Can A Christian Lose Their Salvation? A Debate With Trent Horn & Dr. James White (Part 2)

If we could please take our seats, we're going to be getting the cross-examination period underway. We have four 10-minute periods of cross-examination. During that time, each debater will have the opportunity, starting with the affirmative position, of then asking the opposite side questions which will need to be answered. There can be a clarified question, just to clarify, but not a question back during this period. Okay, folks, thank you so much. And to start the question and answer period, we have 10 minutes. My clock man is ready. 10 minutes from Dr. White questioning Mr. Horn.

All right, thank you very, very much. Oops, sorry, there we go. Testing, one, two, three. All right, we're working. All right, uh, Mr. Horn, you said something in your rebuttal period that, if I understood it correctly, changes everything, and that's why it confused me. You said something along the lines, and I was writing as fast as I could, "God wills to save all that He has chosen to persevere," and you talked about the gift of perseverance. Do you hold the position that there are people that God gives the gift of perseverance to who will never lose their salvation, but then there are other Christians who are truly born again, but He doesn't give them the gift of perseverance, and they may or may not make it? Is that the position you're taking?

Uh, that's the position that I, that's why I cited, uh, Augustine on that point. He talked about how perseverance to the end, there you could have two pious men, or two regenerate, justified people, and one has given perseverance to the end, and another has not. That ultimately coming into union with Christ, uh, is by the grace of God. So God can elect to give someone grace so that they come into faith, uh, so they come into the body of Christ, and He might give other people grace that will sustain them through all the way to the end. And some people, uh, I think I would say all people are given enough grace to come to know God, because God desires the salvation of all people. But ultimately, not everyone will be saved, and those who are saved do so because God has elected them to be saved to final salvation.

Okay, what you just said there at the end, "confus-" excuse me, "because so there are people, someone could be elected to come to Christ, but not necessarily to stay with Christ." So He elects them to be temporary believers?

Yes. That, that's the only thing that makes sense of Jesus saying they fall away, or Paul saying they're severed from Christ, or they fell from grace. That the definition of a temporary believer would be someone who had grace and then fell from grace. It doesn't make sense to say you fall from grace if you never had it. It'd be like saying, you know, "Hey, don't mess around in the monkey bars, kid. You, you have fallen from the monkey bars," if that was a roundabout way of saying, "Well, he was never really on the monkey bars in the first place." But, so, so there are elect people that are not elected to salvation?

Yes. And we see these examples in scripture. In John 6:70, Jesus said, "I chose the twelve," or literally, "I elected you twelve." Yet, "one of you is a devil." Jesus chose the twelve, but Judas was not elected to final salvation. So all these other people are like the unique son of perdition. He's one example of someone who fell away, a very famous one, I will add.

But so you don't see anything special about being the son of perdition, the one that was prophesied in the Old Testament scriptures to function in a particular way?

Well, I, there's something unique there, just as there's something unique when Peter accepted, uh, Christ, you know, when Peter understood the revelation of God. There were other unique figures in scripture, obviously. They'll be, you know, there are people who have unique roles in salvation history. But that doesn't preclude there are many nameless people who are elected to come to Christ and don't stay. Most of the scripture passages that I mentioned, it talks about nameless people who, who fall away, and Jesus warns nameless people, but real people who can fall away.

So you believe in the eternal security of the elect who are given the gift of perseverance to final salvation?

To final salvation, yeah. I mean, God is, that's what I believe. Is that what you believe?

I believe that the elect who are given the gift of perseverance to final salvation will never fall away. I, the only, so the only difference between us is that I don't believe that God elects people that He joins them with Christ, Christ dies in their behalf, all the rest of that stuff, and then He doesn't give them the gift of perseverance. The difference between you and I is I believe God is sovereign. He can do as He pleases.

Well, that's an interesting way of putting it, but that, that doesn't really answer the question because it, it sounds like you, you are admitting that the will of man, in the case of the elect who are given the gift of perseverance, will not be able to undo, uh, the decree of God in the final salvation of those individuals, right?

Well, what you're saying is that when God wills something, it's necessarily going to come to pass. That is true in some cases. That God wills the creation of the universe, and it is. But God can will other things. And I gave the example earlier that, for example, God certainly wills that no member of the elect sin, or at least an uncontroversial example would be, commits a serious sin like has an abortion or commits adultery. I, I think you and I will be clear, God doesn't desire anyone, especially a member of the elect, to do that, but they, they still do. So God can will for something to, to come to pass, uh, but it might not because He's willed to decree other things, like man has free will. We, we can describe the prescriptive in, uh, and descriptive will of God at another point, but, uh, prescriptive will versus His decretive will.

But it sounds like what you're saying is that in the case of the elect that God gives the gift of perseverance to, that man's will cannot undo what God chooses to do, that they will be saved in, in finality, and that is all due to God's sovereign decree, right?

No, that's not the way that I put it. You and I have very different views about God's sovereignty. You hold that God is sovereign, and this is a topic for another debate. We're talking about the perseverance of the Saints. You're espousing the idea of God's sovereignty being that He's for-ordaining things, that He's, you know, actively willing or causing these things to happen. In my point of view, it makes sense if God creates human beings, He will perfectly foreknow who will choose to love Him, who will choose to remain with Him, and He gives those people grace to persevere to the end. He's not under any obligation to give, uh, other people any certain amount of grace, including letting them come to Christ or letting them fall away. There's no failure in God's will on this part.

Why would He give a grace, the grace of perseverance, to people that He already foreknows are going to persevere?

Because the reason that they persevere is because God, you know, everything that we do, as I said before, what Augustine says, "He who stands stands by God." He who falls, you know, he who falls falls of his own will. Um, I think it would just say that anything we do, coming to God, for example, our initial salvation, is by grace alone. We don't merit it with works or faith or anything like that. That is by grace. And so God gives different amounts of grace to different people, and He has the authority to do that freely.

God does freely. Is there, is there anything in the, in the creature that, that determines this?

Well, there may be something in the creature that God foreknows who will love Him, but that would go to another question about whether election is conditional or unconditional. But I, I didn't really hear an argument tonight to say that election is, is, is unconditional.

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

If it's the pers-, gift of perseverance to final salvation. But the point is, I'm saying not every Christian. What we disagree about is which members of the elect may receive this grace, and what is the reason they receive this grace? Because the reason may be God knows who will freely respond, uh, in different ways to, to enter into a relation with Him. But I, I guess that I want to back up a little bit, though. I'm not saying that that people are able to, to freely resist God's grace. That if they're going to be, what is sustaining them to the end of their life, what is sustaining them so that they remain, uh, with Christ, is going to be God's grace. But that grace isn't irresistible. Man can still, man can freely choose to resist it. There will just be some people who choose to not resist it and die unrepentant.

But is the grace of perseverance resistible? Because you said that if a person's given the gift of perseverance unto final salvation, that they will be saved. So is that gift of perseverance resistible?

That gift may be given to people who, because they love God and will continue to love God, won't resist. But here's the thing, just because they won't fall away from God later, they won't resist God, they still need grace at the beginning of their life onward to continue in the Christian life, to continue to grow in righteousness.

I know that you've been really, you're upset about being upset. I'm just completely lost as to why would God need to give a gift of perseverance to those whom He foreknows are going to freely continue to choose to love Him? Why? It sounds like it's given based on what they do.

The reason they love Him is because they continue to receive the grace He gives them. They don't reject it. If the grace is not there, they are incapable of loving God, just as if there's no gasoline in the tank of the car, the car won't go anywhere, even though the person can push the gas or the brake. But he,

Okay, so just, just briefly here at the end of my time. I'm trying to understand because it sounds like what you're saying is that in the case of some people, God is actually able to save them by giving them the gift of perseverance. But it sounds like you're saying He only gives that gift of perseverance to people that He foresees are going to continue to love Him, which is what perseverance is. So He gives them the gift of what He foresees they're going to do anyways. He understands how they'll respond to that, that gift. And so God will give His grace in different ways. I think ultimately, the, the disagreement we're having here, and I'll finish my question, is you, you've put forward a very strong presentation saying it is God alone who saves, man is not involved in any way. But I haven't really heard a lot of evidence to the contrary, whereas if you read in scripture, especially the passages I talk about about where people can fall away from the faith, I think it's very clear that God sustains us from beginning to end in our salvation. People can resist. Some people will not. God knows that they will, will love Him, but their love on its own is not enough to enter into the kingdom. Their love has to freely receive that grace God gives them, some to initial salvation and some to final.

