“Verily, verily, I say unto you, *He that heareth* my word, *and believeth on him that sent me* hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” {John 5:24}
Is "belief" something that we author within our own hearts, or something that God authors within the hearts of His people? It is written: "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set" (Hebrews 12:2.)
@@londonderrry Yes it is. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, *that the Gentiles by my mouth should HEAR the word of the gospel, and BELIEVE* And God, *which knoweth the hearts* bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. In whom ye also trusted, *after* that ye *heard the word of truth* the gospel of your salvation: in whom also *after that ye believed* ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
@@larrybedouin2921 "Be ye holy as I am holy." "“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart," "Be ye perfect as I am perfect."
I have struggled with Calvenism for awhile. My bestfriends are Calvinists but two of us are dubious. Leighton lays it down in a way so biblically clear. Thank you very much Leighton.
Listen closely to Leighton’s comments about the bread coming down out heaven He says something similar to this bread is for you I don’t see “for you” in John 6 Jesus says “if anyone eats” That is a lot different! He appeals to emotions with a slight twist
I’ve been a Calvinist for years. But then Flowers came into my life. The Bible says we will be known by our love. I was split down the middle on what was the correct view. I see no love from White. No kindness. No patience. I see that in many Calvinist’s. Flowers is an example of a true believer. White reminds me of a jerky teenager. Unbelievable
Sometimes Love is harsh. And telling the truth is hard. 2 Cor 2 v4 For out of much [a]affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you.
@@daveonezero6258 And sometimes....... people like James White are just JERKS, because they know they got beat by common sense and clear easy Bible reading.
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard *and* hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
@@WinkenSmile Why are they not of God. And they [the Jew] also, *if they abide not still in unbelief* shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in *again* {Romans 11:23}
@@larrybedouin2921 Then why isn't Jesus evangelizing them? He is very blunt with them, in Matthew he spoke of them like this. Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?" (Matthew 15:12, NASB)But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. (Matthew 15:13, NASB)
@@larrybedouin2921 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. (Romans 11:5, NASB)But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6, NASB)What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; (Romans 11:7, NASB)just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY." (Romans 11:8, NASB)
Fantastic presentation by Flowers. Great power point and easy to follow. Very consistent, no mental.gymastics or appeal to mystery, special pleading and or contradictions.
@@daveonezero6258The substance is literally all over John, while white keeps pushing special pleas and appeals to mystery, Flowers just reads vs32 onwards. You must have not actually watched the debate, typical of james white simps.
John3:20-21 20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.
If the Father chooses to make people for destruction on purpose isn't it possible that you're actually called to burn? Where's the assurance in that? Right there is none. Romans 2:11 there's no partiality with God. It's the Father's desire that ALL would come to knowledge of forgiveness and not willing that any should perish 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9. Telling people that the Father is responsible for people going to Hell when it's really satan and the person's choice it's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit switching the credit to the wrong party that's why when the pharisees said Jesus was doing miracles through satan when it really was God they blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Tulip great flower but heretical doctrine that'll send millions to Hell
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 He spoke common sense and was biblically consistent and generally honest, whereas White avoided the subjects, mocked his opponens, and behaved in an obnoxious and deceptive manner.
@bloodbought251 kingdom of darkness? I fall in the calvinistic camp and I would never say that about another brother. Do you know this man? To say something like that you better be ready to answer God if you're wrong.
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
@@maxstrange7606 Calvinism is dumb. Man is not totally depraved. And they get salvation backwards. Even if he did straw man Calvinism(which he didn’t), who cares. It’s a false Christian doctrine.
