives the gift of perseverance to that man's will cannot undo what

God chooses to do that they will be saved in in finality and That is all due to God's sovereign decree, right?

No, that's not the way that I put it you and I have very different views about God's sovereignty you okay

All right. So now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Okay, this is where he's going to hopefully clarify his points of disagreement

All right, hold that God is sovereign and this is a topic for another debate We're talking about the perseverance of the

Saints You're espousing idea of God's sovereignty being that he's for ordaining things that he's you know

Actively willing or causing these things to happen and my point of view it makes sense if God creates human beings

He will perfectly for know who will choose to love him who will choose to remain with him and he gives those people

Grace to persevere to the end. He's not under any obligation to give other people

Any certain amount of grace including letting them come to Christ or letting them fall away There's no failure in God's will on this part.

Why would so it sounds like what horn meant to say and he used

Slippery language to get there. All right, which by the way, I'm not above framing issues in advantageous ways myself.

Okay Every good debater does that to it to a degree but it sounds like horn meant that God foreknows who will persevere and then chooses to give some kind of Special grace to final salvation

To those individuals if that's what he's saying Then the next question is why do these individuals need this kind of special grace if they were already going to persevere?

So, let's see what happens Why would he give a grace the grace of perseverance to people that he already foreknows are going to?

Persevere there it is Because the reason that they persevere is Because God get you know everything that we do as I said before what

Augustine says he who stands stands by God He who for not, you know, he who falls falls of his own will

I think it would just say that anything we do Coming to God, for example, our initial salvation is

By grace alone. We don't merit it with works or faith or anything like that That is by grace and so God gives different amounts of grace to different people

And he has the authority to do that freely God does freely

Is there anything in them in the in the creature that that determines this? Well, there may be something in the creature that God foreknows who will love him

But that would go to another question about whether election is conditional or unconditional But I didn't really hear an argument tonight to say that election is unconditional.

That's a clever shift Okay, but the bottom line is horn is not answered the question Why do these individuals who

God foreknew would persevere need special grace Let's see what happens next here

If you're given the gift of perseverance, you're going to be saved no matter anything else. Is that true or false?

if you're giving the if you if God gives you the gift of perseverance you will be saved if it's the

Gift of perseverance to final salvation, but up the point is I'm saying not every Christian What we disagree about is which

Members of the elect may receive this grace and what is the reason they receive this grace? Because the reason may be

God knows who will freely respond In different ways to to enter into a relation with him, but I guess that I want to back up a little bit though I'm not saying that that people are able to to freely resist

God's grace that if they're going to be what is Sustaining them to the end of their life.

What is sustaining them so that they remain? With Christ is going to be God's grace, but that grace isn't irresistible

So man can still man can freely choose to resist it There will just be some people who choose to not resist it and die unrepentant

But is the grace of perseverance resistible because you said that if a person's given the gift this is hard to watch

Okay, if horn is your guy Step outside your body for a moment and evaluate his performance

He's talking very ambiguously out of both sides of his mouth, and I'm not having a laugh.

Okay? I mean this is really hard to do. All right Withstanding cross -examination is very difficult And and I anticipate that you know, why is going to flounder when horn gets his turn at him?

You know what? I mean, but right now horn is in the hot seat and he's not doing well Is that yes?

But that is that gift that gift may be given to people who because they love God and will continue to love

God Won't resist but here's the thing just because they won't fall away from God later.

They won't resist God They still need grace at the beginning of their life onward to continue in the

Christian life to continue to grow in righteousness They I know that you've been really you're upset about synergism.

I'm upset I'm just completely lost as to why would God need to give a gift of perseverance to those whom he foreknows are

How you're going to freely continue to choose to love him Well, it sounds it sounds like it's based on what they do

The reason they love him is because they continue to receive the grace. He gives him they don't reject it If the grace is not there

They are incapable of loving God just as if there's no gasoline in the tank of the car The car won't go anywhere

Even though the person can push the gas or the brake So God foreknows that some people will persevere if and only if he bestows upon them special grace

All right, and then based on that foreknowledge of certain individuals he gives it to those people

Well, if that's what's going on here The problem with that is horn doesn't solve the original issue

The original issue was can a Christian lose their salvation and according to horn now? The answer is well for some folks know because if God provides special grace based on his foreknowledge

Then and only then will these folks persevere if he does not provide this special grace they will not persevere

So this stance he's taken has gotten him stuck right in the mud and I I just do not see a way out for him

I'd say right now clear advantage to James White I mean horn is really handling himself well, like in terms of presentation, but he's got to know that he's not doing well

Here at the moment trying to understand because it sounds like what you're saying. Is it in the case of some people?

