Can A Christian Lose Their Salvation? A Debate With Trent Horn & Dr. James White (Part 1)

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. The Sovereign Alliance is proud to present to you tonight's debate. Can a Christian lose their salvation? I am Michael Ofall, the CEO of the Sovereign Alliance, and I'll be moderating tonight's debate.

Firstly, I would like to thank the following. Pastor Josh Bice, the G3 Conference, and all the representatives of Praise Mill Baptist Church, Mr. John Sorenson from Catholic Answers whom we would not be here debating without his sacrifice and work. Richard Pierce, my good friend from Alpha and Omega Ministries. And lastly, the staff and godly servants of the Sovereign Alliance, including Kathy Kang, Steuart Adams, Janica Lamb, Ryan Dick, of whom I am indebted for their sacrifice and teamwork.

This year marks the 500th anniversary of the formal start of the Protestant Reformation when Martin Luther nailed the 95 thesis on the castle church door in Vittenberg. We do not live in the 16th century. That is the past. The problems we face in our day are different from those they faced then. We have learned to some degree to live without bloodshed over theological issues. But tonight we wrestle with the question, can a Christian lose their salvation? With perspectives coming from both a reformed Protestant and a convinced Roman Catholic in the 21st century, we live in a world in a culture that has all but abandoned the concept of serious scholastic debate. In fact, most in today's community of higher education are seeking safe spaces instead of atmospheres where one's personal beliefs and presuppositions can be challenged.

Tonight, here in this room, in this place, you are in a very, very dangerous place. There is no safe place to hide here tonight. It is my sincerest hope that even those that are convinced will be challenged to dig deeper and to mind the great resources of their faith. So without any further delay, let me please introduce our first participant.

This gentleman earned a master's degree in theology from Franciscan University of Stubenville after his conversion to the Catholic faith and is per currently pursuing a degree in phil philosh philosophy from Holy Apostles College. He serves as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers and specializes in teaching Cath Catholics to graciously and persuasively engage those who disagree with them. This man models that approach each and every week on his radio program, Catholic Answers Live, where he dialogues with atheists, pro-choice advocates, and other non-atholic callers. He is also a lecturer who travels throughout the world speaking on subjects related to the Catholic faith, and is the co-host of Hearts and Minds, a weekly radio program that discusses timely issues from an eternal perspective. In addition to being a public speaker, this gentleman is the author of three books, Answering Atheism, Persuasive Pro-life, and his latest book, Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties. Would you please welcome with me, Mr. Trent Horn.

[Applause]

Our next participant is the director of Alpha Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor having taught Greek systematic theology and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than 24 books including the King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater having engaged in more than 140 moderated public debates around the world in with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as higher critics such as Bart Airman, John Dominick Crossen, Marcus Bour, and John Shelby Spong. In recent years, he has debated in such locations as Sydney, Australia, as well as Moss in Toronto, London, South Africa as well. He is an elder in the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelly for more than 32 years. He has two children and two grandchildren. Would you please welcome Dr. James [Applause] White.

Well, unlike what you have seen over the past year and a half as displayed here in American politics, we are going to have a formal scholarly debate. non-ad hominem and no I have not slipped any questions to either one of the debaters. We will start with two two 20-minute opening statements, two 15-minute rebuttals. We will then take a break. After that we will have four different sessions of cross-examination. During that time the person who is receiving the question is not allowed to ask a question back. After that period, we'll take another short break in which we would ask and these will be passed out during our first break that you if you have any questions for one of the debaters, please note who the question is for and please place down one question, not two, not three. Those will be immediately discarded. Just one question and who that is going to be directed to. Myself and Mr. John Sasonson from Catholic Answers will then pick out five questions out of those that are submitted and we will then ask the debaters those questions. At the end of that time, we will have two 10-minute closing statements. So, without any further ado, let me please bring to the stage Dr. James White.

[Applause]

Well, good evening. It is tremendous to see the large number of people gathered here. We still have some people coming in. I understand something's going to be happening here in Atlanta this weekend. There's going to even be more people getting together. But the neat thing is what we're doing here has more eternal impact uh than anything else that could be happening this weekend uh here in Atlanta. So I congratulate you on being here. I thank Mr. Horn for coming across the United States as well. I hope you will be blessed by tonight's debate.

Can a Christian lose their salvation? Few topics have been clouded by more extraneous considerations than this one. emotions, traditions, uh, family situations very frequently end up entering into this discussion and they really should not be a part of the discussion. We need to focus this evening on the key issues that separate Roman Catholics and reformed Christians on this particular topic. Let me begin with a definition. God will not fail to save each and every one of his elect people. None shall be lost. That is the thesis that I will be defending this evening. Now, obviously, you may notice by the way that is stated. This is very different from the common once-sesaved always saved mantra of Armenian evangelicalism. I will not be defending this evening the idea that you can tip your hat toward God, shake a preacher's hand, uh, just do something, have some warm feelings about God, accept a few facts about Jesus, and then go your merry way, and you've got your ticket punched to heaven. I don't believe that. The New Testament doesn't teach that, and I will not be defending that.

But more than that, without the recognition of the father's election of a specific people, Christ's death in their behalf, atoning death in their behalf, and the spirit's sealing of that same specific people, notice the trinitarian aspect. There is no reason to believe in eternal security. In other words, synergists, people who believe that salvation is the result of multiple forces, normally the will of man and the will of God, cooperating together, synergists have no consistent reason to believe in salvific assurance. And I will not attempt to defend that. And if you are a synergist here this evening, you need to realize that on that issue, you're on the other side of the Tyber River from the early reformers and from the best of the reformation. And so I will not be representing any of the perspectives where people have tried to wed these two concepts together because I do not think that that is possible at all.

So the issue then is this. Is salvation the work of God's kingly freedom? Monergism. Does God save and God alone? Or is it a cooperative effort subject to failure? Synergism. If it is solely God's work to his own glory, then obviously God will not fail to accomplish all his holy will. As he says in Psalm 135:6, he does everything he desires. and the heaven and the earth. Daniel 4:34-35. Even the pagan Nebuchadnezzar recognizes that no one can stop God's hand from accomplishing what he wants to accomplish. And of course, the Apostle Paul says in Ephesians chapter 1 that he works all things after the council of his will. And so, if God is the one who is bringing about the salvation of a specific people to his own glory, he will not fail in accomplishing what he desires to do.

