Debate Teacher Reacts: James White vs. Trent Horn

This is what you wanted, folks! James White vs. Trent Horn debating the question: Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? Who bested the other? Was it too close to call? Find out in this video!
Link to the full debate: • DEBATE | Can a Christi...
Get your Wise Disciple merch here: bit.ly/wisedis...
Want a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.org
OR Book me as a speaker at your next event: wisedisciple.o...
Check out my full series on debate reactions: • Debate Teacher Reacts
Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them to me and I will answer on an upcoming podcast: wisedisciple.o...

[@ImCeeJH]

I’ve always appreciated how even tho this is a little channel you take it seriously. Always a good background setting, sound quality is amazing. And you are always consistent in making more content. It’s the little things that matter.

[@WiseDisciple]

Heyyyyyy, thanks so much Chris! Really appreciate the encouragement!

[@sebastos-]

could've sworn this channel had 100k+ subs from this video!

[@mcfarvo]

Wise to put in the effort to build up a following and then the backlog viewed later is still high-quality worth the watch! Nate now has this channel almost to 90k subscribers, so his grinding has been gradually, progressively effective in reaching people! God bless his ministry

[@Tjtellsthetruth]

@@WiseDisciple Look what it's become and will come, do a video with Mike wWingeringer and get some more exposure personally I prefer you over him aevevenen though he has more views but both of you got me thinking Biblically. My Dad always said it doesnt matter what church it is as long as it's Bible based and the Holy Spirit is there. No straying or perversion of God's word. Thank you for helping me become the effective Christian I need to be. At 33 years old and some years of straying and thinking I was living righteously even though I was helping others I was throwing pearls to swine and hurting myself by making all the sacrifices I made. I made my ex girlfriends my Idol. Now Jesus and God are my number 1, not 2. And I am second to that. When I have a family some day hopefully God willing I will prioritize them but I need to be equally yoked and date a believer. Not these girls who practice the occult, do meth, and resent/reject God. Thank you, Nate and God Bless.

[@kaufmanat1]

not so small now...

[@willbirney9202]

This might be my all time favorite theological debate. I’ve watched it multiple times and after each viewing I tend to think a different person won the debate. I theologically align with White, but man is Trent Horn sharp. This debate is as good as it gets. Amazing breakdown as usual!

[@brittoncain5090]

@@mintymush4259 Nah, Mike Winger got absolutely stomped by Trent

[@jayv3264]

@@brittoncain5090 , nope.

[@brittoncain5090]

@@jayv3264 Yep

[@jayv3264]

@@brittoncain5090 , nope. 🤪

[@brittoncain5090]

@@jayv3264 Why do you think Mike came out on top?

[@Seethi_C]

I’ve watched this debate probably 5 times now, and something I just now thought of was that the gift of perseverance that Trent talked about is very different than the one Calvinists talk about. In Trent’s view, someone can lose and regain their salvation multiple times, and ultimately die in a state of salvation. I think Trent would still consider this person to have been given the gift of perseverance.

[@kyler9323]

Yes he would.

[@Seethi_C]

@@LouisStravinsky Im Catholic. My point is the difference, because White tried to claim that their beliefs were basically the same.

[@zelie1155]

Hello, I'm new! :) When Trent agreed that it is possible for some to never fall away, isn't that consistent with the Catholic view? We could have a person in the state of grace who, by God's grace, are able to never fall away their whole life. We could also have people who are in a state of grace who either fall away and do not come back, or fall away and come back. It is possible for someone to never fall from grace AND it is possible for a person in the state of grace to fall from grace and come back, or never come back. Saying that it is possible for some people to never fall (we say never lose their baptismal innocents) is not admitting that all people in a state of grace never fall.

[@voxangeli9205]

I agree.

[@vanorum3804]

It actually isn't because he believes that Mary never sinned because God protected her from sin. So in Catholic theology God can offer protection to an(/at least one) individual. But God would never predetermine something like this as in not granting/interfering with free will (What makes Mary worthy of veneration in the first place is that she freely cooperated with God's plan of salvation so that it could come to fruition in Jesus Christ).

[@user-ku2mo5ko1p]

​​​@@vanorum3804Nope, that's not the Catholic teaching on Mary. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was preserved in her conception from receiving the original sin in provision of the merits of her Son (hence she was saved by her Son, but in advance). Since she had no Original Sin, she had no stain of sin, but so did Eve...and she fell! Mary did not sin because she kept the Grace received all the way to her deathbed; now, of course that's God's grace and glory be to God...but in no way it should be read like some sort of "bulletproof vest" against sin preventing her from sinning even if she was hell bent to (wanted to). She's different from me and you in the sense that she was never contaminated with the original sin (while we were washed from it); but she still could sin if she wanted to. I mean, Adam and Eve clearly did! And I don't want to be disrespectful, but White's take on it makes God the sinner, since, if everything is God's work and free will cannot possibly exist, then He could just have prevented our progenitors from falling. Catholics stay the farthest away from that !

[@certifiedsadboi3387]

Why would horn conceding that some Christians can’t fall away be a major misstep if the question is if a Christian can lose their salvation ? Even if horn concedes that some elect Christians can’t fall away, all he has to do is prove that some Christians can and do fall away. Idk Maybe I’m missing something.

[@Fasolislithuan]

That's the core of the debate. There is a wrong assumptions, that both defended well their positions with verses of the Bible. The problem is that Trent position only need to show verses that refute White's pressuposition to debunk the calvinist position. Whereas the calvinist position can show verses that looks "calvinist" but cannot manage verses that deny the calvinist assertions.

[@olamonkeyadegorilla5382]

@@Fasolislithuan you get it. Saw it in the first couple of minutes. Can't finish the video.