God is actually able to save them by giving them the gift of perseverance

But it sounds like you're saying he only gives that gift of perseverance to people that he foresees are going to continue to love him

Which is what perseverance is so he gives them the gift of what he foresees. They're gonna do Anyways, he understands how they'll respond to that gift.

And so God will give his grace in different ways I think ultimately the disagreement we're having here and I'll finish my question is

You've put forward a very strong presentation saying it is God alone who saves man is not involved in any way

But I haven't really heard a lot of evidence to the contrary Whereas what if you read in Scripture, especially the passages

I talked about about where people can fall away from the faith I think it's very clear that God sustains us from beginning to end in our salvation people can resist

Some people will not God knows that they will will love him But their love on its own is not enough to enter into the kingdom

Their love has to freely receive that grace God gives them some to initial salvation and some to final you talked about Mortal and venial sin as being as being a defect in the

Catholic view of soteriology and justification But it seems to me you agree that If someone claims to be a

Christian But commits a big sin apostasy would be an example unrepentant apostasy that would prove that they were a false professor

Well, I don't think it's a matter of big sin versus small sin the sin of apostasy Specifically trampling underfoot the blood of the

Son of God which is also the sin in view in in first John when it talks about the sin of death That is the key issue.

Well, it's something that a true believer Apostasy let's say for example a member of your church left, let's say it was someone who has homosexual attractions and He's lived a celibate life but then is deceived by somebody like Matthew Vines and thinks

I can be a faithful Christian and a homosexual and Engage lives a homosexual lifestyle

Till the end of his days in your view would that show that person was a false professor from our perspective?

But I can't look I'm not gonna claim to be someone's heart But I'm going to but I'm gonna say from the church's perspective that that person would be put out as an unrepentant sinner

Yes, it's but okay Do people have to repent of all their sins because for example, let's say there's someone who lives in a homosexual relationship their whole life

James 3 2 says we all stumble in many ways. So a member of the elect who who gossips frequently and Never repents of the calumny.

They talk about others would would that person turn out to be a false professor? Well again, the the question is not are there false professors in the church, which

I believe that there are And that's why we try to proclaim the whole Council of God in the church so that you bring to bear the condemnation

Of gossiping for example and trust the Holy Spirit of God will bring conviction of that The the question is if a person is truly in Jesus Christ How do they have peace with God and What do the passages in Scripture instruct them as to how they are to live in light of the peace that they have with God?

so a person who would be the the gossip should be a person who is

Brought it's brought to their attention that that is sinful in God's sight and they're displeasing him. And what if they don't repent of that?

Well, I I've never encountered someone who when faced with that particular You know when brought before the elders or people that they know

I'll give you another example forgiveness You you said I said that Jesus required us to perfectly forgive the word perfects not in the verse that I know

I cited he says he just says if you don't forgive your brother I know a very famous person who shall remain unnamed who's publicly said he's never asked for forgiveness from anybody, right?

Yeah, so there could be Who could he be referring to Hmm Oh That's right, so this is an interesting strategy and you can classify this line of questioning under Test of coherence or something.

In other words, how does your system work internally? And are there any inconsistencies when held up to Scripture?

I think I would be spending more time on exegesis proper But this is definitely a path to explore with your interlocutor

You know, Jesus does appear to say if you do not forgive others your Heavenly Father will not forgive you

He doesn't appear to say that's exactly what he says in In Matthew chapter 6. So let's see what white does with this line of questioning

You just lost your 501c3 by the way, just just so you know No who

Who is the unforgiving man? Entrance entrance question, but it just seems to me that if it's being live -streamed someone see that If members the point here is that if members of the elect it seems to me

They won't go on committing, you know, living a homosexual lifestyle, but they will stumble in small ways

Yes, but isn't there isn't what's the difference between a sin like homosexuality and stumbling in small ways?

How's it a willingness to be? It's it's a willingness to be corrected and to allow the Word of God to speak if a person if I go to a person

In my congregation who's gossiping and they're bringing they're bringing Condemnation to others and they're bringing division and they go

Well, I don't think the Word of God actually says that or I'm not really under the authority of that That's the same thing as a person who would buy into Matthew Vines arguments as well

It may be what we would call a lesser sin, but it's the willingness to hear the voice of Christ Jesus says my voice my sheep hear my voice there is going to be a willingness to be corrected by the

Word of God That's what is going to be seen in the lives of the elect Well, let's look at the the warning passages then and I know you wanted to talk about Hebrews I would enjoy talking about Hebrews as well.

So in Hebrews 10 28 29 It says that there's a severe punishment for someone who breaks the new covenant.

How much severe punishment will it be? deserved who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and Regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.