Okay, Mr. Horn's turn now to ask the questions.

All right, all right. I have a question for you, James. Can I call you James? We had a dinner last night. Call you. We live in the same city, so we're, we got another thing in common along with a few million other people. That's true. Avid writers, but you're much better than I am, so I will tell you that this guy's ridden like a million miles. Uh, you, you talked about mortal and venial sin as being as being a defect in the, the Catholic view of soteriology and justification. But it seems to me you agree that, uh, if someone claims to be a Christian but commits a big sin, apostasy would be an example, unrepentant apostasy, that would prove that they were a false professor?

Well, I, I don't think it's a matter of big sin versus small sin. The sin of apostasy specifically, trampling underfoot the blood of the Son of God, which is also the sin in view in, in First John when it talks about the sin unto death, um, that is the key issue. And it's something that a true believer, well, not just apostasy. Let's say, for example, a member of your church, uh, left. Let's say it was someone who has homosexual attractions and he's lived a celibate life, but then is deceived by somebody like Matthew Vines and thinks, "I can be a faithful Christian and a homosexual," and engages, lives a homosexual lifestyle till the end of his days. In your view, would that show that person was a false professor?

From our perspective, yes, it would. But I can't look, I'm not going to claim to be able to look in someone's heart. But I'm going to, but I'm going to say that from the church's perspective, that that person would be put out as an unrepentant sinner, yes.

It's, and, but, okay, um, do people have to repent of all their sins? Because, for example, let's say there's someone who lives in a homosexual relationship their whole life. James 3:2 says, "We all stumble in many ways." So a member of the elect who, who gossips frequently and never repents of the, the calumny they talk about others, would, would that person turn out to be a false professor?

Well, again, the, the question is not, are there false professors in the church, which I believe that there are, and that's why we try to proclaim the whole counsel of God in the church, so that you bring to bear the condemnation of gossiping, for example, and trust the Holy Spirit of God will bring conviction of that. The, the question is, if a person is truly in Jesus Christ, how do they have peace with God? And what do the passages in scripture instruct them as to how they are to live in light of the peace that they have with God? So a person who would be, the, the gossip, should be a person who is brought, it's brought to their attention that that is sinful in God's sight and they're displeasing Him.

And what if they don't repent of that?

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

I'll give you another example. Forgiveness. You, you said, I said that Jesus required us to perfectly forgive. The word "perfect" is not in the verse that I, that I cited. He says, "If you don't forgive your brother." I know a very famous person who should remain unnamed who's publicly said he's never asked for forgiveness from anybody. Right. Yeah. So there could be people like this. Just lost your 501(c)(3) by the way, just so you know. There's no, who, who is the unforgiving man in Tren? In Tren, question. But it, it just seems to me that if this being live-streamed, someone sees that I, okay, if members, the point here is that if members of the elect, it seems to me, they won't go on committing, you know, living a homosexual lifestyle, but they will stumble in small ways. Yes. But isn't there, isn't what's the difference between a sin like homosexuality and stumbling in small ways?

How's that not to be? It's a willingness to be corrected and to allow the word of God to speak. If a person, if, if I go to a person in my congregation who's gossiping and they're bringing, they're bringing condemnation to others and they're bringing division, and they go, "Well, I don't think the word of God actually says that," or "I'm not really under the authority of that." That's the same thing as a, as a person who would buy into Matthew Vines' arguments as well. It may be what we would call a lesser sin, but it's the willingness to hear the voice of Christ. Jesus says, "My voice, my sheep hear my voice." There is going to be a willingness to be corrected by the word of God. That's what is going to be seen in the lives of the elect.

Well, let's look at the, the warning passages then. And I know you wanted to talk about Hebrews. I would enjoy talking about, um, Hebrews as well. So in, in Hebrews 10:28-29, it says that there's a severe punishment for someone who breaks the New Covenant. "How much severe punishment will be deserved," who has "trampled underfoot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified"? Who is the "he" that's right? In your book, *The Potter's Freedom*, on page 245, you say, "The 'he' who is sanctified by the blood of the Covenant is Jesus Christ." Right. Okay. Um, Hebrews 9:12-14, Hebrews 13, say that the blood of Christ purifies and sanctifies believers. Wouldn't an ordinary person take Hebrews 10:29, if they've read the whole book of Hebrews, to have that same category that the blood of the Son of God is purifying and sanctifying a believer, not Jesus Christ?

Well, wouldn't an ordinary person? You're saying an ordinary person wouldn't come to that conclusion?

No, they would not. Is your view the minority view on this passage?

It may be. But the, the fact of the matter is, the book of Hebrews, so you're a very extraordinary person.

No, what I'm saying is, the book of Hebrews is very often misinterpreted because people don't know the Old Testament. If you don't understand the Book of Leviticus, the book of Hebrews is going to be a closed book to you. If you don't understand what happened on the day of Yom Kippur, the book of Hebrews will be a closed book to you. And as a result, church history has demonstrated, especially after Origen, the allegorical interpretation methodology became popular, that the book of Hebrews was absolutely tortured as to its real meaning. Hebrews chapter 10, verses 10 and 14, had already talked about the perfection of the individual for whom Christ had died. If you knew what the high priest did, then you would know that before the offering on Yom, it's actually not Yom Kippur, it's Yom Karim, it's multiple atonements. And before the offering for the people was made, the high priest had to give an offering for himself. And that when he brings that blood in, there is the sanctification of the high priest himself.

Why, why does he bring the offering for himself?

Because, because he himself is taking the position. Before he can bring the blood of the people in, there has to be cleansing of everything in the, in the entirety of the tabernacle. Does Jesus, does Jesus, the new high priest, have to be cleansed? Jesus, what did, what did He do with John the Baptist? He was baptized by John the Baptist, right? And John said, "No, I should be baptized by you." What does Jesus say? "Suffer it to be so now, for thus it fulfills all righteousness."

Are you saying Jesus follows? Are you saying the baptism of Jesus cleansed Him in the same way?

No, I am saying that He obeyed the law. For example, in Luke 2:22, it is said that the offering for sin was made for He and His mother, just as the, the commandment was made. There was no sin in Him, but they were following the law. In the same way, the high priest, he sanctifies the offering by the presentation of himself.

Are you saying the high, that Jesus, in His offering, did not sanctify Himself?

What I'm saying is that the blood, whenever scripture refers to the blood of Christ sanctifying, when it says the blood of Christ sanctifies, it always refers to sanctifying believers.

And you said, "Well, a lot of people don't understand the Old Testament." Thomas Schreiner is a reformed theologian like you. He holds eternal security. Schreiner probably understands the Old Testament, would you agree?

Certainly.

Okay, well, this is what he says in his commentary on Hebrews: "It is awkward and unnatural to see a reference to Jesus in the pronoun instead of believers, for it makes little sense to say Jesus was sanctified by his own blood. Jesus is the one who sanctifies in Hebrews 2:11, not the one who is sanctified." So my last question on this point is just this: If biblical scholars and ordinary, wouldn't an ordinary person then, when they read this passage, why is it, you think, that people come to this conclusion that it's the believer? Doesn't it seem to me that the only reason we have to say that it's Jesus is because we can't have a true believer punished with eternal death? Because the blood of the Covenant is what is under view here. It is the seriousness of what this person has done. And notice what it says: "has profaned the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified." This is the same Covenant that only a few verses earlier "perfects those and by one offering makes them complete." The author is not going to, in a matter of only 14 verses, turn around and completely contradict what he had just said as the evidence of his argument against the repetitive sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

You're making the writer of Hebrews contradict himself.

How am I making him do that? When he's simply saying that those who violate the New Covenant have a severe punishment. They regarded as unclean the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified. So I guess we're going to have to...

Let me, let me ask my my last question. I guess.