[@matthewluisantero5051]

precisely what I thought

[@pr073u569]

​@@Fasolislithuan White answered this in the debate. Those verses do not mean what Horn claimed they meant when read in their context. There are unbelievers who claim to be Christian. I would argue this is the seed that grows for a time and then fades in Jesus parable.

[@Fasolislithuan]

@@pr073u569 That's absurd. You cannot desdain any christian who is baptized with the trinitarian formula and that doesnt share your interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures as he would be an unbeliever who claim is christian. Any one can asserts the same. For example I can say J White is an unbeliever that pretends be christian but cannot be christian because he doesnt read the Bible in context as I do and he is only the wood of the parable. This is a nonsense. But I can say his TULIP interpretation of Scriptures is contrary to Church Fathers and the first 1500 years of Church history. But this is truth and not a mere opinion.

[@jonbrittain78]

The topic is 'can a Christian lose their salvation'. If it's true that some can and some can't, the answer to that question is still yes.

[@gtf5392]

Yeah that’s what I was thinking too as I watched this.

[@thomasglass9491]

Nowhere in Scripture is that! No one can lose their salvation. The One that gives it and preserves it.

[@kitthorton9860]

Bingo

[@themanufan8]

@@thomasglass9491 that is so dangerous to preach lol... i hope the people you have taught that are truly saved and not lying to themselves about their faith.

[@thomasglass9491]

@@themanufan8 Well that's what Scripture teaches!

[@michaeldo616]

So hyped to finally listen to this!!! Excited to hear a debater's perspective on this debate, regardless of whether you're Catholic or Protestant. It's important to continue dialogue in a respectfully way!

[@WiseDisciple]

Amen, Michael!

[@MrMonchis04]

Catholic vs calvinist

[@YovanypadillaJr]

I honestly would love to see Nate and Trent have a conversation so he can explain his position more.

[@WiseDisciple]

👀

[@AnimatedBibleandTheology]

@@WiseDisciple make it happen. I bet Trent would do it too. Love the channel and just subscribed. Do this with James white vs Patrick Madrid on sola Scriptura. Definitely gets spicy and just a great debate like this one.

[@williamkeller5541]

Personally, I think that White did a little better in these cross-examinations, but on the whole I would have to give it to Horn.

[@WiseDisciple]

I hear ya! Thanks for watching, William 😊

[@christsservant583]

Yeah, I fully agree.

[@echomike8591]

"Some don't fall away" but some do, therefore salvation can be lost. The topic is "Can salvation be lost?", yes it can. I love your channel, very intellectually stimulating.

[@Zachary_Setzer]

This is what I was coming down here to say. I think Nate missed on this one. If the proposition is 'children are always shorter than adults' and the debater opposing the proposition says 'most children are indeed shorter than most adults,' he hasn't affirmed the proposition at all. He only needs to show that some children are taller than some adults to win the debate. Likewise, Trent doesn't have to defend the position that God never grants perseverence, only that it some are saved initially and fail to persevere. I agree this was Trent's weakest moment in the debate, but he didn't support White's position in the way Nate thinks he did.

[@razoredge6130]

That means god let his hand go and didn't protect them.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

No it doesn't. Once horn admits that eternal security exists that weakens his position, as God is not a respector of persons, and God is not willing that any should perish. Further Shall not come into condemnation is CLEAR. If you come into condemnation then you are saying God lied which won't ever happen.

[@Fassnight]

24:40 is the best part of the debate. It is always nice when the two debaters can share a laugh or friendly moment even in the midst of fire

[@rickbaker261]

A better question for Trent would be: So the reason that this person perseveres finally is because God gives him the grace he needs - you are saying he foreknows that person (a) is going to persevere, but they persevere because he gives them grace…so he foreknows that he is going to give them perseverance - aren’t you just saying he elects freely and decrees their salvation infallibly, just not in those words?

[@jonphinguyen]

Just found your channel. Amazing content. I can't even tell what you believe or biases you have in these debate reviews. Very professional and inspiring. God bless and keep it up!

[@WiseDisciple]

Heyyyy, thanks so much! Appreciate you 😊

[@Xenotypic]

It's been a while since I watched this debate, but if memory serves this is the only James White debate in which I questioned whether or not he won the debate. Trent Horn put up the best defense of Catholicism I've ever seen in this, although it still wasn't persuasive enough for me. Would love to see a rematch.

[@WiseDisciple]

Oooooh, a rematch! I never thought about it until you said this but... did they ever debate again? Or is this the only one?

[@GratiaPrima_]

Come home to Rome 😊 😉.

[@ByzBap]

@@GratiaPrima_ Rome is not my home😊😉

[@ajamusic7322]

@@WiseDisciple I believe Trent has put out to offer on the topic of Sola Scriptura vs Apostolic Succession.

[@amichiganblackman3200]

Not sure what you mean about a defense for Catholicism; this debate had little to do with that.

[@ronbravo4411]

Loved this video and the breakdown, it made me re-evaluate James White's performance in that I can admit he did better than I originally thought. However, I have to disagree with the final analysis because the debate wasn't just the cross. As was admitted, Horn did an amazing job laying out everything from the beginning. White did a good job as well, but I think Horn's was stronger because of the usage of non Catholic positions as you pointed out. As a non Catholic, I was quite surprised how Horn took this approach but thought it was brilliant. In the rebuttable periods James did not did provide a clear methodology by which to interpret the problem passage scriptures other than along already held theological perspectives. He said prescriptive vs descriptive but really did not provide a strong way to understand this as it comes off as "If it agrees with my position it's prescriptive, it does not, it's descriptive" which is self serving but does not help someone who does not share that perspective break down and interpret the text better. Horn did raise this issue a few times and I was wondering if he would have pushed more on this problem in the cross examination but did not. This issue is what gives a lot of weight to your point that interpreting these verses is not a simple cut and dry thing. The other issue I personally faulted White on, aside from things you pointed out in the cross, is that he kept resorting to denomination attacks / critiques, which seemed to be a weak place to start from. It would have been fine if the debate was along denomination lines but Horn established early on that Catholics are not the only ones to hold this position. White raised the same type of implication / concern to William Lane Craig accepting of Molanism because it was a Catholic doctrine. James seemed to imply Horn had a wrong position because of his Catholic background. However, what about the non Catholic who comes to the same conclusion. I agree with you that Horn took a huge blow in the beginning as I was having a hard time following him, but did notice the things you pointed out when I first watched the debate, but I do not think it was enough to declare him the loser because of the full debate. I would agree if the debate was only the cross examination. But you are the professional debater, not me, so you criticisms are by those professional standards which is why you changed my mind on so much. Thank you for this and I look forward to many of your future videos.