Who's the he that's right in your book The potter's freedom on page 245 you say the he who is sanctified by the blood of the covenant is

Jesus Christ, right? Okay Hebrews 9 and 12 through 14

Hebrews 13 say that the blood of Christ purifies and sanctifies believers

Wouldn't an ordinary person take Hebrews 10 29. Okay. So here we go, right? These are the exegesis questions that I was looking for I'm not sure what happened to the previous line of questioning, but now we get into the exegesis.

So let's go Hebrews, by the way As you follow along it would be crucial for you to open up your scripture and read along With the passages so that you can track a lot of this stuff

Hebrews to have that same category that the blood of the Son of God is

Purifying and sanctifying a believer not Jesus Christ. Well, what did an ordinary person?

No, you're saying an ordinary person wouldn't come to that conclusion No They would not is your view the minority view on this passage it may be but the fact the matter is the book

So you so you're a very extraordinary person No what I'm saying is the book of Hebrews is very often misinterpreted because people don't know the

Old Testament if you don't understand the book of Leviticus the book of Hebrews is going to be a closed book to you if you don't understand what happened on the day of Yom Kippur the book of Hebrews would be a closed book to you and as a result church history is demonstrated

Especially after origin the allegorical interpretation methodology became popular the book of Hebrews was absolutely tortured as to its real meaning

Hebrews chapter 10 verses 10 and 14 had already talked about the perfection of the individual for whom

Christ had died if you knew what The high priest did then you would know that before the offering on Yom.

It's actually not Yom Kippur. It's Yom Kippur It's multiple atonements and before the offering for the people was made the high priest had to give an offering for himself and That when he brings that blood in there is the sanctification of the high priest.

Why does he bring the offering for himself? because because he himself is taking the position before he can bring the blood of the people in there has to be cleansing of Everything in the in the entirety of the tabernacle is

Jesus that does Jesus the new high priest have to be cleansed Jesus What did what did he do with John the

Baptist He was baptized by John the Baptist, right and John said no, I should be baptized with you

What does Jesus say suffer so it would be so now for thus it fulfills all righteousness Are you saying that Jesus follows saying the baptism of Jesus?

Cleansed him in the same way that no I am saying that he obeyed the law for example in Luke 2 22

It is said that the offering for sin was made for he and his mother just as the command was made

There was no sin in him, but they were following the law In the same way the high priest he sanctifies the offering by the present presentation of himself

Are you saying the height that Jesus in his office? So horn is trying to pin white on his interpretation of Hebrews chapter 10 okay, the

Problem is and yet you have to know your scriptures here. Okay, but Hebrews chapter 10 in terms of interpretation can cut both ways

That's that's why Christians have disagreed about this for a while. Okay at face value If you isolate this verse without looking around at the context

Then you'll probably agree with horn that a Christian who is being sanctified can lose their salvation

But if you start looking around and you notice that, you know, I mean white pointed it out, you know Then verse 10 it says that Christ's sacrifice has perfected for all time those who are sanctified

Then you'll probably tend to agree with white. So this isn't really a slam -dunk It's basically a wash at this point did not sanctify himself

What I'm saying is that the blood that whenever scripture refers to the blood of Christ sanctify

When it says the blood of Christ sanctifies it always refers to sanctifying believers

And you said well a lot of people don't understand the Old Testament Thomas Schreiner is a reformed theologian like you he holds eternal security

Schreiner probably understands the Old Testament. Would you right? Certainly, okay.

Well, this is what he says in his commentary on Hebrews He says it is awkward and unnatural to see a reference to Jesus in the pronoun instead of believers

For it makes little sense to say Jesus was sanctified by his own blood Jesus is the one who sanctifies in Hebrews 2 11 not the one who is sanctified so my last question this point is just this if biblical scholars and Ordinary wouldn't an ordinary person then when they read this passage

Why is that you think that that people come to this conclusion that it's the believer?

Doesn't it seem to me that the only reason we have to say that it's Jesus is because we can't have a true believer

Punished with eternal death because the blood of the Covenant is what is under so horn is pointing out that white runs up against The likes of Thomas Schreiner who

I have some of Schreiner's commentaries. I mean, he's got an excellent mind Horn even gets white to agree that Schreiner is knowledgeable about the

Old Testament And now Schreiner disagrees with white on his interpretation of Hebrews. This was really good

For horn this helps him out at this point though I would not be talking about ordinary people and Interpretations because then it kind of allows white to reiterate his interpretation of Hebrews because white is knowledgeable of the scriptures

Here I would be driving home the point that white disagrees with other well -known scholars or a majority of scholars and let that dig into his credibility there and Then move on to another question

It is the seriousness of what this person has done and notice what it says has profaned the blood of the