To put it in another way, can Jesus fail in his task? I say he cannot. And here is why. Jesus says in John chapter 6:es 37-39, "All that the father gives me will come to me. And the one coming to me, I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that of all he has given me, I lose none of it, but raise it up on the last day."

Now, please note that Jesus is talking specifically about salvation and he recognizes that the father can sovereignly give to him a particular people. The action of the father's giving results in all who are thusly giving coming to the Lord Jesus Christ. If you are coming to the Lord Jesus Christ in true and saving faith, it is because the father has given you the son. Now, we may get into this evening about the idea. Some people have the idea that there can be non-elect Christians and those people can be lost and things like that. I think this text refutes that, but we can get into that if that comes up later on in the debate. But the point is Jesus says, "The one coming to me, I will never cast out." Why? Because he's come down out of heaven and he's come out of down out of heaven to do the father's will. Can any Christian ever conceive of the idea that the son would fail to do the father's will? I hope no one could conceive of that concept at all. So what does he say? This is the will of the one who sent me that of all he has given me. Then he switches to a neuter pronoun here wrapping up all of the elect I lose none of it but raise it up on the last day. Now that requires Jesus to be a powerful and perfect savior. But it also means for him to be the savior that the father would have him to be, he must lose none of those that are given to him. None. If he loses even one, then he has not done the father's will. Jesus truly saves. The question that must be answered this evening is this. Can Jesus fail to do the will of the father? I affirm that he cannot.

In John in John 8:29, he says that he always does what is pleasing to the father. And so Jesus must be able to be a perfect savior of the elect. He must possess the capacity to fulfill the father's will for him. Jesus repeated this reality in John 10:es 27- 29. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me and I give to them eternal life and they will never perish. They will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My father who has given them to me sounds familiar back in John chapter 6. My father who has given them to me is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them from the father's hand. Here is the true grounds of believing that true Christian salvation cannot fail to be completed by the work of the father, son, and spirit in the life of each one of God's elect. There is none that can snatch out of the father's hand. There is none that can snatch out of the son's hand. The father and the son are one in the salvation of God's people. And Jesus says, "I give to them eternal life and they will never perish." If there's something I can do to destroy this, then Jesus's words become invalidated. And notice again, this is specifically on the subject of receiving eternal life. The issue of salvation itself, Jesus's power to save, seen in his perfection as intercessor, is laid out in Romans chapter 8. Listen to these beautiful words. Who will bring a charge against the elect of God? God is the one who justifies. Who is the one condemning? Christ Jesus, the one who died rather was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who is also interceding for us.

Think about what is laid out here. Here is the picture of the law court and the question that is asked is who can bring a charge against the elect of God. You see if any of the elect of God could be lost someone has to be able to bring a charge. There has to be some kind of sinful action some failure on their part that could be chargeable before God. But the question is asked who can who can bring that charge? God is the one who has already brought down the gavl in the light of the perfect work of Christ and said you are righteous. You are just. So God is the one who justifies. Who is the one condemning? Is it Christ Jesus? The one who died rather was raised. No. Because he is at the right hand of God. And what is he doing? He is also interceding for whom? For us. Who is the us? The elect of God. And so who can bring a charge when the son has died in their place? His righteousness is perfect in their place. The father has declared them righteous. There is no place for one to bring condemnation. How then can the thesis of this evening's debate be concluded in any other way than there is no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus? And again, the specific subject is the subject of salvation itself. The reality of the son's perfection as redeemer of his people prophesied in the very name given to him. Remember what the angel said? He you'll call his name Jesus. Why? Because he will save his people from their sins. Not try. He will accomplish this. This is affirmed with fervor by the author of Hebrews. Yes, Hebrews, the person who wrote Hebrews 6, if that comes up tonight, I actually hope that it does. Notice in Hebrews 7:25, therefore he Jesus is able to save. And then I didn't translate the Greek ice toples because it could be translated two ways. Either forever or to the uttermost. They're related concepts obviously, but the point is completely, not only temporally, but in extent to the uttermost, those who draw near to God through him. Notice it's a specific group. It's hearkening back to the day when the people would come to the sacrifice of Yom Kapor. It was only a specific people that came. Those who draw near to God through him. Why? Since he always lives to make intercession in their behalf. His ability to save is because of his endless life and the perfection of the work that he presents before the father in their behalf. That's why as Paul said in Romans 8, there is no condemnation. Why? What's the only reason why I would stand before you this evening knowing that there have been so many apostates down through the centuries and the Bible talks about people who walk away from the faith, make shipwreck of the faith, all the rest of these things. Why would I stand before you and take the crazy position that God does not fail to save his elect people? Because it's what the Bible teaches. If you focus upon what it teaches about God and his accomplishment, it is very very very clear in what is being said in Hebrews chapter 10. By this will we have been made holy through the once for all once for all offering of the body of Jesus Christ. And I'm sure this evening this is going to come out. This is one of the fundamental differences between us. I do not believe that there could ever be a meaningful basis of quote unquote eternal security in the Roman Catholic system. As long as you have the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice that perfects no one. If you can go to mass over and over again and not be perfected, then it makes sense that there can be no reason to believe that salvation is an eternal thing that cannot be lost because there is no once for all. There is a representation over and over again. This speaks of the once-forall offering of the body of Jesus Christ. It is not represented even in an unbloody fashion. And in Hebrews 10:14, for by one offering he has what? Perfected for all time those who are being sanctified or the holy ones. That's the argument of the book of Hebrews. The reality of the God- centerness of salvation is seen as well in how Christ's work as savior is applied to his people. Specifically, God's justice is maintained through the great exchange that takes place in the divine judicial act of justification. Note Paul's assertion, he made him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him. our sins imputed to our sinbearer, his perfect righteousness imputed to us as the sole basis upon which we have peace with God. Which is why the apostle Paul could say in Romans 5:1, therefore have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. It's the great exchange and that righteousness that is ours allows God to remain holy in the forgiveness of a sinful people. The perfection of Christ's righteousness positively and negatively becomes the possession of the believer in Jesus Christ. So that I stand before God not clothed in my own righteousness but in his. This is another key element of fundamental difference between the biblical teaching and that of the modern Roman hierarchy. In Romans chapter 4, the Apostle Paul addresses this issue and he says, "Now to the working one, the wage is not reckoned or imputed as a gift, but as what is owed. But to the not working one, but who instead believes upon the one justifying the ungodly, his faith is reckoned or imputed as righteousness." There's a direct contrast 180 degree contrast most clearly see in the original language between these two statements between the person who is doing something to gain something from God and the person who recognizes the impossibility of that and instead of that believes upon who? The one justifying the ungodly. That's what saving faith looks like. And his faith is reckoned or imputed as righteousness. The result of that is then found in these words. Just as David spoke of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits or imputes righteousness apart from works, blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Here the apostles quoting from Psalm 32:es 1-2. Who is this blessed man? Is there such thing as this blessed man today? Well, it's going to be important in our consideration this evening to ask ourselves this question. Are you the blessed man or woman this evening? The gospel says, "If you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ alone, trusting in his once for all work upon the cross, you have been transferred to the kingdom of Christ. Your sins have been forgiven. You have been declared righteous in God's sight, and you have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Jesus's work on your behalf is perfect, and he will not fail to raise all his sheep on the last day. But here's the issue. In historic Roman Catholic teaching, there is no blessed man. For all sin, whether mortal or venial, is imputed to the one who commits it. all of you who are Roman Catholics, at least Orthodox Roman Catholics, I'm not talking about the universalists out there and people like that. But if you know your teaching, if you commit a mortal sin, to whom is that imputed to you, and you lose the grace of justification, you have to go through the sacrament of penance, you have to be rejustified, or you die as an enemy of God. Well, what if you commit a venial sin? Well, the temporal punishments of that the stains of that sin abide on your soul. You have to go through penance. That's why you say our fathers and hail Marys and things like that. And if you don't do it with proper contrition and things like that, when you die, those stains are still upon your soul. And that's why there's a place called purgatory in Roman Catholic theology because you are not yet fit to enter into the botific vision to enter into the very place of God. And so if you commit a mortal sin, it's imputed to you. If you commit a venial sin, it's imputed to you. So who is the blessed man of Romans 4:8? Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin in the context of Romans chapter 4. It's every single believer in Jesus Christ. And if your theology of salvation, if your if your siology does not allow you to see that, if your siology has too many sacraments in the way and acts of man in the way to recognize that it is nothing of you, none of your righteousness. You either stand before God clothed in the seamless robe of the righteousness of Jesus Christ or you will be rejected. nothing else is going to avail before him, not before a holy God. So if your sins are still being imputed to you rather than to your sinbearer, then you're not the blessed man of Romans chapter 4. And yet the reality is from Paul's perspective, every single believer in Jesus Christ is that blessed man. And so I ask you the question, which are you this evening? When we look at the doctrine of salvation, when we look at what the Bible says, there's two ways to look at it. And the common way of the religions of man is to look at it from man's perspective and to place oursel in the center. And so there is a very man- centered perspective that looks at the Bible and what must I do? what are the things that I need to do? And the idea is we set up a system and there are things we do and and God makes you know God has to be involved. I mean there has to be some grace somewhere but it's what I do and it's the things that I contribute that will determine in the end whether I am going to be in the presence of God. The reality is as unpopular as it might be the gospel my friends is about God first and foremost. It's about what the triune God, father, son, and holy spirit decreed together to do to glorify the trinity in eternity past. It's about the father as the fountain head of grace who elects a particular people under salvation. It's about the son in his great condescension who enters into human form to give himself as the sacrifice. The elect people are joined to him and the Holy Spirit who then comes and at the time appointed by the father raises to spiritual life takes out that heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh. And it's all about God. It's not about me. And that's why Paul can say if you're in Christ Jesus, you only have one person to boast in, and that is the Lord. There can be no human boasting. There can be no pride. There can be no arrogance. It is all about what God has done in us. And if it is indeed the intention of father, son, and spirit to save God's elect people, there is no power in heaven or in earth, including those elect people that can frustrate the eternal God from the accomplishment of his own glory. And that is the only reason to believe in the perseverance of the saints and in eternal security. But that's why I believe in it. Thank you very much for your attention. God bless.