[@joeterp5615]

Very good analysis. I like Trent, but I thought he was struggling at times during the cross examination to find the right words - I’ve never seen him struggle like that. To the main thrust of his argument though, I think you are exactly correct. White was very quick to dismiss scriptures that didn’t back him up as being merely descriptive. Yet I think the fundamental gist of those scriptures was actually quite clear. Then for the scriptures that he thought supported his case, he didn’t grant any allowance for variation from his interpretation. However, I think his scriptures could reasonable be interpreted differently. When Jesus saves, and the scriptures expound on what it means to be in God’s grace, I just don’t think it follows that we should assume we can’t fall from grace. The scriptures don’t explicitly state that. And, I think that would make all the scriptures Trent cited (which to me seemed more explicit in their relation to the question of this debate) to be very confusing in terms of their intended purpose, at best. Also, Jesus was specific in his instructions when giving forgiveness (like to the woman caught in adultery), “go and sin no more.” That is an instruction given by Christ, a command. He did not say, “By the way, now that you have accepted me, you won’t find yourself sinning any more because of my grace and you are definitely going to heaven, congrats.” No, we must continue to choose to stay in his grace. We always have this choice. God does not take away our free will. He wants us to freely love Him, as He loves us. When does Christ ever state that someone who’s sins He has forgiven will definitively be in heaven? I can only think of one time off-hand, and that was to the good thief on the cross. This man was at death’s door, so Christ did not have to instruct him to sin no more. He was forgiven, and would be in heaven with Christ soon. Everyone else has to persevere in staying in grace and not turning away from God, up to the time of their death too.

[@ronbravo4411]

​@@joeterp5615 I agree with each of your points. I do hope these two have more formal debates in the future and I hope they focus on topics that are less along denominational lines, but more along theological lines (although I grant that sometimes the theological will cross the denominational ones). I am not a Catholic but was very pleasantly surprised with how this debate was done and handle. I gave this one to Trent in the long run and kudos to all those involved. You might also be interested in Trent's preparation for debates: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaS0iWOrp9KKrq8

[@joeterp5615]

@@ronbravo4411 Indeed! - I just watched that video earlier tonight! I really enjoyed it. It was good to see Trent relaxed. Debates can be so tense and stressful. I’m Catholic, but I’ve always had great respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters too, as I was raised with a very ecumenical mindset, believing loving Jesus was the most important thing. That’s not to say that I don’t believe in the specifics of the Catholic faith - as I do - but sharing a belief in the saving power Christ is the single most important thing. God Bless.

[@TheCrusaderPub]

I say this with no snark intended, though people may read it that way: Calvinists have a tendency to see the Augustinian/Thomist positions and conflate them with Calvin’s. This makes sense because Calvin was so inspired by them, especially Augustine. However, both Augustine and Aquinas were far more nuanced than Calvinism allows.

[@GratiaPrima_]

🎯

[@jpcchiang]

Thank you Nate for your ministry. I appreciate your ability to dissect the debate and articulate the basis of the argument. God bless you and your family.

[@councilofflorence4896]

You appear to not understand the nuance of Trent Horn's position, which is based on St. Augustine and the Council of Orange. Of course he admits there is a gift of perseverance unto the end.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I can’t believe this channel doesn’t have 100k subscribers. Very good.

[@WiseDisciple]

Appreciate the encouragement!!

[@timothymarchant]

It does now

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@timothymarchant it deserved to rise. I watched it when it was as small as my channel.

[@manny75586]

Trent is a machine. It was an interesting debate.

[@lauromartinez8948]

None of the verses Horn presented were presented “in isolation” all of his verses in context support his position!

[@taylorj.1628]

Great debate! I personally am a protestant who believes the Scriptures teaches someone is only eternally secure if they continue in believing, so I surprisingly agree with the Catholic position here. That said, I think White brought up some great points.

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks for your thoughts here! If you go back and watch the opening statements, Horn made the point you just made -- and it's absolutely true. 😊

[@matt_h_27]

No understanding calvinist would disagree with you on this point. This is not a mutually exclusive Catholic position. Conversely, someone is only going to continue in believing if they are chosen before the foundation of the world. As the Apostle John writes, they went out from among us BECAUSE they were NEVER of us.

[@Galmala94]

@@matt_h_27 And if someone confesses the faith for decades and then leaves, he wasn't believer at all at any point. So it is possible to really believe that you really believe tje gospel and be wrong. What a terrible system. Robs all assurance :(

[@matt_h_27]

@@Galmala94 sounds like you have an unbiblical understanding of what “believe” means. And you also discount the work of the Holy Spirit to convict, reprove, discipline, correct, which are evidences of God’s active, gracious love for a person. It’s the person who receives no conviction, reproof, discipline and correction who should be concerned. In that case, there is no relationship with Jesus and, consequently, no salvation.

[@tomtemple69]

Yes, the truly saved will remain believing because THE HOLY SPIRIT

[@evancawley3236]

One thing I learned from this debate from Trent Horn was that james white read's his theology into the text. And thats one thing I allways try to keep in mind when someone is trying to use scripture to back up their point.