Covenant by which he was Sanctified this is the same Covenant that only a few verses earlier

Perfects those and by one offering makes them complete the author is not going to in a matter of only 14 verses turn around and completely contradict what he had just said as The evidence of his argument against the repetitive sacrifices of the

Old Covenant You're making the writer of the Hebrews contradict himself How am I making him do that when he's simply saying that those who violate the

New Covenant have a severe punishment They've regarded as unclean the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified

So I guess we're going to have to well you say it's a it's a perfect sacrifice, but Hebrews 10 26 Says if someone deliberately sins it no longer remains

Well, I just think you need to read what anyone writes like if I if I read your book I would allow what you write in paragraph a to determine what comes afterwards and since Hebrews 10 10 through 14 comes before Hebrews 10 28 to 29.

I think we need to read it in order not backwards. I've I've read it in order It's not the parts. I don't understand.

It's the parts. I do understand that Because it's your interpretation of Hebrews. It's incorrect. So horn has gotten in some blows here

With white and that's good for horn I don't know if horn has overcome white's lead

When it comes to what happened in previous cross -examination, so let's see what happens next I'd like to get to some other texts as as well here.

I have so many of these written down. Let's do it. Um, I Completely lost what you were saying in Romans chapter 4 if we could go back to what you were saying about You said that Romans chapter 4 is about anyone who receives

Forgiveness of sins Is that what you said apart from the Mosaic law blessed is the man whose sins

God forgives? That's that's the point that Paul is making here So when you look at verse 6 just as David also speaks the blessing of the man to whom

God credits Righteousness apart from works you interpret works to be merely the Mosaic law

What is the question Romans 4 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom

God imputes or credits righteousness apart from works then that's the introduction to Romans 4 7 8 this citation from Psalm 32.

So you just said something about the Mosaic law So are you interpreting works as solely the Mosaic law? I'm saying that's one way that the verse can be interpreted

I'll take two points to this number one, even if one Interpreted this broadly and came to the conclusion of justification by faith alone as I said earlier that doesn't entail

Eternal security because one could say you are justified your sins won't be credited to you because you simply have faith in God but if faith leaves

Then God because he's sovereign he could decree you're forgiven then decree You're unforgiven just as he does in the parable of the unmerciful servant

Second yeah, I would say that it makes the most sense to say Paul is talking about as he does righteousness apart from works of the

Mosaic law that in order to be justified You don't have to in the controversy in the church You don't have to become a

Jew before you become a Christian and the great clue to that is after verse 8 It says is this blessing then on the circumcised or on the uncircumcised also so you could look at it either way

But in either case you don't get the doctrine of eternal security in Roman Catholic theology if you commit a mortal sin is

It imputed to you is it imputed it destroys charity in the heart of man

But so it is imputed to your account you are held accountable for it Yeah Just just just as when

I've said of these other verses that if someone in 1st Corinthians 6 if they commit these other mortal sins adultery

Homosexuality things like this they won't inherit the kingdom of God But blessed is the man who does this who seeks forgiveness from God for if he does that his sins will not be taken into account so the reason

I'm quiet at this point is because this is what it looks like when you have two

Interlocutors who are pretty closely matched and they are they are doing their job. You know what

I mean? Like this is this is good From both sides. I'm trying to like think like could you say or do anything differently?

Representing both positions. I don't think you can these guys are these guys are representing their positions really well, so I'm just I'm Taking it in just like you are so if you commit a mortal sin or a venial sin

It is imputed to you, right? You are held accountable for those sins Yes, but I don't see how that pertains to the doctrine of eternal.

I'm asking you Well, I'm asking you as you look at Romans 4 8 when it says blessed is the man To whom the

Lord will not impute sin How does that work if Every sin you can commit is imputed to you

You're assuming that what it means is that when someone is justified by God sins will

Never be imputed to them will never destroy charity in their heart any onward in the future

Which as I said before I don't see how you're reading of this that well Blesses the man his sins will never it doesn't say they will never be imputed to them.

What is who may mean? What is who may mean yes, isn't that a strong negative

Means will may like if they tie that's the strongest way of saying will not be imputed so You said you said well,

I'm I'm that by the way is not my my reading of the text as I read this the blessedness verse 9 of Forgiveness of sin is his by faith before he is circumcised which is his argument against the

Jews But his point is blessed is the man to whom? The Lord will not impute sin and that's the explanation of what crediting righteousness apart from work

The reason how am I not read? What is the positive reading on your part of verse 8 the the two point here?