Thank you, Dr. White. Mr. Trent Horn now has 20 minutes for his opening statements.

All right. Well, I first like to thank the G3 Conference and Sovereign Productions for their help in organizing this debate. And I'd like to thank James White for being here to represent his side of this important issue. The topic we're debating tonight is, can Christians lose their salvation? I will present evidence that shows the answer to this question is yes. Even if someone has come to Christ and been forgiven, he can still lose his salvation through apostasy or other serious sins. My opponent says the answer to this question is no or a Christian cannot lose his salvation. In order to argue his case tonight, my opponent will need to do two things. First, he needs to show the Bible teaches that a Christian cannot lose his salvation or what has been called the doctrine of eternal security or the perseverance of the saints. I'll address that evidence in my next speech. Second, my opponent needs to explain how the abundant warnings in scripture that salvation can be lost do not contradict his position.

Before I present those passages, however, let me explain two things this debate is not about tonight. Number one, this debate involves a reformation issue, but it is not a Catholic Protestant issue. It is an issue of technical difficulties. Let's I guess for most of you here that was for ordained. So what can you do right? So this is not actually about Catholics and Protestants. Uh what I'm here tonight is I'm going to be representing the historic view in Christianity. I know a lot of people here may think that that your salvation cannot be lost, but this is actually the minority view in the Christian community. Uh this view that my opponent represents is rejected by Catholics, Orthodox, other ancient branches of Christianity as well as widespread parts of the Protestant community. Martin Luther himself believed it was possible for a Christian to commit apostasy and lose salvation. So it will do no good to argue justification by faith alone entails eternal security. For many people believe in justification by faith alone, but reject eternal security. This is the view that's standard among Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, and other Protestants, or many Anglicans, I should say. It's only Calvinists, and some evangelicals who believe salvation cannot be lost. In fact, this doctrine my opponent is defending was unknown in the Christian church for the first,500 years of the church's history. Therefore, I am advocating a thoroughly biblical view held by the majority of Christians both historically and today. If you don't believe me, then I challenge my opponent to present a prominent Christian writer who believed the doctrine he's defending before John Calvin. While some in the reformed tradition try to trace this teaching back to Augustine, he said of believers, "If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, I have not received." Because of his own free choice to evil, he has lost the grace of God that he had received. According to the Calvinist biblical scholar John Jefferson Davis, Augustine believed, quote, "One's justification and baptismal regeneration could be rejected and lost through sin and unbelief."