[@MrMochafrapachinolatte]

This was awesome to watch. Thank you for your commentary and educational videos. Since I found you, I have been showing everybody your stuff.

[@thewolfes146]

I just discovered this channel, and I'm not sure what your theology consists of but your videos seem very good and informative, and I really want you to review the Craig/White debate!

[@malcolmkirk3343]

Horn's point is "He who perseveres TO THE END will be saved." That does not include everyone who perseveres, and then turn from the faith.

[@Defender_of_Faith]

He gives them that gift of perseverance because he knows what they're going to do and it is a reward for them

[@scottforesman7968]

Both men are very bright. You might be surprised that I'm a Catholic who regularly watches both of these men on youtube. My though is this: if you're Catholic, you're going to believe your guy won. Same if you're a Protestant. I watched this debate and thought Trent 'won'. No surprise. Your review is interesting, but I think your conclusion is not a surprise as you yourself are Protestant. (don't take this as a put-down).

[@SuperrBoyful]

Yep.

[@spriles]

Was a James White fanboy up until this debate. Horn's defeat of White here is what eventually got me started on the train that eventually ended up with me rejecting the belief in perseverance.

[@Wgaither1]

I had James White winning in a landslide

[@spriles]

@@Wgaither1 lol, and I'm sure you were already on his side to begin with

[@jesuschristsaves9067]

@@spriles correct. That’s why white in his insecurity had to record an hour long video on how to “accurately” judge debates.

[@pr073u569]

@@jesuschristsaves9067 He does that after many of his debates. Horn taking verses out of context to make a eisegeted point needed to be called out. Horn never dealt with John 6 and a host of other verses.

[@jesuschristsaves9067]

@@pr073u569 That’s the only video of that kind on alpha and omega ministries and the reason for the creation of that video is because he was getting unfavorable mail on how poorly his reformed brothers felt he did in the debate. Claiming someone eisogeted scripture isn’t an argument and in fact, literally no one in the early church interpreted scripture in a manner that proves eternal security. Eternal security (OSAS) is a fabrication made to make sense of the P in TULIP.

[@johnspaulding9517]

It’s so cool to see Shia Labeouf having conversations like these with James White. Didn’t know he had discussions like these outside of Hollywood.

[@jeremyhewitt2637]

This is a fantastic debate in debating from the scripture itself.

[@jebbush2527]

Horn won. I agree the cross examination was close but imo Trent ganked him in the opening and rebuttal sections. I think where we disagree is the weight in Trent’s “concession.” Trent’s concession doesn’t concede the debate at all. The resolution is not *all* Christians can lose salvation, rather it is “Christians can lose their salvation.” So Trent saying some won’t lose salvation some will doesn’t concede the debate resolution at all-he’d win if that were correct. Even if only one Christian lost his or her salvation, I’d argue he’d be correct. I guess it depends how you interpret the resolution.

[@AndrewofVirginia]

Definitely think horn won the debate. I watched the whole thing, and yeah horn did kind of stammer around with some funny comments right at the beginning of the cross exam, but as a whole with opening and closing statements and rebuttals in consideration, Horn clearly made a better presentation.

[@WiseDisciple]

One thing I noticed that Horn did that I thought was great in opening statements is: when he framed the discussion he made sure to point out that this should not be viewed as Protestant vs. Catholic, since many Protestants do not agree with eternal security. Great point to make there, for sure!

[@blackpatriot3]

How do you win when you can’t answer questions about God’s Sovereignty and only argue from a man centered perspective?

[@Wgaither1]

@@blackpatriot3 great point

[@ministryoftruth1451]

If he won, then White won since he basically agreed with White's stance.

[@SuperrBoyful]

@@ministryoftruth1451 He didn’t agree with the Calvinist interpretation completely. Many tenets of Calvinist is extracted from the Catholic Church, so there are things that can be agreed on both sides. In any case, the tenets all point back to the original Christian Church established by Christ-which is the Catholic Church.

[@cheerfulmouse]

Something additional that makes it difficult to follow, just by listening, is their voices sound very similar... And their arguments are so close, it's really hard to follow with those additional features as well 😅

[@EpaphroditusBeltishazzar]

Definitely. I listen to these when I'm driving to/from work. This one (which I actually watched at home), would have been difficult.

[@jimr4319]

Great debate between two committed Christians. Protestant and Catholic. Sure their may be differences but both deeply agree in the deity of Christ along with the Trinity. 1 Corinthians 12.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

I’m a Christian. I’m not a Calvinist. I’m not a Roman Catholic. So I disagree with both White and Horn. Great analysis bro! You’ve done it again.😁👍

[@nowski1]

Can't wait until you find out that both Calvinists and Catholics are Christians

[@donnadeau7619]

Mark, How are you a 'christian' if you are not a catholic and Christianity come from the Catholic?

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

@@donnadeau7619 he must be a byzantine catholic (like Trent horn)

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

Trent Horn is not a Roman Catholic either, he's a Byzantine Catholic

[@Mark-cd2wf]

@@lucidlocomotive2014 really? Thought for sure he was a Roman. What’s the difference?

[@HosannaInExcelsis]

The fact that James White couldn’t articulate a good example of a Christian holding his position before the XVI century was very telling. That was a critical question in the debate.

[@chrispeele3746]

I’m a Protestant and it’s quite obvious that Trent Horn clearly won that debate. It wasn’t even close in my opinion.

[@lyterman]

I think you're missing the point by chiding Trent on the cross ex. Trent claiming that some Christians will not fall away does not at all contradict his claim that a Christian can fall away. It's like if we were debating, "can eggs break?" and you bring up an example of an egg locked away in an unbreakable safe that could never be broken to disprove the claim. Even if that egg will never break, it is still possible for eggs to break. White's cross ex was a big red herring that didn't damage Horn's position at all.