The reason the sins will so why is pressing horn on his exegesis and this is what you must do

Okay, it's not just as someone gets to say. Oh, you're wrong about your interpretation or even well

Here's my interpretation, right? The bottom line is more work needs to be done in order to prove interpretations and so white wants horn to exegete the text probably starting from like verse 6 and then going down but the issue is very similar to Hebrews if you isolate the verse without paying attention to what is being discussed before and After it then you probably are going to agree with horn

Okay, but if you start looking around and you notice the way that the Apostle Paul is talking about justification

And and the the free gift of salvation in the book of Romans And you notice that Paul's not talking anywhere about it being conditional to future works.

Well, then you're probably gonna agree with white here Are you starting to see why folks can't seem to agree on this that I think the distinction you're trying to draw us all

I'll make two points a smaller point and a larger point the smaller point being is I think you're trying to set up a dichotomy here and saying well

Catholics believe in infusion of righteousness and Romans 4a teaches imputation and so clearly since you you know, you don't believe in that this contradicts your theology

No, we we believe that you know righteousness of God can be imputed to us

I just said it can't be a legal fiction And what I said in the passage blessed is the man that the sin will not be taken into account is because he's confessed going

Back to Psalm 32 it's talking about seeking forgiveness from God like when King David sought forgiveness from Bathsheba So that's the smaller point but you

I mean you and I can debate justification, you know Until I the metaphor escapes me

I guess until the cows come home and someone credits them to our farm or whatever We could debate justification however long you want

But you could believe in justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness but it wouldn't follow from that that you have eternal security because people like Martin Luther or Wesley or others believe that if faith leaves if you commit apostasy

Then you lose your justification that legal decree is legally reversed and I haven't really so horns making a good point from his position here

Okay, technically just looking at Romans 4 8 in this little space You cannot completely dismiss the notion that conditional security is false

Because there's technically no explicit statement that invades against that You you could make the argument and and white is probably

He would do this that if God does not impute sin Then that applies not only at the point of salvation, but it also applies moving forward into the

Christians walk with God But that's probably an inference based on other places in the scripture not here in Romans 4 8

So horn is bringing up a point that I would probably bring up if I were in his position Seen any evidence to show

God would not do that Even if the Protestant theory of justification is true, you said in John chapter 6 verse 37 that You you introduced the term conditionally

And but then you seem to stop and say well actually that's later on So I I wasn't I wasn't certain what you were saying

I was referring to I because I thought that we might go talk a little bit more about John 640 or John 6 44 which talk

About how the person who is believing on Jesus who is coming to Jesus That he will be raised up that as you say in your own book

The promise is that it's conditional that did I ever say it was condition? No, I'm saying it's the natural progression of That if the father draws someone to the

Sun the father draws they'll come to the Sun and those who keep on coming who keep on believing they will be raised up to life because there's nothing in the text that says the drawing is

Some kind of irresistible grace that forces people to always that means they will always come to the

Sun I don't see that. So so let me well you say you don't see it But let me try to help you see it and we will pray that you'll see it

All that the father gives me will come to me which which action comes first The giving of the father or the coming to the

Sun in the text It says that the father gives all which is the whole body of the body of believers

Okay father gives the body believers and they come and so so which is do you believe that the text is indicating a relationship between these actions

Between the father giving and our coming. Yeah, I would say so that anyone we you can't approach the

Sun Unless you're you're drawn or given by the father. That's the necessity of grace. Is that everybody is everyone given by the father to the

Sun? Is every every every human being every human being? Yeah is given by the father to the

Sun I'm I'm not sure what you mean by that. Well, in other words, isn't this a specific people? Well, yeah, what what

FF Bruce says in his commentary on on the Gospel of John? He says that this is the neuter singular. This is so good.

I I really do like that horn brings up Theologians.

Well, I don't know about FF Bruce, but he's been the whole entire debate Bringing up theologians who are in agreement or support his particular position, but they are not

Catholic You know, this is very very good. This is a really good strategy. It'd be the equivalent of Somebody going into a debate with an atheist and bringing up a lot of atheists and quoting them to support their

Christian position That that's I like that horns been doing that that's that's really great

He's talking about how that this is the whole body of believers of believers who are given

And so, you know if you if you believe in Jesus, you're gonna come to him So the believers are given they come to Jesus and the one who comes to me.

I will certainly not cast out But it doesn't I'm but you have to you have to come to Jesus.

Didn't you just conflate believing and coming? Aren't they the same thing? They're the same thing aren't they you can't come to Jesus out believing in him, right?

Well our life with Christ is what it looks like What it's doing is trying to identify where horns view fits into Jesus words here again

If you're not keeping up with this, you need to go back and take a look at these passages of Scripture Okay, Jesus says

John 6 all that the father gives me will come But if horn has conflated coming with believing then what he's saying is

Jesus says all that the father gives me will believe That's what white is trying to tease out right at this particular moment.