Nope. We're, well, who wants to let 30 seconds go to waste?

Well, you say it's a, it's a perfect sacrifice. But Hebrews 10:26 says, "If someone deliberately sins, it no longer remains..."

Well, I just think you need to read, uh, what anyone writes. Like, if I, if I read your book, I would allow what you write in paragraph A to determine what comes afterwards. And since Hebrews 10:10-14 comes before Hebrews 10:28-29, I think we need to read it in order, not backwards.

I've, I've read it in order. It's not the parts I don't understand. It's the parts I do understand that concern holding your interpretation of Hebrews is incorrect.

Dr. White has 10 minutes for cross-examination.

I, I think you said it's my turn. So, sorry. I really, it's very difficult. Yes. Okay. I'd like to get to some other texts as, as well here. I have so many, uh, of these written down. Um, I, I, I completely lost what you were saying in Romans 4. If we could go back to what you were, were saying about, you said that Romans chapter 4 is about anyone who receives forgiveness of sins. Is that what you said?

"Apart from the Mosaic law, blessed is the man whose sins God forgives." That's, that's the point that Paul is making here. So when you look at verse six, "Just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works."

You interpret "works" to be merely the Mosaic law?

I, what is the question?

Romans 4:6, "Just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God imputes or credits righteousness apart from works." Then that's the introduction to, uh, Romans 4:7-8, the citation from Psalm 32. So you just said something about the Mosaic law. So are you interpreting works as solely the Mosaic law?

I'm saying that's one way that the verse can be interpreted. I'll take two points to this. Number one, even if one interpreted this broadly and came to the conclusion of justification by faith alone, as I said earlier, that doesn't entail eternal security. Because one could say, "You are justified, your sins won't be credited to you because you simply have faith in God." But if faith leaves, then God, because He is sovereign, He could decree your forgiven, then decree your unforgiven, just as He does in the parable of the unmerciful servant. Second, yeah, I would say that it, it makes the most sense to say Paul is talking about, as he does, righteousness apart from works of the Mosaic law. That in order to be justified, you don't have to, in the controversy in the church, you don't have to become a Jew before you become a Christian. And the great clue to that is after verse 8, it says, "Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also?" So you could look at it either way. But in either case, you don't get the doctrine of eternal security.

In Roman Catholic theology, if you commit a mortal sin, is it imputed to you? Is it imputed? It destroys charity in the, the heart of man. But so it is imputed to your account. You are held accountable for it.

Yes. Just as when I've said in these other verses that if someone in 1 Corinthians 6, if they commit these other mortal sins, adultery, homosexuality, things like this, they won't inherit the kingdom of God. But blessed is the man who does this, who seeks forgiveness from God. For if he does that, his sins will not be taken into account. So if you commit a mortal sin or a venial sin, it is imputed to you, right? You are held accountable for those sins. Yes. But I don't see how that pertains to...

I'm asking you. Well, I'm asking you, as you look at Romans 4:8, when it says, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin," how does that work if every sin you can commit is imputed to you?

You're assuming that what it means is that when someone is justified by God, sins will never be imputed to them, will never destroy charity in their heart, any onward in the future. Which, as I said, for, I don't see how you're reading of this that, "Well, blessed is the man, his sins will never..." It doesn't say they will never be imputed to them.

What does "will not" mean? What does "will not" mean?

Yes. Isn't that a strong negative?

Means will. That's the strongest way of saying "will not be imputed."

So you said, you said, "Well, I'm, I'm that, that by the way, is not my my reading of of the text." As I read this, the blessedness, verse 9, "of forgiveness of sin is his by faith before he is circumcised," which is his argument against the Jews. But his point is, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin," and that's the explanation of what crediting righteousness apart from works. How am I not reading?

What is the positive reading on your part of verse eight?

The, the two-point here. The reason the sins will not be taken into account is because the person repents of them and seeks forgiveness. That, I think, is the distinction you're trying to draw. So I'll make two points, a smaller point and a larger point. The smaller point being, is I think you're trying to set up a dichotomy here and saying, "Well, Catholics believe in infusion of righteousness, and Romans 4:8 teaches imputation, and so clearly, since you, you know, don't believe in that, this contradicts your theology." No, we believe that, you know, righteousness of God can be imputed to us. I just said it can't be a legal fiction. And what I said in the past, "Blessed is the man, the sin will not be taken into account," it's because he's confessed. Going back to Psalm 32, it's talking about seeking forgiveness from God, like when King David sought forgiveness from Bathsheba. So that's the smaller point. But you, I mean, you and I can debate justification, you know, until, I, the metaphor escapes me, guess until the cows come home and someone credits them to our farm or whatever. We could debate justification however long you want. But you could believe in justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness, but it wouldn't follow from that that you have eternal security. Because people like Martin Luther or Wesley or others believe that if faith leaves, if you commit apostasy, then you lose your justification. That legal decree is legally reversed. And I haven't really seen any evidence to show God would not do that, even if the Protestant theory of justification is true.

You said in John chapter 6, verse 37, um, that you, you, you introduced the term "conditionally," and but then you seem to stop and say, "Well, actually, that's later on." So I, I wasn't certain what you were saying.

I was referring to, I, because I thought that we might go talk a little bit more about John 6:40 or John 6:44, which talk about how the person who is believing on Jesus, who is coming to Jesus, uh, that he will be raised up. That, as you say in your own book, "The promise is that it's it's conditional."

Did I ever say it was conditional?

No, I'm saying it's the natural progression of that. If the Father draws someone to the Son, the Father draws, they'll come to the Son. And those who keep on coming, who keep on believing, they will be raised up to life. Because there's nothing in the text that says the drawing is some kind of irresistible grace that forces people to always, that that means they will always come to the Son. I don't see that there.

So, so let me, well, you say you don't see it, but let me try to help you see it. And we'll pray that you'll see it. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." Which action comes first? The giving of the Father or the coming to the Son?

In the text, it says that the Father gives all, which is the whole body of the body of believers. So the Father gives the body of believers, and they come.

So, so which is it? Do you believe that the text is indicating a relationship between these actions, between the Father giving and our coming?

Yeah, I would say so. That anyone, we, you can't approach the Son unless you're, you're drawn or given by the Father. That's the necessity of grace.

Is it that everybody is everyone given by the Father to the Son?

Every human being?

Every human being?

Yeah. Is given by the Father to the Son?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Well, in other words, isn't this a specific people?

Well, yeah. What, what F.F. Bruce says in his commentary on, on the Gospel of John, he says that this is the neuter singular. He's talking about how that this is the whole body of believers, of believers who are given. And so you, if, if you believe in Jesus, you're going to come to Him. So the believers are given, they come to Jesus. And "the one who comes to Me, I will certainly not cast out." But it doesn't...

I'm confused. You have to, you have to come to Jesus. Didn't you just conflate believing and coming? Aren't they the same thing?

They're the same thing, aren't they? You can't come to Jesus without believing in Him, right?

Well, our life with Christ is one that's a process that includes belief. I know you disparaged obedience earlier, but Romans 1:15 says that we have to practice the obedience of...

I never disparaged obedience.

Well, you said as if obedience wasn't something a part of maintaining our inheritance in the kingdom of God, as if I said it wasn't the basis upon which we earn it. But that's, that's a different issue. I, I want to stick with John 6:37. In John 6, believing and coming are parallel, aren't they?

Okay, fine. Yeah. Those who believe will come to Jesus. But it doesn't say that they're always going to come to Jesus, or they can't ever leave.

Okay, so, but I'm just confused here because it sounded like in your mind, you said God gives the ones who are believing in Jesus. The order in the text is, "We believe in Jesus because God gave us."

Well, "all that the Father gives Me." What is, what is that "all"?

What makes the most sense? It's the body of believers, or the, I guess you could say, the body of people who will come to believe. I don't think that changes the argument at all. Those who are given by the Father to the Son will come to the Son. And the one who comes, the one who continues to come, will not be cast out. But if someone stops coming, Jesus may not cast them out. Look, if I say to you, "If you come to the debate table, uh, after the debate to talk to me, I won't cast you out." It doesn't mean you can't leave on your own accord. So, so I don't see eternal security.