[@zekdom]

7:41, 8:59 - Judas 18:12, 18:38, 19:33 - Cross-examining Trent Horn 35:45 37:57 45:01, 45:14, 45:43 47:30, 47:45 - John 6 48:13, 49:21, 50:56, 51:43, 52:16, 53:05, 53:57, 54:17, 55:07, 58:13 - Galatians 5 58:50, 59:17 - Romans 11 1:00:40, 1:01:12, 1:02:08 - Conclusion

[@rhwinner]

My brain hurts....

[@GratiaPrima_]

Hrm, I think you’re confused by what Horne is saying because of the Catholic perspective. We believe you have to cooperate with God’s grace to keep your salvation. Not that we earn it with our works, but our works are how we receive and cooperate with graces God gives. He seems to be saying those could be “cut off” so to speak for someone God knows won’t preserve. Idk that I agree with Horne on that, but from the Catholic perspective I can see how what he’s saying isn’t *complete* gobbledygook

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks for the comment! I hear ya. And I am tracking the cooperation aspect of God's grace and believer. There are many Protestant Christians who would agree with Horn on this. But where Horn's issue came in from a debate perspective (IMO) was when he appeared to say that God gives special grace to those He foreknows would persevere (if and only if they receive that grace). Without this special grace they would not persevere. That's where he ended up sounding like White. And that's when the problems crept in.

[@GratiaPrima_]

@@WiseDisciple I can see that. Anyway, enjoyed discovering your channel. New subbie here.

[@matthewluisantero5051]

Thanks for this video. I can see how the cross examination was such a close battle, but for me, if you also consider their opening statements and rebuttals before the cross exam period, I'd say Trent won this debate. I'm Catholic but I don't even totally agree with his views on Divine Sovereignty and Predestination as his views seem to be Molinist/at least close to it, whereas I am more sympathetic to the Thomist view. I don't think Horn's concession at the beginning of the cross exam period is so big of a deal so as to serve as a major contradiction to what he's trying to argue for. Just because some believers, who are truly born again and are truly justified, CAN and WILL persevere to the end doesn't mean ALL WILL persevere, hence the possibility that some true Christians can still lose salvation. Horn's position still seems intact despite the concession.

[@asggerpatton7169]

If nothing you do in your own power(even if only partially so) results in salvation, then God determined from the beginning of time who he would send to Heaven and Hell. If when a christian falls away from the faith means that he/she was never a christian to begin with, then how do you know you're a christian now? If God gives humans the choice to become christians, then why wouldn't God also give us the choice to not be christians once we, well, become christians?

[@daveeagle2721]

"If God gives humans the choice to become christians, then why wouldn't God also give us the choice to not be christians once we, well, become christians?" A further, and maybe more deep point to make, that to me is the same question is, "how can a deceased Christian who is present with the Lord never be allowed to 'choose' to walk away?" I mean, if they were allowed, then heaven isn't necessarily forever for some people, since they can will themselves out. What do you think?

[@asggerpatton7169]

@@daveeagle2721 I don't know if people in Heaven are bound forever on it, but if they are, that would be a totally different reality than what we have on earth. Here, we obviously have the posibility of losing faith.

[@VieiraFi]

I just realized your channel is actually much smaller than I thought. Very good quality, content wise and also good audio and video quality. Hope you can grow your channel! Merry christmas!

[@Christian-ut2sp]

Thank you! Oh you made it 1 hour? Definitely worth the wait!

[@Christian-ut2sp]

Thank you for catching Horn’s contradiction about how some are given the gift of perseverance. I love how you actually focus on what they debaters are saying. He was equivocating at that point. One point where I think I need to clarify: when James White brought up John 6:37, it was because he was attempting to prove that John 6:44 proves eternal security. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” - John 6:44 So White’s argument was that John 6:44 is a didactic text. John 6:37 also clarifies that it’s those that “The Father gives” that “come”. So White is saying that the Father gives or draws the elect, then those who are drawn will be raised up on the last day. That’s the argument for eternal security. There’s nothing to indicate that only some who are drawn will be raised up on the last day. Most laymen who watched this debate think Trent won by a landslide. I agree with you about who won, but I’m more pleased about your recognition of how close it was. They both did a great job, but Trent shot himself in the foot by admitting that he believes in a form of the perseverance of the saints. This was a fantastic debate review.

[@WiseDisciple]

Oh that's good, I missed that! Thanks for the clarification (and for watching) 😊

[@awm9290]

No that’s absolutely not true. Trent acknowledges that some but not all are given the gift of perseverance, because it’s doctrine. St. Augustine writes about this in the 5th century. What is Trent supposed to do, lie about it to win a debate?

[@computationaltheist7267]

@@awm9290 Wait, bro, is this the Andrew Mooney? You've been lost my friend. You used to come on Trinity Radio livestreams. I hope all is well.

[@awm9290]

@@computationaltheist7267 My dude! Hope you’ve been well! I’ve definitely missed the live chats with you. I can’t watch the streams at work like I used to. Things have been hectic since I started my new job! Hopefully I’ll be able to get back into it soon after things calmed down. I’ve been able to catch some Reason & Theology streams after work though. You should come hang out there!

[@SuperrBoyful]

What about White’s contradictions to several Bible verses that Trent acknowledges? White’s 16th century Calvinist interpretation doesn’t align with many Bible verses unless you take the verse completely out of context to your own liking.

[@Pastor_Chief]

Don’t always like White, but i am proud of him in this debate

[@lawrence1318]

Horn: "God understands how certain people will respond to the gift of perseverance, and so only gives that gift to those who will respond positively". That is circular. All Horn has done is substitute "respond positively", for "perseverance", and pretend it's something else. The fact is, you don't need to respond positively to the gift of perseverance, for the gift of perseverance is in and of itself a perpetual positive response. In a nutshell, Horn is defining perseverance in abstraction from itself.