What this has to do with eternal security is not at all clear Unless white is setting horn up for something later.

I mean, we'll just have to see about that I know you disparaged obedience earlier of a Romans 1 5 says that we have to practice the obedience.

I never disparaged Well, you said as if obedience wasn't something a part of maintaining our inheritance in the kingdom of God as if I said

It wasn't the basis upon which we earn it, but that's that's a different issue I want to stick with John 6 37 In John 6 believing and coming are parallel.

Are they not? Okay, fine Yeah Those those who believe will come to Jesus it but it doesn't say that they're always going to come to Jesus or they can't ever leave, okay, so But I'm just confused here because it sounded like in your mind you said

God gives the ones who are believing in Jesus the order in the text is we believe in Jesus because God gave us well

All that the Father gives me what is what is that all that's being given I what makes the most sense it's the body of Believers or the

I guess you could say the body of people who will come to believe I don't think that changes the argument at All those who are given by the

Father to the Son will come to the Son and the one who comes The one who continues to come will not be cast out.

But if someone stops coming Jesus may not cast them out So now horn is basically on the receiving end of his own argument about Romans 4, right

In John 6 37, there is technically no explicit statement that includes all of what horn just characterized

Not in that verse. You have to infer what horn just said based on other places in the scripture.

So So at this point, this is like the end of every Rocky movie, you know

Rocky gives a punch and then he takes a punch right and then you know, I mean, this is this is

This is a really good debate. I don't know who you think Rocky is in this particular debate

But you can't deny that horns got a little eye of the tiger thing going on over here You know, you know what by the way, that is my favorite moment in Rocky 3

It's when mr. T is taunting Rocky and he starts talking to Adrian and he's like hey there mama

I bet you lay awake at night and dreaming about a real man, you know And then and then Rocky just stares at him from like the crowd and you think he's gonna get angry or something

The only thing he says is well, you know, you got a big mouth, you know that If I'm at the if I say to you if you come to the debate table

After the debate to talk to me, I won't cast you out. It doesn't mean you can't leave on your own accord So I don't see eternal security.

Can't you can't you see that the the very verse before verse 37 says

But I said to you that you have seen me and you are not believing He's explaining the unbelief of these individuals and he explains it on the basis that you have to be given by the father

To the Sun they were to believe right they because they were not I to clarify In order to believe faith is a gift that must be given a person cannot have faith

On their on their own merits or initiative you have to receive the gift of faith But it doesn't follow from that that if someone receives the gift of faith from God that they will not throw away that gift later

And so I don't think that you've shown John 6 37 time and That's what you need to say from horns position

You know, this is an interesting verse dr. White, but it doesn't show eternal security It might support unconditional election, but it doesn't technically tell us about eternal security.

That's exactly how you need to handle this Let's talk a little bit about Galatians 5 4.

Yeah, you gave a Interesting illustration one of someone who straddles two roads and You can't go down the road of grace and the road of law

Indefinitely, you're gonna pick one or the other if someone is on the road of grace Doesn't that mean

God gave them grace and they are part of the elect? The specific statement says look

I Paul say to you that if you accept Circumcision Christ will be of no advantage to you.

That's that's the context That's that's verse 2 that has to be understood before this so he is addressing

Individuals who would be willing to add to faith in Christ human activity

Human accomplishment entering into the Old Covenant Whatever else it might be people who would add to the work of Christ.

So these are people who are claiming to be Christians there They're claiming to be

Christians and then they want to do something where but they're but they're not Christians Well, if they will accept circumcision then they have not understood what the gospel is

So they haven't been given the grace God gives someone to know circumcision is not the route you're supposed to go

They are in danger of being deceived by these individuals. Yes, and Paul is extremely concerned about it

There were people in Paul's time who would have been tempted to become Judaizers Did they stop did they not become

Judaizers because of their merit or did God give them grace? So they would not become Judaizers.

God would have protected his elect people because they're his sheep and he will lose none of his sheep

From their entering into they could have entered in temporarily to error

But they not lost but they would not be lost in I'm sorry, but they wouldn't do it permanently. No Okay.

So in fact, I think we would probably agree given your Perseverance. Yeah somebody as Jesus says the person who doesn't endure to the end will not be saved.

Yes Matthew 10 22 I agree with that So but the problem here is you're saying well, they're they're they're they're not

Christians Well, I'm saying no what I'm saying is they're in danger of accepting non -christian teaching

Because if you accept circumcision Christ will be of no advantage you can claim Jesus all you want

But if you you do not accept him as he is in the way that God has ordained

That is not going to that is not the gospel And so I want to be warned against false

Gospels because that's what the book started off by warning me against I don't want to be anathema. So if a

Christian in Paul's Church accepts circumcision temporarily and then returns

Has he through that process fallen from grace? Well, it says in verse 4 you are severed from Christ This is a really great exchange

And I'm just sitting here, you know kind of stepping outside the scope of this video I'm zooming out and just admiring the back -and -forth.