Can't you see that the, the very verse before verse 37 says, "But I said to you that you have seen Me and you are not believing." He's explaining the unbelief of these individuals. And he explains it on the basis that you have to be given by the Father to the Son to believe. They were not.

To clarify, in order to believe, faith is a gift that must be given. A person cannot have faith, uh, on their, on their own merits or initiative. You have to receive the gift of faith. But it doesn't follow from that that if someone receives the gift of faith from God, that they will not throw away that gift later. And so I, I don't think that you've shown John 6:37 proves eternal security.

Time. Um, we now have another 10-minute period where Mr. Horn can ask questions. Finally, of Dr. White. And I would ask that the questions that have been chosen by Rich Pierce and John Soron be brought up to me, please. Thank you. Let's talk a little bit about Galatians 5:4. Yeah, you gave an interesting illustration, uh, one of someone who straddles two roads, and you can't go down the road of grace and the road of law indefinitely. You're going to pick one or the other. If someone is on the road of grace, doesn't that mean God gave them grace and they are part of the elect?

The specific statement says, "Look, I Paul say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you." That's, that's the context. That's, uh, verse two. That has to be understood before this. So he is addressing individuals who would be willing to add to faith in Christ, human activity, human accomplishment, entering into the Old Covenant, whatever else it might be. People who would add to the work of Christ. So these are people who are claiming to be Christians. They're, they're claiming to be Christians, and then they want to do something where, but they're, but they're not Christians.

Well, if they will accept circumcision, then they have not understood what the gospel is. So they haven't been given the grace. God gives someone to know circumcision is not the route you're supposed to go. They are in danger of being deceived by these individuals. Yes. And Paul is extremely concerned about it. There were people in Paul's time who would have been tempted to become Judaizers. Did they stop? Did they not become Judaizers because of their merit? Or did God give them grace so they would not become Judaizers?

God would have protected His elect people because they're His sheep, and He will lose none of His sheep. From their entering into, they could have entered in temporarily to error, but they'd be lost. They would not be lost, I'm sorry, but they wouldn't do it permanently. No.

Okay, so in fact, I think we would probably agree, given your perseverance, yeah, somebody, as Jesus says, "The person who doesn't endure to the end will not be saved." Yes, Matthew 10:22. I, I agree with that. So, but the, the problem here is you're saying, "Well, they're, they're, they're not Christians."

Well, I'm saying no. What I'm saying is they're in danger of of accepting non-Christian teaching because if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage. You can claim Jesus all you want, but if you, you do not accept Him as He is, in the way that God has ordained, that is not going to, that is not the gospel. And so I want to be warned against false gospels, because that's what the, the book started off by warning me against. I don't want to be anathema.

So if a Christian in Paul's church accepts circumcision temporarily and then returns, has he through that process fallen from grace?

Well, it says in verse four, "You are severed from Christ." Who, I guess you're saying that there, there's somebody who can, temporarily, uh, accept circumcision. It seems to, I have known people who have gone into error and who have been delivered from the errors of their ways. Yes. So they fell from grace. They, they would have moved away from the, they, they've no longer had access to God's grace. But if they're of God's sheep, He's, He's going to keep them.

So, okay, but that's the point then. Because if it's only temporary, I didn't answer your question because I, I, I rhetorically asked a question I shouldn't have done that. Let me non-rhetorically answer your question. I read verse four and then I stopped and I said, "Who, you have been severed from Christ, who, you, who are seeking to be justified by law." And so this is, this is a person who is seeking to be justified by law. The redeemed are not going to be seeking that. So this is an unredeemed person who is severed from Christ and fell from grace. Anyone who seeks to be justified by law will not find Christ to be of benefit to them in that situation, in that day.

Could there have been people that when they first read the, the book of Galatians in the congregation were torn between the authority of the Apostle Paul and the false teachers that they liked so very well?

That's not even what's being addressed. What Paul is saying there is not two ways of you. This is an unredeemed person. He's talking about the, the one who is seeking to be justified by law. Yes. So they don't have grace. If they're seeking to be justified by law, they don't understand the gospel.

Then how do you fall from grace if you never had it in the first place?

Because you are moving away from the sphere where that could even be an area of action in your life. It's, you are, you are assuming all through this, and I haven't really challenged it as yet because I, it's sort of part of another, uh, debate, but you are, you are viewing grace as a substance, something that could be merited, the *sensus meritum*, the grace is in it, so on and so forth. I, I would challenge that concept of grace as ever even entering into the mind of the Apostle or entering into the mind of any of the New Testament writers.

Could I be thinking of grace as the favor of God that you could do something to fall from? As Paul says in Galatians 5:4, that when the word *eipo* is used to fall, is it ever used in another place to describe someone who is just never united or attached to something in the first place? Doesn't it talk about chains falling off or flow severing and falling is showing a complete disjunction? The way of faith is of grace. The way of law is not. Paul's already established these categories earlier in Galatians, and he's saying if you're going down this direction, you're not going that direction. That's the, you can't go both directions.

Just to summarize before we move on, "fall from grace" doesn't mean you're on this path to grace and you go down here to law. It just means you were never here in the first place and you've always been doing this.

No, I simply say the verse four says, "If you are seeking to be justified by law." This is the only people. This is descriptive of the only people it's descriptive of. And they need to understand they're trying to meld, and this is an area where I think Rome does this. They're trying to meld grace and works. And Paul's point is, these two things are completely disjunct. They cannot be put together.

Okay, so, so you would say then, then one last question about the understanding of the meaning of the passage. Would you at least agree, an ordinary person, when they read something like "fell from grace," means a person had grace, now they no longer have it? And, and let me finish. And an ordinary person, or even a learned person like Martin Luther, it would be understandable why they might come to a conclusion like that if the ordinary person wasn't, you know...

And when you keep quoting Martin Luther, what time? Big deal. What time in Martin Luther's life? Because that changed over time, if you're familiar with the difference between Martin Luther before 1525, after 1525, about 1535, and then after. There are different periods of his writing. Luther, is there a writing in Luther where he affirms the position you're defending tonight?

I believe it would be consistent with what he writes prior to 1525. After that point, I mean, is in light of his, in light of his debate with Erasmus and before the influence of Melanchthon. But let me at least finish what we're saying in Galatians chapter 5, because we're getting into something else there. But the point of Galatians chapter 5 is this comes after the establishment of these categories of grace and works that the rest of the entire book is about. And I don't think you're allowing those categories to be to be indicative of what is being said right here.

I think I'm just reading them the way anybody here, or a pretty famous German guy from 500 years ago, would read them. So why don't we move on to Romans? How about Romans, uh, 11:22? I think that's very interesting because you talked a lot, you, we were talking about Romans 4:8. I think it made clear, even if you have a Protestant, uh, theory of justification, that's a side issue to what we're debating tonight. It doesn't show eternal security. That Paul even says at the end of Romans, in Romans 11:22, "If you don't continue in God's kindness, you too will be cut off." So the first question is, wouldn't an ordinary person take the plain meaning of this text to be, you can be in God's kindness, but then leave that state and be cut off, if they ignored the context?

An ordinary person could make that error. But if you read Romans 11, it's talking specifically here to the Gentiles and warning them against boasting against the Jews who have been hardened for this particular period of time and cut off. And therefore, they are not to boast against them, because there is a purpose why God has hardened.

You say, "You are the, you are individual Gentiles." The "you" is the gentile people as a whole?

Well, it's a singular "you." Paul's addressing a hypothetical person.

It, it doesn't matter if it's singular, because a singular can be used of an individual representing a group. I, I agree with that. So then we can talk about the group. Then he's talking about the Gentiles. Are they Gentile believers or unbelievers?

They're Gentile believers.

So Gentile believers can be cut off from God?

Gentile believers need to be warned not to boast against the branches. What happens if they do that? The individuals, again, all the warning passages are given to us by God's grace to tell us this is what God wants us to do, this is what God does not want us to do. What happens if we don't do it? And when they start doing that, the question then becomes, do we look at this as, "Well, okay, if Gentiles, if there's ever been anyone in history of the church that has an anti-Jewish perspective, as the Papacy did for hundreds of years in a, in a horrible sense, how is that means that they've been cut off?" Right.