[@christsavesreadromans1096]

On the contrary, the grace God gives you is resistible. So it’s not unreasonable to posit that God would give the grace to one He knows will not resist it.

[@lawrence1318]

@@christsavesreadromans1096 No it's not resistible, as it's received before one knows it, at which point it's too late to resist.

[@christsavesreadromans1096]

@@lawrence1318 That is clearly unscriptural. Grace can always be resisted, you do not have a biblical understanding of this topic. *Acts 7:51* “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.” *Matthew 23:37* “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” *Luke 7:30* “but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)”

[@lawrence1318]

@@christsavesreadromans1096 Rather, it is clear you are not born again.

[@christsavesreadromans1096]

@@lawrence1318 Not a single refutation to any verse I gave, which clearly shows God’s will, purpose, and even God Himself can be resisted. Only insults and presumptions about a person you don’t even know. Is that indicative of being born again?

[@normnorumi3780]

As a Lutheran I believe both to be half right and half wrong. As a Lutheran I am also almost always frustrated when James White refers to Luther.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Most people listen to music while gaming. I listen to this masterpiece

[@micahknerl1738]

Most of my debate judges at tournaments didn't have a lot of debate or logic history, so laying a framework or logic flow at the beginning of every debate is important.

[@WiseDisciple]

Amen!

[@ThomistReview1950]

Funny running into you here Michah

[@AnimatedBibleandTheology]

Just subbed with the bell. This channel is great. I’d recommend doing all debate recaps and then try to get the original Guests on to talk about it or offer a rematch. Lease do this with Patrick Madrid vs James white on sola Scriptura. Definitely gets spicy like this one and just a great debate.

[@ralphjosephrjm326]

Man you're presentation is elite class. Keep it up bro.

[@marstru1498]

Trent Horn is clearly the superior debater, but maybe thats because he has truth on his side 😉

[@WiseDisciple]

Lol ok! Thanks for watching 😊

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

No I completely disagree I think James White is the superior theater I find him a way more persuasive and he said Lino debates on parole and he’s more experienced.

[@jothePianoMaster13]

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes unto the father except through me" Not through Mary, not through the Pope, not through anyone except through Jesus.

[@fpvflightairborne2168]

Wow super loaded 😂

[@whaddup691]

I see the biggest flaw in White’s view as being this: if God picks who He saves, and we cannot choose cooperate or reject that grace, why are their warning passages or passages saying how we should act if we are saved? If we have no choice in being saved, and if we are saved we act certain ways, then it doesn’t need to be written

[@CasshernSinz1613]

This is bar none one of the most difficult topics in Christianity. Apostasy is a hard topic because it is a bit of a mystery regarding our saved status. I really cannot decide what I believe after all the debates I've seen and consider it a tertiary issue. Do we need to understand this teaching to be saved? No. Is it good to ponder? Sure, so long as it doesn't become a make or break doctrine.

[@nickswoboda6647]

Great video! Really appreciate your analysis. At about the 30:00 mark in this video, the debate turned to Hebrews 10:29 and the idea that Jesus does not need to be sanctified. Horn contended White’s interpretation of the “he” pronoun couldn’t be referring to Jesus, because Jesus doesn’t need to be sanctified. Yet, Jesus says in John 17:19, “For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.” You could argue John 17:19 doesn’t mention “blood of the covenant” as the means for sanctification, but, setting aside the argument that Jesus required expiation of sins, (which is ridiculous), John 17:19 certainly dismisses the idea that Jesus would not be “sanctified” or “made holy” in some sense by His own work. You may even be able to make the case that Jesus was talking about the same sanctification in John 17 as the writer of Hebrews was in Hebrew 10:29. I haven’t dug in that much, so I’m not ready to land there. Horn did a great job, especially with that last line of questioning in Romans 11. But, as many have said, he gets a lot of credit for just being the novice. Again, I really appreciate the honest and candid feedback. It was refreshing.

[@thepreacherxi5353]

I'm myself is a protestant but I do believe that Trent, over all, won this debate. Trent's “mistake” in the cross exam is so little compare to his success in his presentation, rebuttals, and concluding statement. Having that said, Trent did more than enough here. He defeated James fair and square. Thank you for this review, Wise Disciple.

[@joeterp5615]

I agree.

[@jakeracick2301]

This debate was part of why I am now Catholic

[@Given119]

Why?

[@jesuschristsaves9067]

@@Given119 because obviously he was convinced

[@Given119]

@@jesuschristsaves9067 👏🏻

[@haronsmith8974]

Same, I dont understand why he gave James the win. Saying that some are elect and dont fall away doesnt mean he agrees with James White.

[@johnlocke6800]

I hope you don't lose your salvation

[@BlackPawn-vs7gd]

William lane craig vs james white

[@theneighborguy]

Please do James White vs Patrick Madrid on Sola Sciptura. Thanks.

[@robbyclark6915]

Wow! I've been waiting for a good debate between James White and Shia LaBeouf!

[@richardcox7178]

Do you think you will ever review the Greg Bahnsen/Gordon Stein debate?

[@lukesalazar9283]

This is one of my favorites from the Christian side. Dr. Bahnsen was very funny

[@ingmarhemesath4975]

I do not understand the comments people have about this debate. James exposed, sequentially, the issues of every charge Trent raised against perseverance. He then convinced Trent about the irresistibility of that gift, upon whom it is determined will receive it, and later taught him like an elder to a student about the developing theology of the blood of the Covenant in Hebrews - a delight, as Trent was humble enough to learn and listen from the wisdom of James. Again, totally flabbergasted by the belief that Trent "went to work" or "was a machine" against everything James was arguing. These comments are ridiculous. James not only won this debate, he convinced a young Catholic the Reformed doctrine of perseverance in front of a live audience.

