Debate Teacher Reacts: James White vs. Trent Horn

I 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?

Hmm. Oh That's right.

Opening Reaction to the Debate and the Speaker's Criteria

Welcome back to another debate teacher reacts. It's Shaboy 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 a 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 Horn 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 you 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 in 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 in the monkey bars kid. 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 white's losing the thread here. He had that thread and now he's losing it. Let's see if he finds it again, you know.

1970 Jesus said I chose the 12 or literally I elected you 12 yet. One of you is a devil. Jesus chose the 12, 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 see anything special about being the son of perdition the one that was prophesied in the Old Testament scriptures to function in a particular way.

Like 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, there are 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'd 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 that stuff and Then he doesn't give them the gift of perseverance Between you and I as 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 decreed of 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 foreknow 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 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 purse 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 white 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 gift of perseverance resistible? 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. The I know that you've been really you're upset about synergism.

I'm being 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 are going to freely continue to choose to love him? Well, it's because it sounds like it's based on what they do 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.

No, 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. Anyway, 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 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, and 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?

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. Did someone see that?

If members it 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 that? It's 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 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.

Bruce 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 the fact the matter is the book of Hebrews 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 that 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 EAM 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 as Jesus that does Jesus the new high priest have to be cleansed.

Jesus What did what 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 to be so now for thus it fulfills all righteousness.

Are you saying that Jesus follow? Are you saying the baptism of Jesus? Cleansed him in the same way that no I'm 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 this 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 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 write?

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 whites 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 and 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 was talking about as he does righteousness apart from works of the Mosaic law that in order to be justified you don't have to.