Second, this debate is not about true and false Christians. One piece of evidence against the claim that a Christian cannot lose his salvation are the testimonies of untold numbers of people who were once Christian but are now not. How does the defender of eternal security account for these people? Some like Zayn Hodes and Charles Stanley take the radical position that nothing, not even apostasy or grave sin, can cause us to lose our salvation. A Christian could become an atheistic serial killer and his heavenly reward awaits him. But I'm relieved my opponent and I do not hold that view. Uh that he he calls punch ticket Christianity. But most defenders of eternal security will say like my opponent that someone who becomes an apostate was really never saved in the first place. They were a false Christian. They were not a true Christian. But if a crew true Christian is defined by the fact that he would never fall away from the faith, then no one could ever be completely sure he was that kind of Christian because none of us has infallible knowledge of the future. But first John 5:13 says, "You may know that you have eternal life." So this view of salvation contradicts what the Bible teaches. Now the assurance that John speaks of does not mean we can never lose our salvation. What it means is that we can know that we are in Christ. And provided we remain in Christ, we will spend eternity with him. That is the essence for what it means for Christ to give believers eternal life. Eternal life is not a synonym for unending life because the damned will also have unending life. According to the late Baptist scholar Dale Moody, eternal security advocates like my opponent work with the false assumption that the adjective eternal is an adverb. as if it says the brother eternally has life. It is the life that is eternal, not one's possession of it. Eternal life is the life of God in Christ the son of God. And this life is lost when one departs from Christ. In fact, the first letter of John is filled with commands to love God and neighbor that when followed or ignored confirm if we are actually in Christ or not. Once again, eternal life means unending life that is united with Christ. So if the person leaves Christ then he will have lost eternal life. I agree that some people claim to be Christians but never received the gift of faith or were even false professors of the faith. But it is a fallacy to say that because some people who fall away from grace were never saved in the first place that therefore all people who fall away were never saved. The Bible teaches that some people with authentic faith who become regenerate members of the body of Christ can later fall away. Jesus says in John 15:2 and6, "Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, he takes away. If anyone does not abide in me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up, and they gather them and cast them in the fire and they are burned." In Romans 11, Paul describes the Gentiles as branches that were grafted onto the ancient olive tree of Israel. He says of the unbelieving Jewish people, "They were broken off for their unbelief. But you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Behold then the kindness and severity of our God. To those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness. if you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. You can only cut off or take away something that was united or attached in the first place or in this case true believers, regenerate Christians who later separated themselves from Christ.

Now, let's examine other scripture passages that teach a Christian can lose his salvation. Not in the sense of misplacing it like your car keys, but in the sense of forsaking it through grave freely chosen sin. Moreover, you will see these passages don't describe how the elect behave because they are saved. They pres instead they prescribe commands for the elect to obey so that nothing prevents them from being saved. Jesus will never fail us when it comes to our salvation. But we can certainly fail ourselves. I'll summarize these passages into three types. The teachings of Jesus, the teachings of Paul, and the teachings of the other apostles.

First, Jesus told the apostles, "You will be hated by all because of my name. But it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved." In Luke 8 8:13, Jesus said, "Some people have no firm root. They believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. In Matthew 24, Jesus says, "The master or God will set the faithful servant over all his possessions. But the unfaithful or wicked servant who beat his fellow servants will receive a much different fate." Jesus says, "The master will assign him a place with the hypocrites. In that place, there will be weeping and nashing of teeth, a common reference to eternal damnation." Notice the master will assign him with the hypocrites. According to David Sim in his study on apocalyptic esquetology in the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew makes no distinction between the ultimate fate of the wicked inside the ecclesia or church and the fate of those outside it. Throughout the gospels, Jesus links our initial union with him through faith and our final eternal union with him through continued obedience. John 3:36 says, "He who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." In Matthew 18, Jesus tells the story of the servant who was mercifully forgiven by the king in a large matter, but refused to forgive his fellow servant in a much smaller matter. The king threw the servant in jail. And Jesus told his audience, "My heavenly father will also do the same to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." In Matthew 6:15, Jesus makes this teaching even plainer. But if you do not forgive others, then your father will not forgive your transgressions. Some people claim this is just a parable about the importance of forgiveness and has nothing to do with salvation, but it it clearly does. According to Mel Shoemaker, former professor of New Testament and theology at Isuza Pacific University, a failure to forgive others may result in the forfeite and loss of the father's forgiveness and our salvation. In fact, this parable directly teaches the possibility of losing salvation. Note that the servant is first forgiven by the king and then when he refuses to forgive his fellow servant, the king revokes his forgiveness. Jesus means means us to understand very clearly that we can be forgiven by God and then become unforgiven and thus be prevented from receiving salvation. Some of you here tonight may have a strong emotional reaction to what I've just said, but Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick. Who can know it?" Rather than letting our feelings guide us to an answer on this question, we should entrust the word of God with that responsibility.

What did Paul teach about this issue? He wrote to the Corinthians of the gospel, "By which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preach to you, and warn the Corinthians to not be deceived about the seriousness of sin." He specifically told them to not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolattors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexual, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. In commenting on this verse, the biblical scholar Robert Gagnen, a Presbyterian biblical scholar, says Paul was clearly concerned that believers might return to former patterns of sinful practices that could lead to loss of salvation. Paul even confided to the Corinthians saying,"I discipline my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified." The word rendered disqualified is adakimos, which Paul uses in other context to describe Gentiles God gave up to sin and false teachers who oppose the gospel. Paul recognizes the possibility that he might become a docimos which literally means unfit or has failed the test if he was not vigilant about his spiritual life. The highly respected Protestant biblical scholar CK Barrett said that Paul's conversion, his baptism, his call to apostilhip, his service to the gospel do not guarantee his eternal salvation. At the very end of his life in second Timothy, Paul does conclude he will finally be saved. He writes to Timothy, "The time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight. I have finished the course. I have kept the faith." This means if you abandoned the race or if you did not keep the faith, you would not be saved. Paul tells Timothy about people who failed to do these things. People like him and Alexander, which 1 Timothy 1:19-20 says they suffered shipwreck for there for their faith. Paul makes this clear when he tells Timothy, "For if we died with him, we will also live with him. If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we deny him, he also will deny us. If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself." God will never abandon us and God will never deny us. But that doesn't mean we won't do the same to God because we have the capacity to be faithless. If God allows us to forsake our salvation, he is still faithful. God hasn't broken any of his promises since he never promises that it is impossible to lose one's salvation. Merely promising a person is justified by faith or justified by faith apart from works of the law does not entail salvation cannot be lost. So if it is lost, God is not faithless even though we are faithless. In fact, Paul told the Galatians that if they forsake Christ and return to Judaism through circumcision, then they were severed from Christ. You who are seeking to be justified by law, you have fallen from grace. What does it mean to fall from grace? Martin Luther said, "To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by his death and resurrection." To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God. Death, bondage to the devil, and everlasting condemnation.