[@TruthMartizano-pc6tg]

The challenge all catholic have to face is that: they just have problem staying in context. Isolating a verse is always a red flag. The high priest discussion, exposés the deep knowledge Dr White have on the matter. The following attempt attack/challenges on white position from Horn completely fell apart.

[@tylerrossjcl]

This was a very interesting debate for two reason (for me). Firstly because these two are expert debaters. They have a great command of the conversation, and your video, Nate, points this out. But secondly, because it only represents one side of the Catholic approaches to this. Catholics all agree that the answer to the debate topic is "yes," but Molinists (like Horn) and Thomists will have very different ways of getting there and even understanding what "losing salvation" actually means. If you put a pure Thomist up there to debate White, they'd agree on a good deal. That's the debate I'd really like to see. I'm Catholic and really like Trent Horn and his approach to a lot of topics, but I personally think his theology of grace is sorely lacking. I think White won the debate in his overall approach to grace, though I of course agree with Horn's conclusion. It's a weird place to be!

[@tiberiusfellblade2567]

Am I crazy or was there a moment where White almost claimed Horn wasn't saved. The moment I was talking about was when White stated he didn't want to be anathema and he said he should be warned of false gospels. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to read a little deeper into that statement. White seems like he was borderline arguing for predestination.

[@chipan9191]

I think I understand what horn was trying to say, and he wasn't conceding white's position. He didn't articulate it well, but what it sounded like was that he was saying the gift of perseverance is necessary for those to persevere but not definitive, meaning that just because God gives you this gift doesn't mean you will persevere. But, knowing who would persevere if given this gift, God will only give this gift to those who would persevere with this gift. It almost sounds like a Molinist point to be honest.

[@jrainey44]

Whatever happened to the verse that said, Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved? If you can loose your salvation, then God made a mistake by saving you in the first place. I think we try to be smarter than Scripture.

[@evanramos6665]

White obviously won this debate but Trent is a great debater he knows how to set up questions. Both did great definitely great to watch.

[@k9leadstheway531]

How does one watch a debate in a non bias way. To be honest it's super tough.

[@timothyvenable3336]

I totally agree

[@Solideogloria00]

I’ve seen this debate at least 3 times. The first time, I was a Calvinist and I was disturbed, because I perceived that Horn had stronger biblical arguments and logical arguments. Now, I’m not a Calvinist praise God! Lutheran is the best tradition faith in my opinion. Minutes 10:35, Horn doesn’t agree with White. Horn takes the Christian position that a true Christian can lose his salvation. White takes Calvin’s position that a Christian cannot lose it. I’m a Protestant by the way :)

[@juanisaac5172]

I see you took a step to the middle. Bless you brother.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

So now you believe one must be baptized to have salvation?

[@Narikku]

It seems like Horn's approach here wasnt to win the debate. Horn's goal was to give a lay the seed of Catholicism, by demonstrating the assumptions of White. Trent's retorts were heavily focused on questioning the presuppositions of Protestantism, and specifically Calvinism. I'm a Protestant, but I think Horn did an excellent job. He wasnt focused on winning the battle, he was focused on winning the war.

[@ajamusic7322]

Great and fun analysis overall. Maybe this debate is what Rocky V should have been. I disagree about Trent's mistep in first cross examination causing him to lose by inches: because sharing some agreement that some Christians won't lose their salvation doesn't answer the question of the debate "can a Christian lose their salvation." Some won't, but it remains open that others still could. White's line of questioning didn't accomplish disqualifying that. Whereas I think James' misteps were discreet but added up in his most common strategy in the hottest, which was to sidestep the direct questions or make the claim that more context is needed when pressed. But isn't that what Trent was building up to when he finished with Romans 11? Overall, I think Trent had the worst defense performance in the first cross examination. But he also made a much stronger case overall in answering "Can a Christian lose their salvation: with the Scripture he provided that very plainly indicates one can. White took the edge for showmanship, but in order to win in substance and making the case, his verses could not allow for any circumstance that left losing one's salvation as an open possibility. Thats something he did not accomplish.

[@DPM917]

So, what about the person who professes faith and asks for forgiveness on their death bed? A couple of minutes or seconds of “perseverance” is all that is needed. Okay, then.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Very curious to wonder what wise disciple believes in terms of whether he is Calvinist or Arminian

[@lukesalazar9283]

Merry Christmas!

[@user-of1hd2dy1t]

When Nate declares that: "There is not one verse that clearly and definitely teaches eternal security" is a LIE! Newsflash: there are countless verses that clearly teach eternal security!😮

[@christsavesreadromans1096]

No.

[@matt_h_27]

White is extremely intelligent and theologically sound. That said, he doesn't always drive home the nail on the debate stage. This should've been no contest. And biblically, it's no contest. But he seemed ill-prepared to deal with the ridiculous position Horn holds to. I would've been too. It's really strange. Perhaps White thought this would be a cake walk considering the bible overwhelmingly favors his position. Horn has some very weird beliefs so it would be kind of like debating a crazy person to step into the ring with him. I'd pass. What's the point in debating with nonsense, inconsistencies and contradictions?

[@johnlocke6800]

Constantly earning and losing your salvation must be exhausting.

[@treysmith5513]

I believe we receive eternal life when we believe, not when we die. So once saved, you are saved, but I have a hard time reconciling Hebrews 6. What do you think @wise disciple. Anyone else?

[@javageek123]

I think the whole point of this debate is the protestant doctrine of once saved always saved. Trent was able to show that many can receive the grace of salvation. But only some receive the grace to persist. This is a total rewrite of once saved always saved as a Boolean principle.