I used to respect James White but after watching his post debate review and how he lied and deceitfully edited the debate to make himself look favorable I now see him as a deceitful snake Leighton flowers did an excellent job in this debate
Go back and watch other debates he does or just his regular show, being deceitful and disingenuous are the only ways he knows how to advance his position. Oh, and randomly saying the original Greek word for the translated English word when it brings absolutely no distinction or clarity. E.g. ... John 6:60 “This is a difficult saying; who can listen to it?” Dr. White, "sklēros....difficult." And...? You added absolutely nothing Dr. White by referring to the Greek as opposed to just saying "difficult" or "hard" in the common tongue of everyone in that room, English. He tried to baffle us with Greek BS on John 3:16 "whosoever" as well and it's unfortunate that Leighton wasn't ready for it. Dr. White pretends the meaning of whosoever in the Greek necessarily means only those who believe yet whosoever means just that. The believes that follows it also stands alone. One could argue either way that the whosoever does indeed apply to believers because that's who is saved (presumed to be regenerated prior to the verse) or that whosoever applies to everyone and the condition that they choose to believe is what brings salvation. There seems to be a better argument by the rest of biblical context that it's by freewill choice so Dr. White must play games with the Greek knowing most people struggle with English alone. I have yet to see Dr. White meaningfully translate a Greek word to show nuance in the original that is either lost or not apparent in English. He could easily take a word or phrase and cite the case (genitive, accusative, dative, etc.), the tense (past, present, etc.), gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), or whether something like the word you is singular or plural. Not once. He's a sham artist.
I say this as someone coming into this debate who is a huge fan of Dr White debates and had never even heard of Flowers. White was whiney, rude, and completely reprehensible. For someone who interrupts the other so much, he sure freaks out when he is cut off. He wont answer questions. He wont even debate in good faith. This is not the same Dr White from the Great Debates of the 90s. That was an honest man of God. This... is a shell of the man in comparison
I imagine it must be tiring to have to deal year after year after year for more than 30 years with people who have not been up to Dr. White's standards when it comes to debates. Besides, As the opponent stated in his initial presentation, Dr. White agreed to debate him despite not feeling well.
I wish it could be attributed to his illness. This is typical behavior from Dr. White in many of his debates I have watched. He is often ornery, rude, and condescending to his brethren.
I am actually a big fan of a lot of James White's stuff, and regularly do listen to most episodes of his show, enjoy a lot of his books, and think he is a pretty smart and good guy, etc, however, I think the calvinism thing is a total blindspot for him. He doesn't seem to be able to understand even the other side [Leighton's] view accurately.
Good guys don't debate dishonestly like James White does. Stop calling evil good. He is straight up deceitful no matter whatever else he may do that seems good. There's a reason we are warned about wolves in sheep's clothing and false teachers.
I used to like him. I watched over twenty of his debates with Catholics from the 90s and learned a great deal. But, man, he has sure changed in the past decade. I can’t stand him anymore.
I didn’t really understand Calvinism and had listened to stuff from both White and Durban. It is definitely a blind spot. He has debated it so much that he has become hardened.
@@toktik8715 I think he was meaning "I" was calling good evil when I complimented James White even though I stated how I felt he had a blind spot on Calvinism but found him good in other areas.
I know that you said you wish you didn't get preachy during debates but I'm here for it! Your position entails preaching the Gospel. How could you not get so passionate?
The problem is that it's hard for a person who has a different view to follow someone else's argument. So talking slower helps us establish each proposal. The preachiness comes across as an aggressive attack. James White was simply trying to help him reach the other side of the room.
@@AFWorm I doubt he was 'helping him out'. Even later when Dr Flowers spoke slower JW can be seen eye rolling with certain facial expressions to the audience on anything he didn't agree with.
@@AFWorm That makes sense. But to be honest, I think everyone listens & learns differently. Personally, James White talking slowly and without much passion makes it harder for me be interested in and understand his arguments. I can do it. But it is more difficult. I do understand that people listen & learn differently though. So you do have a valid point. 👍
John 6:45 is clear in any language, but also by basic greek, it says. "... Every one that HEARD on the part of the Father and LEARNED, COMES to me" those verbs (in capital letters) are in the Actjve voice, which means that the subject makes the action of the those verbs, here the direct subject is "EVERY ONE that... " So: all are taught by the Father, but the Father doesn't drag them by force, because : "every one " MAKES the ACTION of those verbs. To be dragged by the Father, those verbs should be in the passive voice, which means that the subject only suffers passively the action of the verbs.