Oh, yeah. I mean, the Papacy, they should model Luther when it comes to talking about the Jews. No question about it. No question about it.

All right, we are going to move straight into our cross-examination period and the first, excuse me, out of our cross-examination period into our question and answer. And how this will work, folks, is that I will have a question first for Mr. Horn, and then we'll have one for Dr. White. Each of the, the two debaters will have the opportunity, when the question is posed to them, one minute to answer, and then the opponent will have 30 seconds to rebut. Okay? So the first question goes to Mr. Horn. The question is this: In Romans 8:29, does God know the person or does God know about the person? It could be either. I'd like to bring the, um, text up here. "For those whom He foreknew, He also..."

The dispute, or not a dispute, way of understanding the text. For those whom He foreknew, He also...

Predestined. Um, it could be either that the person, the, the word there is *proginōskō*. Uh, he could know about what they are doing. Some would say that that he entered into, you know, a divine, you know, relationship with that person. Uh, you can look at it in different ways. But I haven't heard any reason to go against the view that God *proginōskō* those who will love him and will continue to love him, and they're predestined to glorification. I don't think I really heard, I didn't hear an argument tonight that from this passage in Romans 8, it follows that everyone who becomes a Christian will be brought to glorification. And I think what I quoted in Romans 11:22 shows that some of those Gentile believers or Jewish believers, uh, they can be cut off if they don't continue in God's kindness. Time. And Dr. White, you have, I'm sorry, I did, I did not hear what the time frames were.

1 minute and 30 seconds. 30 seconds, right. Um, the problem is that the, uh, that that using *proginōskō* here, this is a completely unusual way of reading this. This is an active verb. This is something God does. And every time that God is the one who, who does this action, the object is not what someone does. It's a person. Jesus is *proginōskō*, the elect are *proginōskō*, Israel's *proginōskō*. It's never actions. So that would be a completely inconsistent way of understanding it. And if Romans 8:30 doesn't tell you that everyone who's *proginōskō* comes to glorification, I don't know what verse would.

Okay, Dr. White. It's a question. Do we have free will, both before and after we are saved? Gracious sakes, no. Um, John chapter 6:44 says, "No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." Um, we have creaturely will. And as the fallen sons and daughters of Adam, it is far more common in the New Testament for the Bible to tell us what we are not able to do than what we are. We are not able to hear the words of the Son of God if we do not belong to God. We are not able to see. We are not able to hear. We're not able to do until drawn by the Father to the Son. And in John 6:44, all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. So that is an effective drawing on the part of God the Father. Then, as a redeemed believer, our will is still impacted by sin. It's still a creaturely will, but now it has access to the divine impulses of the spiritual life, and the Spirit of God dwells within us. And so we freely, out of that new heart of flesh that's been given to us, desire to do what is pleasing to God. And that's why we do those things, not to add to the work of Christ so we can be saved. Time.

Mr. Horn, I, that's none of that is in the single verse that James was quoted at first. It doesn't say "I will raise up all of them on the last day." It says "I will raise him up on the last day." And it simply says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." There's nothing in here about some kind of irresistible drawing where the person has to go to Jesus. It certainly doesn't say the person will always remain with Jesus, or this drawing will keep the person from ever leaving Jesus in the future. That's being read into the text rather than being drawn from it. You, you can't come to Jesus without being drawn by the Father. And if you remain with Jesus and cooperate with that grace, you'll be raised up on the last day.

And Mr. Horn, the next question is directed towards you. Do you believe you are saved, AKA going to heaven? If yes, why? Based on your comment about no one actually knowing. Thank you, smiley face. Well, Mr. Smiley Face, I am, uh, very grateful you brought this up because it allows me to address a point that my opponent brought up earlier about Ludwig a. Uh, what a is talking about is that we can't have absolute certainty. This comes from the Council of Trent. It's in the catechism. One, a person cannot have absolute certainty that they are in a state of grace, or absolute certainty they will remain in a state of, of grace throughout the rest of their lives. But you can have moral certainty. You can say, well, I can look at my life and have moral certainty I'm obeying God, I'm obeying his commandments, and I can know if I am in a state of mortal sin or not. Moral rather than absolute. Absolute would be the sin of presumption. And as I said in my presentation, those who have eternal security as their view, you can't have that absolute certainty either. You can't possibly know you won't fall away later. So you can't know, well, I know I'm a true Christian. How do you know that? Because you know you'll never fall away. Is everybody who here is who here is tempted on a daily basis? There you go.

Dr. White, the citation I made of Ludwig a, the point that I think should cause anyone to take a second look at it and be very concerned is that it says that no one can know whether they have fulfilled all the conditions necessary for achieving justification. And the dividing line between us this evening is one fulfilled all those conditions for justification. His name was Jesus Christ. And if I am in him by faith, then that's why I have peace with God.

The next question is for Dr. White. Can you explain how and why it is in the parable of the unforgiving servant that the master first forgives him, but then punishes him later as a result of his actions, thereby appearing to be based upon these actions? It is fascinating to me that once again this evening, we have had clear passages where Jesus is specifically addressing his power and capacity as Savior and saying that it is perfect, and he loses none of those that are given to him, over against parables where Jesus is talking about using, for example, unjust stewards. He's talking about using, uh, unrighteous judges. And we go, well, that means this represents God, and this represents this, and therefore it must mean this. The situation here is that you have, you have to establish that this individual had been forgiven a great deal before you can then see the unforgiveness of his heart and the pettiness and the fact that he does not respond to the forgiveness that he had received. Then you read back into that, well, that's God doing this, and this is how somehow God justified him, and as a result of that, now he's unjustifying him because he does not forgive, uh, these other individuals. Is to miss what is actually being said, which is forgiveness flows from a truly forgiven heart.

And Mr. Horn, this is a classic example of theology being read into the text. It doesn't say anything about his un-, his uncaring, unregenerate heart was exposed. The, the king forgives the debt, then the servant, uh, then the servant commits a crime, and then he has to pay the debt again. He was forgiven of the debt, then he is unforgiven. And the parable explains what God does. I just let the text speak for itself. I'm not reading theology into it. Matthew 6:15: "If you do not forgive others, your heavenly Father will not forgive you." I just let it say what it says.

Mr. Horn, the next question is for you. If you lose your salvation, what do you need to do to get it back? You have to con-, you have to confess your sins. If, now, this question is different, uh, sorry, this question is unique from the topic we are debating. We're debating whether salvation can be lost. Now, people who say salvation can be lost are going to disagree about how one is to obtain, obtain it, just as Christians agree you can be initially saved. You know, my opponent disagrees with lots of people about how we are saved. But that still means, you know, that doesn't, just because there's that disagreement, doesn't mean people aren't saved. So there is disagreement. The, the Catholic perspective would talk about receiving God's grace in the sacrament of confession. But if you're not Catholic, Pro-, most Protestants would say, who hold to the view I'm defending tonight, would say that you have to be like David. You have to repent of your sin. And I think that the gospel clearly teaches that. That James 5:16 says, "We must confess our sins." If we don't, if, if all the sins are forgiven, you don't have to do anything. Why does Jesus say that every day we have to pray, "Father, forgive us for our trespasses"?

Dr. White, well, here's, here's the issue. Um, could I ask one, could I ask one, one thing? There was one, there was one phrase in the question that I did not quite catch clearly, and I, if you could stop it, I, I didn't want to misinterpret you. If you lose your salvation, what do you need to do to get it back? Okay. So when it comes to a Roman Catholic answering that question, and if I could have my whole time, I was just asking for that. Only gave me 10 seconds after after asking that question. I'm sorry. There's a Presbyterian at the, the concept, the concept of sacramental forgiveness, the concept of a priest, the concept of penances, the concept of receiving forgiveness, uh, and receiving the grace of justification, etc., etc. All this goes against that very text we looked at in Romans chapter 8, that specifically makes the statement, "Those who are justified are also glorified." That's a chain. In Roman Catholicism, you can be justified without being glorified. Roman Catholicism breaks the golden chain of redemption in Romans chapter 8. That's a didactic text.