[@timothyvenable3336]

I don’t think he showed that. He might have demonstrated how it is biblical to hold that view, but he didn’t show that to be the case

[@Defender_of_Faith]

So the calvinist position is once I am baptized and accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I am guaranteed Heaven? No matter how badly I sin from that point on?

[@brandondunn9007]

If you can lose your salvation that means you did something to earn it. If you could lose your salvation you would.

[@christsavesreadromans1096]

1 Timothy 5:11-12 is clear.

[@SilverioFamilyforChrist]

I didn't see it as an undermining position because being given the gift of perseverance does not (to the best of my knowledge) mean that one cannot then lose that gift or act on that gift. Doesn't seem to hurt the argument unless one has a presupposition of what perseverance means. At the end, White seems to imply that works of the law in Romans means all works. Which doesn't square with scripture where it tells us that works justifies us. It is unfortunate that this was not pressed.

[@Tigerex966]

The last two minutes was telling, you could see in White's face, he was not going to answer, the falling away cut off, and instead went away from the text to say it could mean this or that, and not cut off, like it says, and his Extreme catholic bashing of the Jews was met with Extreme Protest and bashing of the JEWS from Martin Luther, which they both used to their advantage. So close to a tie, either way, but I give horn a slight edge because of the last 5 minutes.

[@marstru1498]

Love you Nate but you are wrong on this one. I disagree with who you think took the win. White did press Horn on that first exchange and Horn had a hard time explaining his position, this is true. But Horn did the exact same thing to White repeatedly. Horn was graceful in letting White off the hook to challenge him on more positions; he could have pressed him more like White did during the first exchange.

[@WiseDisciple]

Appreciate your thoughts here! They did give and receive blows throughout!

[@globalconfideration1254]

Horn abandoned his position and ended up defending white's position, how 'bout that? So before the debate, horn's answer to the question ''can a Christian lose their salvation?" is a NO. and after the debate, his answer is Yes and No

[@treycastle9119]

@@globalconfideration1254 What? Trent was defending the position that a Christian CAN lose their salvation.

[@globalconfideration1254]

@@treycastle9119 yes. Before the debate, his answer was ''YES'' I should say.sorry

[@patriotnate7568]

I love that. "Are you starting to see why people don't agree?" Yes because some isolate one verse to make it fit their pride and the other incorporates the entire Word of God

[@petermichaelw]

"Elected to persevere" A new level of foolishness

[@luvminiwheaties]

"Why are you holding my book" lol

[@WiseDisciple]

Lol!!

[@knutolavbjrgaas1069]

What a banger of a debate this is!

[@MiguelJimenez-un4rm]

James White vs Patrick Madrid on 'sola scriptura' is another great debate.🙏

[@topkapi9351]

You said it well when you said that Horn was slippery in his language - as he was for the majority of the debate. This debate is hard to watch because it feels mostly like trying to entrap the opponent instead of trying to arrive to a real understanding of the point. At the end of the day, man will either believe what he wants to believe, or he will believe the truth of God - and in the end, we find out that truth regardless of our desires.

[@brileywells1628]

Just discovered your channel . I’m a James White fanboy and I’m excited to hear about his work from a purely rhetorical perspective. Thanks for making these.

[@rockycomet4587]

Me too!

[@throwawaypt2throwawaypt2-xp8nx]

I am James white fanatic, I'm as calvinist as it gets :)

[@Zachary_Setzer]

I've watched countless debates over the years and can't remember one that was more closely matched. It really felt whoever was speaking at any given moment had the upper hand. I think I give Trent the edge on the strength of the "warning passages." White's answer to the question of what happens if the believers do the things warned against really came up empty.

[@Chispaluz]

You conflated “Christian” with “an elect with the gift of perseverance.” Trent could have pointed out the distinction earlier on and possibly better, but there is a distinction.

[@onlylove556]

This debate basically was 2 counts, scoring only up to 2 points, if you're able to prove both sides scoring two points, if you're only able to prove one side, only one point obviously, so it comes down to that they're both going to be 2 and 2, are 2 to 1. If Trent showed that he agreed that there are predestined people, and he proved how there's people that can lose their salvation, which proves both side 2-0, and white only proved 1 argument that there are predestined people, but couldn't show that you always keep your salvation, so if white wasn't able to prove both sides, that u could never lose your salvation, and Trent horn proved that there are predestined people, and proved that you can lose your salvation, White wasn't able to defend both sides, that u never lose your salvation, so therefore Trent horn won the debate 2 to 1 hands down. And this is why Calvin's Doctrine was never even mentioned in the church for the first 400 years, first one was Marcion Who created Marcionism Heresy, but his teachings was never dogmatic in the church, so it just comes down to the consensus, which again proves that protestantism is false, cuz there was never a teaching for protestantism for the first 1600 years of Christianity.

[@knutolavbjrgaas1069]

The perseverance of the saints is, how I understand it, about outside factors(like the devil, government or other things) snatching us out of Gods grace. Not about us willingly apostatizing.

[@knutolavbjrgaas1069]

Not talking about the calvinist doctrine, but the concept presented in the bible* I know that thats not what the P in tulip means 🤗

[@user-lj3ku5yd1h]

Started as a Protestant and believed eternal security now I’m between catholic and Protestant currently looking into Catholic and orthodox history. I do think that a true believer won’t fall away but I do think it’s possible. However I think it’s more of the person themself forfeiting the faith rather then God letting them go.

[@luboshcamber1992]

@user-lj3ku5yd1h You need to repent and believe in Jesus Christ not looking into some systems. You need to be born again. Changing your religion is gonna do exactly nothing to your eternal destiny. The Hell.

[@genkimachina]

I am a Protestant, but I don't think it is the end of the world if you become Catholic. More importantly, dive into a community that professes Christ and hold yourself accountable to fellow brothers in Christ, iron sharpening iron.