What about the other New Testament writers? What do we find in the letter to the Hebrews? Well, the author says, "For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold fast the beginning from the our the words from the beginning." He also says in chapter 10:es 26- 27, "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of fire will consume the adversaries." I agree. In Hebrews 10:10 and 10:14, Christ sacrifices once for all, never repeated and perfect. But notice that if after receiving the knowledge of that truth, a Christian continues to deliberately sin, that perfect sacrifice no longer remains. Instead, something worse will come. The author then compares in the next verses uh the punishments for those who broke the old covenant with the punishments for those who will break the new covenant. He says, "Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under the foot underfoot the son of God and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and has insulted the spirit of grace." The only punishment worse than physical death is eternal death. So the author of Hebrews is warning his readers that they face eternal death if they fail to hold fast our confidence firm to the end.

In closing, let me remind everyone that I do not deny that it is God who saves us. God is the author and finisher of salvation. Man is the author of damnation. If we are saved, it is because of the grace of God working through us and we have no reason to boast. While commenting on 1 Corinthians 10:12, which says, "Let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." Augustine said, "He who falls falls by his own will, and he who stands stands by God's will." Not everyone who receives God's grace will go to heaven. They may reject that grace, just as Adam, a person who was definitely created to be a true believer in God, rejected the grace he was given in the Garden of Eden. This is important because some advocates of eternal of eternal security exaggerate psychological security. They think that their view holds. Uh, but it's a fact of life that you we've known people who've been Christians for years had evidence of being converted by Christ to being regenerate then walked away. You could say they were never true Christians but if you say that then you can't securely know you were a true Christian because you don't have infallible knowledge of the future. As one Baptist woman put it, "We did a Bible study on assurance, and for a little while, I'd be okay, but the doubting would always return. Many times I prayed, "God, save me if I'm not saved already." But that gave me no assurance. Advocates of eternal security ultimately offer no more security in this life than advocates of conditional security. It is God and his promises that we can be confident in, not our own performance. So, we should not be lured by false hopes. We should take the Bible seriously when it acknowledges the possibility that Christians can and sometimes do lose salvation. The good news, as Jesus reveals in the parable of the prodigal son, is that no matter what we have done, no matter how far we have strayed from the father, he will always take us back. The Bible teaches that we can know if we are in Christ. And we can also know if we have fallen into grave sin and must return to Christ through confession. As Jesus himself said in Luke 8:13, "There are some people who have no firm root, they believe. They believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away." Let us heed the Bible's exhortations to not be among their number. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Horn. Dr. James White now has 15 minutes for his rebuttal time.

I'm sorry. My clock boy here is having some Okay, there we go. All right. On my program last week, I predicted how the debate would go and Trent listened and obeyed because that's exactly what I said would take place. I said I will have to spend my rebuttal period explaining the difference between prescriptive and descriptive texts in scripture. Now, I'm really looking forward to hearing uh Trent's response to the many passages that I presented where Jesus says,"None, I save all, none shall be lost," etc, etc. Because I'm hoping that we all believe that we need to take all of this revelation given by the Holy Spirit of God and believe it consistently. We can't just take one and set it against something else. And so with that in mind, I want to simply lay down some principles here for the texts that Trent presented because this is not the first time this subject has been discussed in the history of the Christian church. And we're obviously very familiar with all of those passages. What are those passages about? Well, when we look at texts of scripture, we can view them prescriptively or we can view them descriptively. Either they are prescribing to us things that we must do, things that we must accomplish. He who endures to the end shall be saved. And so by your enduring to the end, you bring about your salvation. God wants you to be saved, but it's up to you to endure to the end. He'll help you out as much as he can, but there's really not much you can do about it. That's the prescriptive way of looking at things. The descriptive way allows for the passages I presented to be true and then applies them to the application passages as to how Christians live the Christian life. And so what you then have is he who endures to the end shall be saved. Amen. I believe it a thousand%. But it is not my enduring to the end that brings about my salvation. And God is not helpless unless I somehow work up an enduring faith. Saving faith is called the gift of God in numerous passages of scripture. It is the work of the Holy Spirit within the elect's heart and life. And so these passages describe that's why we need the warning passages. Oh, they are so vitally important because when I am regenerate, when I have that heart of stone taken out and a heart of flesh put in, that flesh wants to know what is pleasing to God. What does he warn me against? What does he exhort me positively to? And so we have descriptive way of looking at scripture and the prescriptive way. And the prescriptive way cannot deal with the texts that we already presented. Now I can't say that Trent hasn't dealt with them yet because it's not his turn for rebuttal yet. But I want us to listen very carefully. Does he deal with those texts and explain how Jesus can be a perfect savior while at the same time saying, "Well, what that really means is he tries real hard, he provides prevenient grace, but in the final analysis, even though God does as much as he can, it's fundamentally up to us."

Now, he said, "This isn't a Catholics and Protestants debate." Well, in a sense, that's true. As I said, if you're a synergist, you're already on that side of the Tyber River anyways. You're already in agreement with Roman Catholicism on one of the key issues of the Reformation. When Luther debated Arasmus on that subject, he said to Arasmus, "You of all my opponents have touched upon the key issue, the hinge upon which it all turns. What was it? The free will or the bondage of the will of man." And so, if you are on the other side, well, uh, that's that's exactly the case. I would like to uh ask Trent where did Martin where and when did Martin Luther say that God's elect can be lost not that a Christian remember he he lived in a day where everybody was called a Christian you were you were born into the Christian faith when you were born into a society and you were baptized where he say that God's elect and at what time because there's more than one Martin Luther at least if you know his theology over the development of time unknown for 1500 years well I really don't want to take the time to to read all of this but maybe at a later

point in the debate. I will take the time, but I would like to direct you not only to some of the earliest writings of, of, of someone like the disciple who wrote to Diognetus and his acceptance of the concept of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ and stuff. But I'll just right now refer you to the writings of Fulgentius, the bishop of Ruspe, between 467 and 532. For a number of statements, he was a very Augustinian, um, theologian, uh, who very clearly enunciated the very same things that I would read to you. And maybe, as I said, later on in the debate, I'll have time to be able to read those things to you.