These guys are doing exactly what they should be doing from their positions This is what great cross -exam can look like, you know

If I were whites or horns old debate coaches, I'd be very proud of these guys I guess you're saying that there's somebody who can temporarily

Accept circumcision it seems I have known people who have gone into error and who have been delivered from the errors of their ways

Yes, so they fell from grace They they would have moved away from the state. They've no longer had access to God's grace

But if they're of God's sheep, he's gonna keep them So, okay, but that's the point then because if it's only temporary

I didn't answer your question and because I Rhetorically asked a question. I shouldn't have done that. Let me non rhetorically answer your question

I read verse 4 and then I stopped and I said who you have been severed from Christ who you who are seeking

To be justified by law And so this is this is a this is a person who is seeking to be justified by law

The the redeemed are not going to be seeking that so this is an unredeemed

Person who is severed from Christ and fell from grace Anyone who seeks to be justified by law will not find

Christ to be of benefit to them in that situation in that day Could there have been people that when they first read the the book of Galatians in the congregation?

Were torn between the authority the Apostle Paul and the false teachers that they like so very well

That's not even what's being addressed what Paul is saying. There is not two ways. Did you say this is an unredeemed person?

He's talking about the one who is seeking to be justified by law

Yes, so they don't have grace if they're seeking to be justified by law They don't understand the gospel then

How do you fall from grace if you never had it in the first because because you are moving away from the sphere where that?

Could even be an area of action in your life. It's you are you are assuming All through this and I haven't really challenged it as yet because I it's sort of part of another

Debate, but you are you are viewing grace as a substance Something that could be merited the saris meritorium the grace that is in it so on and so forth

I I would challenge that concept of grace as ever even entering into the mind of the

Apostle or Entering into the mind of any of the New Testament writers Could I be thinking of grace as the favor of God that you could do something to fall from?

As Paul says in Galatians 5 for that when the Lord ek peep toe is used to fall

Is it ever used in another place to describe someone who is just never United or attached to something in the first place doesn't it?

Talk about chains falling off or flower petals severing and falling is showing a complete disjunction

The way of faith is of grace The way of law is not

Paul's already established these categories earlier in Galatians So here we find another question of of exegesis where you need to know your scripture

Okay, but the bottom line is I think Horn has less work to do to support his position in Galatians 5

Then white does in other words white has a greater hill to climb in terms of interpretation that fits into his particular contention

There is no question that the Apostle Paul is speaking in a rhetorical fashion to warn the church not to be taken with false

Teaching I mean some of the strongest language that you've ever seen the Apostle Paul use if you just go to Galatians 3 1 right like Oh foolish

Galatians who has bewitched you right? but what is in question is how to understand his rhetoric is the

Apostle Paul talking about losing your salvation or is he merely providing a forceful contrast between the way of Christ and the way of the law which which by the way

Paul speaks of grace in Christ synonymously, so The only way you're gonna be able to answer this question in my opinion is by making an inference based on other parts of the

Scripture as well. You you have to make a cumulative case from various passages

You cannot tack your whole answer on this topic to one verse in the Bible Okay, are you beginning to see the issue at play here?

Because there there is no one verse that clearly spells this out for you All right multiple places of Scripture must come together to provide a framework

For you to understand this topic and that's why both horn and white are having to do a lot of work

To justify themselves in cross -examination because when you zoom in on one verse It doesn't go the full distance by itself to support one side or the other and if you're going down this direction

You're not going that direction That's the that there you so so both dress to summarize before we move on to fall from grace doesn't mean

You're on this path to grace and you go down here to law It just means you were never here in the first place and you've always been doing this

No, I simply say the verse 4 says if you are seeking to be justified by law

This is the only people this is descriptive of the only people is descriptive of and they need to understand

They are trying to meld and This is an area where I think Rome does this they are trying to meld

Grace and works and Paul's point is these two things are completely disjuncted.

They cannot be put together okay, so So you would say then? Then one last question about the understanding of the meaning of the passage.

Would you at least agree? An ordinary person when they read something like fell from grace

Means a person had grace now. They no longer have it if you know and let me finish and An ordinary person or even a learned person like Martin Luther It would be understandable why they might come to a conclusion if your ordinary person wasn't you know

And when you keep quoting Martin Luther, what he's got a big deal around what time in Martin Luther's life

Because that changed over time if you're familiar with the difference between Martin Luther before 1525 after 1525 about 1535

And then after is there a there are different periods There are writing that out. Is there a writing in Luther where he affirms the position you're defending tonight?