Once again, Dr. White, the next question is for you. Please respond to the point that Mr. Horn made that as Christians, we cannot know the future, and thus have assurance of our salvation. This debate is not about the level of assurance of salvation we have. This ass-, this debate is about whether we have a Savior who can actually save, and therefore give us a meaningful ground of assurance to begin with. Because I can tell you one thing, I don't need to know the future to know that if my salvation is dependent upon my cooperation and my performance, I am doomed. I will not make it. I will not forgive perfectly enough. I will fail. I will falter, and I will be lost. If I do not have a Shepherd that can keep his sheep, knows who his sheep are, and is not dependent upon his sheep choosing to remain in his flock, uh, then I am going to be lost. And so the debate, we could have a debate on assurance, I suppose, because that would lead us into discussing sacramentalism and all the, uh, developments over history of that. But this is specifically about whether the salvation that I have in Jesus Christ is based upon what He does, or upon a synergistic cooperation, and therefore can be lost. I agree that the point of my presentation is there equally, uh, whether it's conditional or unconditional, we have the same level of assurance. That if you believe in uncondition-, in eternal security, then you can't ever really know you're, you're, you are a true Christian. But I would say this, to follow what Augustine says, no, he who stands stands by God's will. He who falls falls of his own will. That under my opponent's view, if you commit a grave sin in the future, that'll just prove you're not a true Christian in the first place, which is pretty analogous to saying that you've lost your salvation. So the question of assurance afflicts both parties equally.

Mr. Horn, the next question is for you. You believe one can be saved and disinherited? Do you also believe this is foreordained by God? God, such as, "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated"? Could you repeat the question? Sure. You believe one can be saved and disinherited? Do you also believe this is for-, foreordained by God? Such as, "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated"? The question of how God predestines us, uh, there's no doubt that God predestines our salvation. So the Bible speaks clearly about us being predestined. Paragraph 600 of the catechism talks about it. How God predestines us, why he predestines us. Uh, the question of, this is divided Catholics, Thomists, and Molinists, about whether it's conditional based on God's foreknowledge of what someone will do, or whether God will choose to give efficacious grace to some or others. That is an open question of how God predestines, and it's a separate side issue. That God can predestine people to initial or final salvation. Uh, that ultimately, if people are saved, it doesn't surprise God. But, but we must be careful. Predestined does not mean God ordains. God sends people to heaven and sends people to hell. What it means is God knows what will happen and sovereignly incorporates that into His plan of salvation. And part of that plan is He knows those who will accept His grace and then later reject it to their own peril.

Dr. White, the, the problem is the idea that God would predestine temporary Christians, that he would predestine individuals to be united, I guess, temporarily with Christ. See, I can't even see how these categories work because to be in Christ, His death becomes your death, His resurrection your resurrection. Um, it becomes the intention of the Son to save these individuals, and yet then it becomes the, the intention not to actually save them because a, a further gift of perseverance isn't given. These just are concepts that are unknown in the New Testament.

Question for Dr. White. How do you interpret 1 Timothy 4:1? "How can a man, quote, depart from the faith, end quote, that he never had?" Well, the problem there is that in First Timothy, First and Second Timothy, the term "faith" there is used of the, the doctrine, the body of doctrine and teaching. Uh, it's not talking about the individual expression of belief in those things by an individual. So, "Now the Spirit expressly says in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons," etc., etc. So this is talking about individuals who will, uh, embrace false teaching. It's not talking about, well, they had a true faith in Jesus and then they stopped having that true faith or something along those lines. Uh, the concept here is a warning against false teachers and false teachings. So the faith, same, same with Jude. He says, "the once for all delivered to the saints faith." That's a body of doctrine. That's a body of teaching that has been delivered to, to the saints once for all. Uh, I'll actually agree with my opponent, surprise, surprise, that 1 Timothy 4:1 doesn't necessarily prove that a person became regenerate and then lost their salvation. These could be people who are never Christian, who fell away from the practice of the faith. But throughout the letters of Timothy, Paul is very clear. True believers and false believers. Because in 2 Timothy 2:12, he says, "Of true believers, if we deny Him, Jesus will deny us." Jesus doesn't deny false believers. He denies true believers who later reject Him.

Mr. Horn, the next question is for you. What is your opponent's strongest argument for perseverance of the Saints? I think my opponent's strongest argument is probably going to be the passages that he cited. Um, he didn't have very many biblical passages to cite. I, I think mostly he just had a few, and the most, you know, probably from a few verses in the Gospel of John that talk about God's role in bringing us to salvation, not necessarily remaining there. I see how people could read those few verses and mistake those to believe in eternal security, in John, just as how someone could mistakenly read John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I," and reject the deity of Christ. So with some of these passages that can be mistaken, just like with John 14:28, we have to weigh them against the tremendous passages that affirm the deity of Christ for John 14:28 and all the passages I showed that clearly, not descriptively, but prescriptively, warn of a genuine danger for real Christians to fall away. And look at the whole counsel of Revelation and not just use our theology to dismiss that big counsel of Revelation and cling to a misinterpretation of a few verses.

Dr. White, I think everyone here can see the massive difference between misreading John 14:28, which the verse itself teaches the deity of Christ, and the eisegesis that Mr. Horn is engaged in this evening in John chapter 6, breaking the flow of the argument up and saying, "Well, I just don't see that. I don't see that." Well, there's no way that you can follow Jesus's argument all the way from John 6:36 to 6:45 and not see it, because it's the only way it makes any sense. So there's a huge difference, uh, in, in that. And I think that's a, that illustration, uh, sort of backfires at that point.

Dr. White, last question. How do you determine if scripture is prescriptive or descriptive? Consistency. The whole issue this evening is we have all of these texts, many texts that I presented that clearly in their context present Jesus saying, "I will not lose any of my people. I sovereignly choose my people. The Father sovereignly chooses his people. I know my sheep. By the way, sheep do not choose their own Shepherd. Shepherds choose the sheep." Uh, and so I'm not going to lose any of them. "I give them eternal life." Well, it doesn't necessarily say they won't jump out of his hand, as if this has something to do with the exegesis of the text. You take these clear texts that are didactic in form, and then you look at these other texts. They're going, "Well, this might mean this, or it's actually talking about something in the Christian life, but it could possibly be applied to this." And in each one of them, I've given you a properly descriptive understanding. "He who endures to the end shall be saved." Why? Because the faith that saves is the gift of the Holy Spirit of God, and will endure. So you simply allow that which is clear to determine that which is not.

Is your war? How do you know if a warning in scripture describes what the elect will do, whether prescribing, you know, giving them saying, "Hey, you, if you do this, you will be saved. If you do this, you will lose your salvation." How does my opponent know? Well, he knows because his theology does not allow any of the clear, common-sense, on-the-face reading of verses, no matter how much they sound like genuine warnings that you could fall away, because my opponent's theology has to be true first. The Bible has to fit it. The, our theology should come from the Bible, not the Bible from our theology. We will now move into our closing statements. Dr. White has 10 minutes, and then followed by Mr. Horn for his final 10 minutes, and then I will close, and then, uh, Pastor Bice will be coming up for a few comments before I give my, uh, thanks to everyone.