We were told, well, 1 John 5:13 tells us we can, we can know we can have eternal life on the basis of what? In 1 John 5:13, he's referring to the preceding chapters of the book of John, which says, if you love your brother, things like that, we grow in our assurance. And certainly, we do. The saint who has walked with the Lord for 40 years and seen the Lord provide and grown in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ is certainly going to have a higher level of assurance than the brand new convert.

And I find it strange that that assertion would be made, uh, by a Roman Catholic when you have Ludwig Ott saying in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* that the reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace is just this: that no one can know without divine revelation whether they have fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification. You can't know whether you fulfilled all of them. So you can't, you can't have a certainty of that. Well, I'm awful glad I know someone who did fulfill all the requirements for justification, and his name was Jesus Christ, and that is the only reason that I can have, uh, any certainty about justification myself.

By the way, I do not understand eternal life the way that Trent said to me, of simply duration of life. It is quality of life. It is something the person possesses now, in this life, in union with Jesus Christ.

Let me give you an example of, of some of the passages that were presented and again, illustrate the difference between prescriptive and descriptive reading. Think about John chapter 15. It was just presented to us in Trent's presentation, the vine, the branches. And then remember another that also came up about the parable of the soils. The parable of the soils. Now, in both of these, those who would deny that the work of Christ is salvation cannot be lost would say you can gain your salvation and lose your salvation. Well, it, in Roman Catholicism, you can gain the grace of justification, lose it, back and forth, back and forth. Certainly, if Hebrews 6 is relevant to this, it says, no. It's, it's once and, and done at that point. But, but if that's what this is about, consider something about both parables. In John chapter 15, the vines that are cut, the, the branches that are cut off, what did they not do? They did not bear fruit. And in the parable of the soils, what did the soils that did not, that were rejected, that did not bring forth, what? Fruit. In both instances, the issue was the bringing forth of fruit. And what was Jesus's teaching? That if you abide in him, you bring forth fruit. Now, it's not my abiding in him that brings forth fruit. He's the one that brings forth the fruit in me. The point is that these branches that are cut off, the soils that bring forth just temporary growth, were not the soils in which true salvation was taking place.

I admit there are apostates. First John 2:2 says, "They went out from us." Why? So that it might be demonstrated they were not of us. For if they had been of us, what does it say? They would have remained with us. Yes, there is apostasy. Yes, there are false professors. Yes, there are people that fall away. But the only way to hold the entirety of scripture together, including all of the clear, inarguable statements of the perfection of the work of Christ, is to recognize that these were false professors. They were the ones who had the soil that was too thin or was too rocky or whatever it was, and there was a religious reaction and there was a false faith. There are such people. But that does not mean that the elect of God, chosen by the Father in eternity past, united to the Son in his death, sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise in Ephesians chapter 1, verse 14, which indebts God the salvation of that individual, and hence that individual is lost. God is the one who has defaulted. All of those passages that would make Jesus a failed savior, the Spirit a failed, uh, seal, the Father failed in his decree. All those passages have to be taken into consideration as well. And when we do, we recognize what is actually being presented here.

He said, Jesus will not fail, but we can fail. Now, that is the very essence of synergism. That is the very essence of the concept that salvation is this cooperative effort. And none of the passages that I presented to you in John 6 or John 10 can allow for a synergistic interpretation. Or at least, we're still waiting to hear that. And I'm looking forward to seeing how that could possibly be presented. And notice when we had a lot of these texts, it was, well, here's a parable and the application would be this. Where what I presented to you was, here is didactic teaching on the subject of how a person is made right with God. Why they're made right with God. What's, what God's role in these things really is. And the result of those presentations was the specific statement on God's part that he will not fail.

If you really want to see a good illustration of the difference between prescriptive and descriptive, look at John 3:36 that was cited. "He who does not obey the Son, the wrath of God abides upon him." So now you see it's my obedience that is necessary to be added to the work of Jesus Christ. Read what came before that in John chapter 3. Read what is being stated there. I agree. Those who have been changed by the Spirit of God, those who have had their heart renewed by the Spirit of God will desire to obey Jesus Christ. But please don't tell me that what you're telling me is that the consistent message of the gospel of John is that Jesus tries to save, but without my added obedience that I can fail at, he won't be able to do it. That is not the message that the apostle John was attempting to communicate to those to whom he was reading, by any, uh, stretch of the imagination.

We told, if, if you do not forgive others, then your heavenly Father will withdraw the forgiveness that you've had. I would like to know if there is anyone in this audience this evening that is so lacking in your own analysis of your own heart that you think that you have forgiven with perfection throughout your entire life as a believer, anybody. Well, what's the standard? Well, I did pretty good. That's not what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 18. You see, I take those words very seriously, but I do not take them in isolation. And I do not take the idea that the perfection of my offering of forgiveness to others is a standard by which Jesus is to be measured as a savior. That his work will fail if I don't work up perfection of forgiveness. Obviously, what Jesus is communicating there is meant to be taken by the softened heart, the, the fleshly heart given to us in regeneration as a recognition. Consider what I have been forgiven of. And that means I must be forgiving toward others. But it was not Jesus's intention to teach us that God's going to try really hard, but unless you come up with perfect forgiveness for others, you're going to be lost. That was not what was being communicated.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 6, you had the list of all those sins and it was said, "See, these will not inherit the kingdom of heaven." Well, that's exactly right. They will not. Eternal security, the perseverance of the saints is no libertarian willingness on our part to just break God's law and live in any way that we choose fit. We are talking only here about the elect of God who have had their hearts changed. They're not going to live as they want to live. They're going to live in the way that shows love for God and a recognition of what's happened in their hearts. But the whole text wasn't cited. The very next verse was, "Such were some of you." But, and what does it say? You did this, you did that, you cleansed yourself, you gave perfect, uh, forgiveness, you were faithful and endured to the end. Every action that the apostle Paul says, "But such were some of you, but you were washed, not you washed yourselves." There is a way of washing ourselves in service, but not in salvation. You were washed. You were redeemed. You were justified. It was all what God did, not what man did. You see, the consistent reading of the New Testament is not one of prescription that adds to the finished work of Christ. It is description that tells us what we are to do as believers as a result of that.

