Recently, they had 2 debates:
On Sola Scriptura
and on Purgatory
I will be commenting more on these later, as time allows.
Several points that stood out in the Sola Scriptura debate. 1. Trent did not emphasize his previous emphasis that he used a liberal scholar’s take on “Theopneustos” θεοπνευστος (God-breathed) that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) – rather, Trent has several other videos and in the debate vs. Gavin Ortlund, that he claimed that “God-breathed” means “life-giving”; using a liberal scholar who does not believe that the apostle Paul wrote 1-2 Timothy nor Titus, John C. Poirier. in his book,The Invention of the Inspired Text.
2. Trent was demanding that the exact words be found in canonical Scripture: “The Scriptures are the only infallible rule for faith and practice” and “the 27 books of the NT” or the “The 66 books of the Bible”. Demanding exact words reminds of the Muslim demand on us, “where did Jesus say, “I am God; worship Me ?” Dr. White pointed this out at the beginning of the debate.
3. Sam Shamoun, who constantly follows Dr. White in order to criticize him; and Shamoun seems eaten up with bitterness and anger against Dr. White (see more on that in several articles) – in his response on his You Tube channel, claimed that Trent Horn won because Ignatius did not have the full canon around 108-117 AD, and therefore could not apply “Sola Scriptura” in his church ministry. This is not a good argument, for 1. the 27 books of the NT and the 39 books of the OT already existed; (unless Shamoun wants to argue that some of them, as liberals do, were written after 96 AD. ) 2. We only have 7 small letters of Ignatius – it is possible he wrote more and there are no longer extant; and it is also possible that he had the other books of the NT, or most of them, but he just does not mention them in his writings. 3. It is not a good argument to make that just because someone does not mention 2 or 3 John or 2 Peter or Jude or Philemon, then that means they did not exist yet. (as Tertullian and Irenaeus, who both mentioned 22 out of the 27 books of the NT as holy Scripture.) Protestants believe all the NT books & letters (originally all individual rolled up scrolls) all existed as soon as the ink dried and they were sent to different areas in the Mediterranean world. (from around 45 AD to 96 AD) It was only later, in the late second century and third century that the scrolls were flattened out and attached with string to other books & letters, thus forming the first “Codices” (singular: Codex), which later because the modern form of a book with a binding and cover. (see my many other articles on the canon issue and on Sola Scriptura at the side bar categories.)
The Purgatory Debate:
As Dr. White pointed out in his analysis of both debates at the same time – Trent made 2 completely different arguments for each of his positions. In the Sola Scriptura debate, he was demanding exact words and phrases and making dogmatic and certain claims against Sola Scriptura, but in the Purgatory debate, he was much more ambiguous and much less dogmatics about what the specifics of Purgatory means, and what 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 means. “it could be this”, “it could be that”, etc.
Someone asked about Anglicans who believe in Purgatory – but the 39 Articles, number 22, of the Anglican Church are clear that Purgatory is a “Romish superstitious doctrine and dogma”
XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
Four books important on the slow development of the doctrine and dogma of Purgatory:
Jacques LeGoff – “The Birth of Purgatory”
Brian Daley – “The Hope of the Early Church”
F. X. Shouppe, “Purgatory”
Robert Bellarmine, “On Purgatory”
Dr. White wrote on Twitter after the debate and asked Trent Horn:
Two quick related questions that should have come up in our debate but didn’t. First, are you familiar with anyone in church history, say, up to 1800, that believed Paul was in error about the day of the Lord (generally), and, more specifically, used that as the means of allowing 1 Cor. 3 to remain relevant to some concept of purgatory (the Akin Argument)? Secondly, in the same time frame, do you know of any early church writers all the way up to the modern period who understood τὸ ἔργον in 1 Cor 3 to refer to converts, as suggested in light of the thesis of Daniel Frayer-Griggs?
Some of my comments I made on Twitter after the debate on Purgatory:
When did the Roman Catholic Church change the doctrine?
from Centuries of burning and suffering in Purgatory with time lessened by penances and indulgences (200 or 900 years, etc, )to just an instant final rush of sanctification?
Just think of all the centuries of suffering of the poor people who had to listen to all the sermons about 900 years or 200 years in purgatory, and the anxiety and trauma that caused , – to just dismiss that as theological opinion seems really problematic. No wonder Luther protested the indulgences which led to the debate with Yohan Eck, which led to Diet of worms and denial of Purgatory and his conviction about Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.
But the Roman Catholic Church taught for centuries (Crusades to 1500s to 1800s (Schoupe’s book) that it was 100 or 200 or 900 or 10 years or eight months and that indulgences can lessen that – how does that fit with modern concept of saying it’s just an instant/ cleansing? Isn’t that a massive real change?
Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Pope Pius V It is much more than remedial or medicinal / healing / cleansing- rather it is “to atone to the angered mind”; and “compensation”. So Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin contradict previous historical tradition and historical theology of the Roman Catholic Church. It also included time in Purgatory for centuries, with indulgences able to lessen time. When did it change to “in an instant at death” ? What an affront to the all satisfying atonement of Christ! Hebrews 10:10-14; Galatians 2:21; Romans 3:21-26; Romans 4:5-8; Romans 4:16; 5:1 “Satisfaction is the full payment of a debt; for that is sufficient or satisfactory to which nothing is wanting. Hence, when we speak of reconciliation to favor, to satisfy means to do what is sufficient to atone to the angered mind for an injury offered; and in this sense satisfaction is nothing more than compensation for an injury done to another. But, to come to the object that now engages us, theologians make use of the word satisfaction to signify the compensation man makes, by offering to God some reparation for the sins he has committed.” (the general meaning of Satisfaction, page 182) See even more details in this Anglican’s analysis:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RzGZZDgmg0M&t=102s
“Punishment” Seems to contradict 1 John 4:18 & Hebrews 10:10-14. But mostly you argued it is a medicinal/ healing/ cleansing for the soul in an instant. ( like the CS. Lewis take) How can that it be punishment & compensation to the divine anger.( per catechism of Trent); and when did the Roman Catholic Church change it from Centuries of burning and suffering in Purgatory with time lessened by penances and indulgences (200 or 900 years, etc, )to just an instant final rush of sanctification?
A couple of other comments:
On 1 Corinthians 3:15 – escape and be saved, “as through fire”
some parallel passages – “like a stick (a brand) plucked from the fire” – Zechariah 3:2 (and see context of 3:1-5 – a great illustration of Justification by Faith Alone.
Amos 4:11 – “you were as a brand plucked out of the burning”
Dr. White pointed out “suffer loss” means “loose the reward” – as in Philippians 3:7-8 – “I have suffered the loss of all things for the sake of Christ.”
Our bad works done from wrong motivations will be burned up, but we shall be saved, as through fire. The “as” is very important. There is no suffering in satis passio (the suffering of atonement; or satisfaction of atonement) – Christ made a full and complete atonement for us believers in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 2:21; Hebrews 10:10-14; 7:24-25)
Apologetics and Agape 