While the words are still echoing in the hall, I want you to hear that someone who denies sola scriptura and demands that you read scripture in the light of the teachings of the Bishop of Rome just said, "We need to get our theology from the Bible." Someone who will tell you that Mary is bodily assumed into heaven, we need to get our theology from the Bible. I'm sorry, that went just a little bit beyond where I could, I could let it pass by and, and not make a few references to that. I do want to thank Trent Horn for being here this evening. John Sorenson for their coming and making this a very lively and interesting exchange. I want to thank you for being here this evening, late this evening. Good way to kick off the conference this weekend as well. There's so many things to be discussing because we have so little time in a debate like this. I want to especially thank, uh, Rich Pierce, uh, Mike and his crew, Josh, and, and the church. It takes a lot of work to put these things together, folks. So, say thanks to the people behind the scenes that actually make something like this possible. We have heard Jesus speak these words in our conversation this evening: "No one is able to come to me unless the Father, Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." Now, a number of different texts, John 6:37, John chapter 10, Romans 8, where there is no one who can bring a word of condemnation. Not a word has been said about that this evening, have you noticed? There has to be someone that can bring a word of condemnation for anyone to be lost, but nothing's been said about that text, that there is none that can do so. And yet we've heard these verses, these clear, compelling verses. And I believe it's because Mr. Horn has a theology provided by the magisterium of the Roman Church that he's fitting the Bible to. Okay, so we both make the accusation against the other. So let's use John 6:44 as a test case, because I could not believe what Mr. Horn said about John 6:44. He says, "I don't see anything here." It says, "And and I will raise him up on the last day." "I don't see anything here about about an irresistible grace or anything like that." Let's look at it again. "No one is able to come to me." Do you really believe that? I, I don't think Rome really believes that. Rome says, "Well, you need prevenient grace." But there's no such thing as prevenient grace in the Bible. There's no such thing as a grace that just sort of brings you to a position of having an ability. Grace saves. That's the real redeeming grace of, for example, Titus chapter 2. "No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." There's, there's, it says *hos* and *hos*. It's the same hymn. If you're drawn by the Father to the Son, the Son raises you up on the last day. There is no distinction here. There is, there I, when, when someone says, "I just don't see it," well, you need to see it because it's right there in front of you. When the Father draws someone to the Son, the Son will raise him up on the last day. What is being raised up on the last day in scripture? It's being given eternal life. You want eternal security? There it is. The Father draws you to the Son. That's the giving of the Father to the Son of verse 37. "I will raise him up on the last day." How do you get raised up on the last day? Well, we heard amazingly inserted into this text, "Well, if you keep this grace, if you obey this grace, if you, I forget what the exact word was, hold on a second, sorry Mr. Cameraman, if you remain in that grace." And so you see what happens when you have synergism. See what happens when you, and Mr. Horn has said, "Well, you know, you're in a minority." Yeah, I know that. So is the Apostle Paul when he wrote to the churches of Galatia. Faith that destroys the capacity of man to boast will always be in the minority because man wants to control his salvation. That's always the way it'll be. So it was said, "If you remain in that grace." So what happens is, is with two words right between *hos* and *kago*, we insert the entire sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church, unknown to Jesus or anyone at that time. You insert that entire sacramental system. That is not deriving your theology from the Bible. That is making the Bible fit your theology. And there's the clearest example of it. And I know that he gets 10 minutes afterwards, but I am absolutely confident that no one can walk through verse 44 and come up with that understanding. The clear statement of the text is, if you're drawn by the Father, you're raised up by the Son. That's the elect. That's the, the work of God. And that's eternal security in its proper understanding, because it's God who is the one who will cause you to persevere. And that's what makes sense in Romans chapter 8. That's why there is none that can bring any word of condemnation. And we got off onto a bunch of other things, but the real question this evening, again, for all of us, has to be kept very, very clear: Is Jesus able to do what the Father asks Him to do? The Father in John chapter 6 says, "Of all that that I give you, you lose none of it." And what we've heard is, "Well, but you see, you're given because God foresees things." And even the one use of *proginōskō* in John 8, we've demonstrated nowhere in the Bible is it used that way. When God does this action of foreknowing, it's never, "Oh, I'm going to look down the corridors of time and see the actions of people." That's not what God does when He *proginōskō*. *Proginōskō* is an active verb, not passively taking in knowledge of what other people do. And so the question that we have to have this evening answered is, can Jesus fail to do what the Father assigns Him to do? Because the only reason I believe in the perseverance of the Saints, the only reason that I want to be able to forgive those who have trespassed against me, is not because I believe that my acting in forgiveness is going to allow Jesus to save me, but that the very fact that I desire to forgive from my heart is because He has saved me. That's the difference between descriptive and prescriptive. That's the difference between man-centered religion and God-centered biblical teaching. I am thankful that Mr. Horn this evening has not said, "Well, hey, if you believe in in this doctrine that, uh, that is being presented this evening, that that's going to encourage you to sin." I'm thankful that he has not made that statement, because that is a very often an argument that is made. Because the reality is, if you understand what I have been saying tonight, to believe what I believe absolutely destroys any basis of arrogance, boasting against others. God's electing grace is not based upon anything I do. It, it's not based upon Him looking and seeing that I'm going to love Him or continue to love Him or be somehow better than anyone else. There is a, there is one, one *felēte* word that is going to separate those who bow in love before the throne for eternity and those who, in the very presence of hell, express their hatred toward God for eternity. And it's the *felēte* word: Grace. I am not better than anyone else. But I confess to you this evening, my friends, if my salvation was dependent upon me working something up within myself to add to what Christ has done for me, I would be lost. You know what my hope is this evening? I have One who has entered into the holy place. Hebrews chapter 6 says, "We have this hope, this firm assurance, this anchor for the soul, because Jesus, as our Forerunner, has entered into the holy place." And remember what John saw? Remember when he saw Jesus? Not, not when Jesus was giving him the letters of the seven churches, but remember when you saw Him in the presence of the Father in heaven? What did you see? "The Lamb standing as if slain." He's standing, He's alive, but as if slain. The Lamb, the sacrifice, the completed work. That is the entirety of my hope. I have nothing else beside that. I cannot say, "Oh, it's so good that Jesus does 99%, but then I needed to do this, and then I've got the, the, the treasury of merit, and I've got the, the, the merit that I get from this saint and that saint." No, only a perfect righteousness is going to avail before that throne. And that perfect righteousness is mine, not because God foresaw that I'd be worthy of it, not because He foresaw that I would be faithful, but because He foresaw that I was a wretch and I needed a Savior who could deliver me from the very pits of hell. I was dead in trespasses and sins. There is none who seeks after God. And instead, though I deserved His wrath in its fullest, I received His grace in its beauty. That is why I'm the blessed man. And I hope and pray that's why you are the blessed man this evening as well. The blessed man, the blessed woman, followers of Jesus Christ. Thank you very much for your attention this evening. Thank you, Dr. James White. We now have 10 minutes closing statements for Mr. Trent Horn. [Applause] All right.