Galatians 5:4, what's, who is being addressed there? Those who are seeking to be justified by their keeping of the law. Not true believers. True believers. What, what, what did Paul say in Romans chapter 4? What is the object of their faith? The God who justifies. What did it say in Romans 4:4-5? To the one not working, but the ones in Galatians 5 were the ones who were working. And when it says you've been severed from Christ, well, that means you had to be in Christ. No, his point is real simple. If you understand Paul's perspective, there's two ways. There is either perfect obedience to the law, which no one can do, or there is the way of grace. You can't go down both roads very far. And so if you started down this road, you've fallen away from Christ. You've been severed from that direction. You better be able to be perfect in your obedience going this direction, because that is the only way to go.

I will not have time to get to Hebrews chapter 10. I would just simply ask a question and maybe we can during the cross-examination, uh, ask Mr. Horn to explain why he bolded the phrase "by which he was sanctified." Who was sanctified? Who was sanctified there? There is a consistent answer that takes into consideration the argument of the book of Hebrews, and there's a common answer that doesn't. And so we'll take a look at that. Keep in mind, folks, there's your issue. Prescriptive, descriptive. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. White. Mr. Trent Horn now has 15 minutes for his rebuttal period.

All right. All right. Well, thank you very much, James, for that response. Uh, first, I will say if there are any synergists here tonight who are basically Roman Catholics, we have free literature for you at the table. Uh, if you're interested in just coming out as what you really are. Uh, and, um, number two, James said, "Yes, well, I predicted everything Trent was going to say tonight." Well, it doesn't take a genius to predict your opponent in a debate is going to present the strongest evidence against your position. So, clap to that. Uh, all right, let's take a look at some of this here.

I'd like to comment a little bit on God's sovereignty and Christ's perfect sacrifice on the cross. My opponent has claimed that I limit God's sovereignty. Uh, you know, but it's actually my opponent who's doing this. He claims that God would never bring someone only to initial salvation or he'll never let someone lose salvation. God would never do that. But who is my opponent to say how much grace God gives to anyone, believer or not? God is sovereign. Here we are. As Augustine said, of two pious men, why should perseverance to the end be given to one and to the other? It should not be given. God's judgments are even more unsearchable. He also implies that, you know, Jesus's sacrifice isn't perfect under my view. Well, first, where in the Bible is he talking about where the sacrifice on Calvary is described as perfect? I didn't see that in his presentation. Uh, in fact, I would say that the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice means there wasn't just a perfect amount of grace to atone for our sins. There was infinitely more than was necessary for that task. That's why 1 John 2:2 says that he himself is propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. Likewise, 1 Timothy 4:10 says, "We have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the savior of all men, especially of believers."

We both agree God must give us grace if we are to be saved. And we also agree man must respond to that grace at least by making a saving act of faith. The question is whether God has given us the freedom to reject his grace or if we're simply puppets. And God has given us that freedom to reject it. Look at Matthew 23:37. Jesus says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." Jesus's will was to gather the children of Jerusalem together. But God's will can decree what will happen and also express his desire that may not come to pass. And I'll give more examples of that here in a little bit. The fact that God can desire to save people who resist his grace, including people who once believed in him, does not prove God's saving actions are imperfect. They only prove we are imperfect. God will save everyone he has chosen to persevere. But the Bible teaches that not every believer is given that grace. As I showed in my opening statement, when Jesus said some believe for a while, but in times of trouble they fall away. And James said, well, in Luke 8:13, they didn't bear fruit, so they weren't real believers. Where does it say that in the verse in Luke 8:13? It doesn't talk about fruit, it just says they believed for a while, they didn't have root, and then they fell away. I thought faith was a gift that only comes from God, so how are they believing if they're not true Christians in the first place? Uh, the same with John 15, they don't have fruit. Yeah, because they weren't willing to receive Christ's grace. They resisted. But they're still a true Christian. They're attached to the vine. You don't cut branches that aren't attached. So that doesn't really make any sense.

First John 2:19. My opponent said, "Well, you know, they're, they're apostate. The apostates were false Christians. They went out from us. They weren't really of us." This passage doesn't say anything. It doesn't say everyone who ever leaves the faith was not a true Christian. Not at all. In fact, it doesn't say they were never of us. It just says they were not of us. John was talking about a specific group of heretics, the Docetists, who denied Jesus had a real physical body. And so when they left, their heresy was discovered. They, they may not have started as heretics, just as most people who leave the church are faithful Christians, but then they fall away, as Jesus said in what I talked about.

Let's go through the verses that my opponent brought forward. John 6:37, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me, I will certainly not cast out." Uh, first, as my opponent did mention, the text of this passage refers to all the Father gives him, the body of believers as a whole. Note also the tense of the verbs. Jesus does not say every person the Father gave me will always come to me. Instead, Jesus is saying the whole body of believers the Father gives me will come to me. And conditionally, note, you know, the tense of the verbs here. Those who keep coming to me will not be cast out. Uh, that, that's actually later in, in John 6:40 and John 6:44, the tense of the continual coming. But I can back this up with a good commentary on this passage. Uh, it says, "The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not truly and continually believe." As you see here, that's from my opponent's commentary on this very passage, drawn by the Father.

What about John 6:38-39? Uh, "For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of him who sent me, that I would lose all that he's given me. I would lose nothing but raise it up at the last day." In the Bible, God's will can express what he decrees will come to pass or what he desires that may or may not come to pass. The Protestant biblical scholar Ben Witherington notes of this passage, "We are not told here that someone God draws or even Jesus chooses may not commit apostasy or rebellion. Even though the fourth gospel has a strong view of God's sovereignty, it also recognizes that there are things that happen that are contrary to God's desires and will. For example, 1 Timothy 2:4 says, 'God desires that all men be saved,' but Jesus said some men will face everlasting condemnation, so that won't happen." John 6:38-39 represents a similar desire. Or consider this, God. Does God desire that no member of the elect commit adultery? I think he desires, he commanded us not to. So certainly God desires no member of the elect commit adultery. But have there been people who were faithful their whole lives, maybe in a bad part of their marriage, they commit adultery and then they repent? They certainly do. Did they? Was God's will thwarted somehow by this creature? No. Because even though God wills certain things, he desires them, they may not come to pass because they're wills of desire rather than wills of decree. In fact, in John's gospel, in John 17:12, Jesus says of the disciples the Father gave him, "I guarded them and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition, so that the scripture would be fulfilled." But wait, I thought everyone the Father gave to the Son would be raised up. Jesus says here, "I guarded them all, but some are still lost according to the Father's will." That, that God can have a subtler intention here in these passages than what my opponent is reading into them. That God can desire to save those who will persevere to the end. Those he foreknew and foreloved who would persevere to the end. Not just to everyone who would receive his grace, but those who would persevere.