I believe it would be consistent with what he writes prior to 1525 After that point is in light in light of his in light of his debate with Erasmus and before the influence of Melanchthon But let me at least finish what we're saying in Galatians chapter 5 because we're getting into something else there but the point of Galatians chapter 5 is this comes after the

Establishment of these categories of grace and works that the rest of the entire book is about And I don't think you're allowing those categories to be to be indicative of what is being said right here, that's exactly correct

That's exactly this is what I would say if I were in White's position You cannot look at a verse in isolation without considering prior statements that help to contextually shape the verse in question

I think I'm just reading them the way Anybody here or a pretty famous German guy from 500 years ago would read them.

So why don't we move on to? Romans how about Romans? 1122

I think that's very interesting because you talked a lot, you know, we were talking about Romans 4 8 I think it made clear even if you have a

Protestant Theory of justification that's a side issue to what we're debating tonight It doesn't show eternal security that Paul even says at the end of Romans in Romans 11 22

If you don't continue in God's kindness you too will be cut off So the first question is wouldn't an ordinary person take that not you

Wouldn't just an ordinary person take the plain meaning of this text to be you can be in Cod's kindness

But then leave that state and be cut off if they ignore the context an ordinary person could make that error But if you read

Romans chapter 11, it's talking specifically here to the Gentiles and warning them against boasting against the

Jews who have been hardened for this particular period of time and cut off and Therefore they are not to boast against them because there is a purpose why

God has hardened Are you saying that you are the you are individual Gentiles the you are the

Gentile people as a whole? It's it's a singular. It's a singular you Paul's address It doesn't matter if it's singular because a singular can be used of an individual representing a group

I agree with us so then we can talk about the group then he's talking about the Gentiles Are they Gentile believers or unbelievers?

They're Gentile believers so Gentile believers can be cut off from God's entire believers need to be warned not to boast against the branches

What will happen if they do that the individuals again? All the warning passages are given to us by God's grace to tell us.

This is what God wants us to do This is what God does what happens and what happens if we don't and when they start doing that the question then becomes

Do we look at this as well okay, if Gentiles if there's ever been any one history of the church that has an anti -jewish perspective as the papacy did for hundreds of Years in a horrible sense.

How is that? That means that they've been cut off Right. Oh, yeah,

I mean the papacy they should model Luther when it comes to talking about Thank You Spicy little spicy there at the end

Look at the end of the day horn did a great job questioning white about passages that do not appear to support whites contention and White did a great job

Questioning horn about passages that don't appear to support horns contention and in my opinion They both answered the way that they should so in terms of style and substance

They are pretty evenly matched here. Like I said, it's so evenly matched on both sides here

It really comes down to who won by inches, you know what? I mean like who won by a nose and so for me it comes down to not so much their

Successes because I think both horn and white were successful in engaging the topic question Their opening statements and rebuttals were very solid

I think they both laid a great framework for the audience to navigate this kind of discussion

Although you could make the argument that that in this kind of more informal structure. They could have done a little bit more of Laying a framework during cross -exam.

So the audience can kind of keep up with the specific scriptural discussions They did a little but you know, that's anyway

They even did a great job of handling the word because as I said There is no one verse that clearly and definitively teaches eternal security

I mean, maybe the closest you can get to that would be like John 6 or John chapter 10, you know what

I mean? But even then horn had a response for that So for me, it doesn't come down to how well they did

But where they misstepped and while both gentlemen did make a couple of missteps in my opinion

Horn took a big one right at the beginning of first cross -exam when he basically agreed with white's own contention that some do not fall

Away, that's not a small deal friends That's kind of sort of conceding the other side's position which you should not do in a debate like this

All right white never had that kind of moment when he was in the hot seat And so I think this tips the scale in favor of white

I think white took this debate, but again, it was very very close And that's the thing too like you probably watching this debate

Maybe you think the scale tipped in favor of horn, but this is what I love to see two gentlemen Very good at what they do bringing out the clash engaging from their perspectives tackling the scriptures

I mean this debate was a very good one to watch Thanks very much for watching this video again if you have any ideas for me to Watch any future apologetics debates like maybe the one that just dropped an unbelievable then definitely

Let me know we vote on these every other week so stay in touch with my community tab on the channel and You'll get to vote and tell me which one you want me to do in the future if you disagree with me on Anything that you saw in this video.

I mean, let me know in the comments below But let's let's try to be very careful the way that the two interlocutors were uh and Support ourselves if we're going to have that kind of a discussion