There was once a man who was suffering from Cotard's delusion. It's a rare mental illness that involves a person thinking he's dead. A doctor met with a man and tried to explain to him he's not dead. He says, "You can see and hear me. You're not dead." And the man said, "Well, I don't know. I mean, you know, I'm sure I'm dead. Maybe I'm a zombie or a ghost." Finally, the doctor had an idea. After showing him several textbooks, the young man agreed with the doctor that dead men don't bleed. So the doctor took his scalpel and pricked the man's palm, and a trickle of blood came forth. "So what do you think?" asked the doctor. The young man replied, "I think dead men really do bleed after all." The lesson of this story is that if we are firmly committed to a certain idea, then it's easy to dismiss any evidence that contradicts our assumptions. I believe that a fair review of tonight's debate will show that this is what my opponent has done. At the very end, what is the evidence we heard for eternal security? Well, John 6:44 has to mean this, and this other passage in Romans has to mean this. And a lot of wonderful, lofty rhetoric about God's grace and about salvation. And grace is wonderful. God is wonderful. But what makes it wonderful is that it's biblical and that it's true. And I think my opponent throughout this debate has tried to make this so. Here's the Catholic imposing his man-made religion to obscure the fact that his view is the minority, not just minority, but unhistorical. Think about this. Who can read John 6:44 and not see this? People like Irenaeus, Augustine, Aquinas, uh, people like Luther, Wesley, uh, all the other great thinkers before that. If you think about it, if suddenly this amazing truth is in scripture and it was just unknown for 1500 years, it's kind of strange that suddenly now we discover it. Or maybe this teaching is of the same quality as someone who read the Bible, uh, in 1815 and thought that the Jews migrated to North America. Maybe the reason that it's so late is because it's not a part of the Apostolic deposit of Faith. Who can bring condemnation? He says, "Not, not Jesus." Except when 1 Timothy 2:1-13 says, "If we deny Him, He denies us." Well, that, that, that's just descriptive. How do you know? Because it has to be, because my, my theology guarantees it. It has to be. Anything that's contrary, it has to be. Can Jesus fail? This was brought up a light that, that Jesus will, will never fail, never fail to do the Father's will, that Jesus will carry out His own will, won't He? That the Father and the Son, their wills, they won't fail. What do, what do God, God want? If God wants to save you, God wants to save Christians. Nothing can get away with that. What God wants, He gets. Does God want us to sin? Does He want Christians to ever commit adultery, even once? Does He want Christians to gossip? Does He want Christians to fail to give to the poor? God doesn't want that, but it still happens. That wasn't rebutted tonight. So even if Jesus says, "My will is to do the will of the Father, to lose none that were given to me," even still in John 17:12, we see one can be lost. How do we know that believers can be lost? How do we know that? Well, we just read scripture. We just, and we just read the Bible and the warnings it gives. If salvation can't be lost, these warnings are nonsensical because the warnings can't keep the reprobate, can't keep someone reprobate or damned to hell out of hell. And the warnings aren't necessary to get someone to heaven, 'cause you don't need warnings, right? You don't need anything but grace. He says that his theology is about a *felēte* word, grace. That grace determines who ends up in, you know, grace determines who ends up in heaven or hell. Man has nothing to do with it. You know what that leads to? Rather, it's another three-letter word that determines who ends up in heaven and hell: God. Because if man has nothing to do with any of this, then God creates man, and He sends a group to hell and another to heaven. Well, they're, they're unmerciful. They're, they're, they're evil and wicked. Who made them that way? Did the pot make himself? Rather, God loves everyone. God desires all people to be saved. And I, I presented passages that effect, and they weren't addressed. And that is important. The limited atonement is not an extraneous issue because if God will, you know, Jesus will always do the Father's will, and if God desires everyone to be saved, well, then won't everyone be saved? Well, no. But just the fact that not everyone is saved, just the fact that there would be people who never become believers, does not show that Jesus failed to do the Father's will. It also doesn't follow that people became believers and, as Jesus said in Luke 8:13, fell away. Doesn't contradict the Father's will either in that regard. Absolutely right. The only way that we can get to heaven is grace. But my opponent has not shown tonight that we can't cooperate with grace. I showed in Matthew 23:37, "Jesus wanted to gather Jerusalem together, but they would not." Their children. Did Jesus fail? No. They failed. God gives grace, but we're also free. My opponent has talked a lot about, "Well, it's, it's just God-centered and biblical." His view is, I guess I would say, very God-centered, but it's not biblical. The Bible talks, talks about how we can receive God. It talks about how we continue to come to God. How we believe the obedience of faith. And it warns that those who commit apostasy, those who trample the Son of God underfoot, that if they do so, that they will profane the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified. My opponent had to go to the incredible length tonight that when a passage in Hebrews 10:28-29 clearly says there will be a, a worse punishment than physical death for a believer who profanes the blood of the covenant, he has to say, "Well, Christ's blood sanctifies himself." Even though in Hebrews, Christ's blood always sanctifies the believer. Jesus is the sanctifier in Hebrews 2:11, not the sanctified. And even when other reformed theologians, I present to him, there are other, I didn't get a chance to to read this, so that's not fair to bring up, but you can look at how other people look at this passage, and it's clearly reading a theology into a text. Because if there is even one verse in scripture that says someone who is a true believer falls from grace, fell away, as Jesus said, will be denied by God, then my opponent's view is false. He didn't even address all of the arguments, all the different verses I gave. He simply said, "Well, we know my theology is correct, so these verses can't simply mean that." But that theology is what we're debating tonight, at least, at least the crucial part of it, the perseverance of the Saints. And he has not proven that from John 6:44. Yes, I agree, whoever, no one can come to the Son unless they're drawn by the Father. So if you, I don't go to Jesus, say, "Hey, I really want to believe in Jesus." The Father draws me to Jesus. If I am coming to Jesus, I'm being drawn. Does that verse say everyone who is drawn will always come? They will never come for a time and then leave? Doesn't say that. It just says, "Everyone who is drawn comes to the Father." Those who come, as my opponent even wrote in his own book, "drawn by the Father," the pro-, the glorious promises are those who for whom they continuously and truly believe. So this verse can be explained. And it's not, it could mean this. It just simply means this. Anything more is simply reading into the text. That we are saved by grace, but receiving grace is nothing to boast about. If I get an inheritance from my great uncle for a million dollars, and I get the paper and I sign, you know, I have to sign it at the probate court. I'm not going to run around and say, "I'm a millionaire! I'm a millionaire! Look at me! Look how good I am!" People would say, "You're crazy. You did nothing to earn that. You just accepted it." So the fact that my opponent has denied we can accept grace, even if someone can accept it, he hasn't proven we can't reject it later. That doesn't take away from the truth that we are saved by God's grace, and there is no room for boasting. So here's just some, some good advice when it comes from, from scripture. This is my opponent wrote these words in his other book, "Scripture Alone." "If the overall discourse is ignored, an improper interpretation of individual texts can be offered." This is one of the most egregious elements of correct exegesis. Normally, due to the presence of traditions in the reader. Thinking my opponent wrote that in "Scripture Alone," ironically, he succumbed to what he warns others against. He's read a 16th-century doctrine of eternal security into first-century texts that don't teach it. Rather, we should follow what the Bible teaches. Revelation 14:12 says, "Here is a call for the endurance of the Saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." He said it's terrible for you, you're a sinner, just to say you have to remain in Christ. Well, I guess Jesus was a synergist in John 15:6 when He says, "If you do not remain in me, you will be cast aside and burned." So there you go. Rather, let us follow what Hebrews 3:12-14 says: "Take care, brethren, lest there be any of you in an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called today, lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. We must hold our first confidence firm to the end. Let us take care, let us exhort one another, let us do all these things the word of God commands us to do, and offer that up for the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Horn. And if I could ask that you stay in your seats just for a moment. [Applause] I think, uh, that this last few hours begs that we probably schedule another debate soon. I hope you would agree. Well, let's first just take time, if we can, please, to thank both of these two gentlemen for the time and the effort that they've put into this debate. Oh, worthy time. Now, if you will also allow them the grace, please, to, uh, head back to their tables and to please not mob this time, if, if you don't mind, because we also need to break down the stage for tomorrow morning. I would like to bring up someone who is very important for everything that has happened here. A gentleman that called me many months ago and said, "Look, we'd love to be able to put on a debate. Uh, would you please help us with this?" And I, I know that you've done this many times in the past, but without his, his calling me and trusting in what we could do and accomplish here, this would have never happened. As well, the G3 conference and, uh, the concept of that, and what the Lord has given him, would never be happening. Would you please welcome, uh, tonight, uh, Pastor Josh [Applause] Bice? I would like to thank you for being here this evening. I want to just give a couple of concluding remarks, and then we will be off to get some rest. Um, I want to first of all, just, uh, say, uh, I have the privilege to pastor Praise Mill Baptist Church from which this conference was birthed, and this is the fifth year. And so we're delighted that so many of you have traveled from far distances to be with us. So we look forward to the next three days where we will worship together. Uh, we, we will sing the gospel, preach the gospel, and have fellowship together. So we look forward to that. Allow me just to give you a couple of, of closing, uh, directions. Please note that you must have your name badge on all week, so to enter the main session room where we are, or the exhibit hall next door. This is necessary. So please don't leave it in your hotel room in the morning. Also, uh, pay close attention to the schedule that's printed on your name badge. It's also, uh, printed in your guide that you have in your bag. So if you would just pay close attention to that. And also, if you would take your smartphone this evening and download the new G3 app from the App Store. We're going to communicate with you this week through that app. And so we'll be, uh, updating the schedule live all weekend. Also want you to just, uh, uh, spread the word that we will be streaming the entire conference, all three days, from the g3conference.com homepage. So anyone of your friends or family members or church, uh, family could join us just by visiting that site. So, um, again, it's free, it's there as a resource, uh, for us all. Last of all, before we leave and we, and we go get some much needed rest, I just want to take a moment to thank Sovereign and to thank, uh, also for, uh, coming together with this debate, Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Catholic Answers. So it's been a privilege to be together this evening. We look forward to the rest of the week together. God bless you. We'll see you tomorrow morning. And again, remember your name badges and the app. We'll see you in the morning.