Let's look at John 10:27-29. "My sheep hear my voice. I know them and they will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand." The passage does not say that becoming one of Christ's sheep means you will always be one. Instead, it is those who through the grace of God continually hear, know, and follow Christ that are the ones who belong and continue to belong to his sheep. In fact, while Jesus says, "No one shall snatch them out of my hand," notice a conspicuous absence in the text. Jesus never says, "Oh, and I will never let them stray." But Jesus talks about straying sheep a lot in his own parables in Matthew 18 and Luke 15. But no one will snatch them. But he never promises they can't leave of their own accord.

Let's talk about Hebrews 7:25. I think this is the closest thing that my opponent has put forward to show that, well, Jesus's sacrifice is perfect. It forgives all sins universally and only for a limited group of people. But it doesn't say that. The text says he is also able to save forever those who draw near to God through him. That "to the uttermost" is relegated to a footnote in this translation. But the majority reading is "to save forever." Even if it's "to the uttermost," what does this mean? Uh, well, it can mean that Jesus is able to save for all time because the previous three verses talk about how the old high priest would always, you know, take their retirement package in the sky and had to be continually replaced. But Jesus, the new high priest, is eternal. He doesn't have to be replaced. He can save for all time. He's not like the old high priest. For Jesus can save us from any sin. There is no sin too big he can't save us from. But the text is far too ambiguous to read into it that Jesus's sacrifice on the cross means a certain group of people have all of their sins forgiven in one moment and can't possibly lose their salvation after that. It can't be done because notice the promise in this passage only applies to those who draw near to God through him or through Christ, not those who abandon him.

Uh, my opponent didn't talk about the verse here, but he, he obliquely referenced it when he talked about we were sealed with the Holy Spirit. You, if you're sealed with the Holy Spirit, doesn't that mean you're going to receive your inheritance? Well, no, not necessarily. What that shows in Ephesians 1:13, Paul is saying the Holy Spirit is an earnest or down payment. God makes this to show that he can and will give us our heavenly inheritance. But that doesn't mean the inheritance is unconditional. If someone buys your house, they give you a down payment, you give them the keys, they give more payments. But if you kick them out of the house, no more payments. Similarly, if we reject God through apostasy or grave sin, we will at least temporarily lose our inheritance.

I, you know, I asked for somebody in the past six, you know, first 1500 years of the church who, who taught this doctrine. I got a reference to Fulgentius, but not a citation. And so, so I can't interact with that in any way. Though I can cite another father, Irenaeus in the second century. He said, "Those who do not obey him, being disinherited by him, have ceased to be his sons." And my opponent agrees with me. You have to live the life of a child of God to receive your inheritance. If you would have committed apostasy and died in unrepentant sin, you would not receive your inheritance. Now, he would say you were a false Christian, and we'll talk about that a little later. But the question is rather, does God promise in this verse to keep that from happening? To keep us from doing something to disinherit ourselves? It, it doesn't. In fact, in Ephesians 4:30, Paul says, "Don't grieve the Holy Spirit." Ephesians 5:5-6, he says, "Know with certainty, no immoral or impure person, anyone like these people has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." And further, "Let no one deceive you with empty words that someone could be deceived to think that I can. It doesn't matter if I'm elect, if I am truly elect, I won't lose my inheritance." That's not what Paul is teaching. In fact, F.F. Bruce, the renowned New Testament scholar, in his commentary on Ephesians, says, "The fact that they still have to be warned against such vices shows how strong in a pagan environment was the temptation to indulge in them even after conversion, which shows the danger of losing our inheritance."

Let's go a little bit more. Um, my opponent brought up Romans 4:8. Uh, I, there's no problem with the position that I'm arguing tonight. I don't see eternal security in this doctrine, in this verse. Who is the blessed man? The blessed man is anyone who has experienced God's forgiveness. That's what Paul is talking about. He's saying that you don't, it is not required to receive God's forgiveness to have to prescribe to the Mosaic works of the law. That's why in Romans 4:9, uh, Paul is saying, "Is this only for Jews? Is it for the circumcised and the uncircumcised?" He makes that reference there. That's what he's talking about. And this debate is not about Catholic theology. But I will say Catholic theology has no problem with talking about the imputation of sin. None at all. We just reject that it is a legal fiction. When God declares righteousness, it actually comes about, just as when God declares, "Let there be light," there really will be light for you all to see. So this verse does not mean, in order to prove my opponent's point, it would have to mean, if you've been forgiven, amen. If you go to God and ask, seek forgiveness, as David did when he committed sins, because it's quoting the Psalms and what David is singing God's praise. If you ask for forgiveness, your sins will not be counted against you. You've been made clean. But it doesn't mean that once you are justified initially, that all future unrepentant sins will not be taken into account. If you do that, you're two steps away from anti-lordship salvation. Great debate, by the way, between my opponent and Bob Wilkin on that. I highly recommend, highly recommend seeing.

So, um, we also talked about Romans 8:33-34. Uh, once again, I don't see where eternal security comes in this passage. Who are the elect? Well, in verses 26-28, we find out who they are. They were those that God foreknew. Uh, though those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son. But if by foreknew, my opponent means foreordained or predestined, well, then the verse becomes redundant. Those whom he predestined, he also predestined. A more plausible interpretation than divine determinism is that God knew who would accept his offer of salvation and cooperate with his grace. So he predestined those people, the people he knew would love him and continue to love him, to final salvation or glorification. Uh, the verse does not say everyone who has ever been a Christian has received the same gift of perseverance.

I want to talk a little, my opponent, when the evidence that I put forward, he said, well, it could be prescriptive or descriptive. And it's very startling. What method did he give you all to determine if a passage is prescriptive or descriptive? Did he give you an exegetical technique, a way of reading the text? No. He said, well, we have to start with our theology of monergism. And if that's true, then obviously these texts are all descriptive. They don't say, "Do this, or you will lose your salvation." But what if the theology of monergism is not true? The problem is, even if he shows some of these verses are descriptive or could be taken as descriptive, he has to prove all of them are. If even one is prescriptive and says, "You ought to do it, you must do this, or you'll not be forgiven," then we have a problem. For example, Matthew 18, it, the text doesn't say, "Because you have been forgiven, forgive." That would be descriptive. It says, "If you don't forgive, you will not be forgiven." The passage clearly is prescriptive. If it sounds, and only a theological pre-commitment would deny someone from recognizing that. Thank you.