You hear and learn from the father when he draws you . Not physical hearing but spiritual. Your misunderstanding comes from the expectation that all can hear and see .
If the Father chooses most to go to Hell by His choice isn't it possible that you're actually called to burn? Where's the assurance in that? Right, there's no assurance in that. Flowers should've used scripture to prove his case but he still won. Romans 2:11 there's no partiality with the Father and not willing that any perish and desires that all would come to knowledge of forgiveness 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9. Scripture never contradicts Scripture. Truth is white will burn if there's no repentance. Telling people that the Father is responsible for people going to Hell when it's really satan and the person's choice it's blasphemy by switching the credit to the wrong party that's why when the pharisees said Jesus was doing miracles through satan when it really was God they blasphemed the Holy Spirit
@@TylerRayHamblinjust shows his presuppositions. That he uses reformed theology. That is what is telling. Since the reformation is changing the topic. If you are reformed of course James view is correct. However the topic is Does Jn 6:44 teach unconditional election from the bible not since the reformation.
When the late-great theologian Norman Geisler wrote his excellent book ("Chosen But Free") refuting Five Point / Reformed beliefs about salvation, James White responded with his book, "The Potter's Freedom." And so in his SECOND Edition of "Chosen But Free" (copyright 1999 / 2001), Geisler devoted a chapter reviewing White's response to his book, titled "A Response to James White's The Potters Freedom." And in that chapter, Geisler documents a shockingly MASSIVE number of errors, misunderstandings of his (Geisler's) positions, wrongful attributions of the stances of others to Geisler (even ones Geisler had refuted himself), including logical fallacies, theologisms, ad hominems, name calling, poisoning the well, straw man, false disjunctives, non sequiturs, internal inconsistencies, misrepresentations, sidestepping the big issues, redefining terms that hide error, theological doublespeak, pride and exclusivism, improper exegesis, significant errors, etc. In all, Geisler lists over 11 PAGES of such problems and errors with White's book. White isn't anywhere near the caliber of theologian Geisler was, and "Potters Freedom" makes this crystal clear. But White IS a good lawyer, spinning words and cherrypicking verses that fit his TULIP, while simultaneously ignoring many relevant passages that directly contradict it. I'd advise one read that second edition of Geisler's book - you'll be amazed at how comprehensive and thorough it is in covering the issue and responding to Reformed contentions! Geisler's book has a terrific index of both issues and the relevant Scriptures and how Reformed theologians have wrongly used and distorted their plain meanings.
Thank you brother. I have had the book (revised version) for years and never made it to that chapter (pg. 177 “Responding to Critics”). Just wanted to thank you for sharing that so I can really understand each of those “wrongful attributions of the stances of others.” Thank you, Thank you. 👊❤️🙏🙂
Geisler ignores the context of his 3 "proof texts". "All men" in his second proof text refers to all kinds of men because the context directly mentions kings and all authorities. To quote White: “The same kind of usage (all kinds of men being in view) is found elsewhere in Paul, such as Titus 3:2: to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. This should be connected to the fact that in the very commissioning of Paul, this phrase is used in a way that cannot be made universal in scope: For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard (Acts 22:15).”
Flowers opening statement made me cry! Pure Gospel! I feel like when I listen to any Calvinist debate they sound like Lawyers trying to sow confusion because that is the only play in bending the text.
The emotionalism is often pointed out for this reason. Who cares what scripture says or what is true or what we need to know about God, my feelings are so happy!
I deeply respect both of the contestants, but man, huge shout out to Flowers. I watched snippets of his previous debate with White and boy did he grow in ability to debate and engage the issue. Glory to the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
Seriously, why doesn’t Dr. White actually deal with the whole text? He spends many minutes talking about Pos and Pontes but does not want to continue reading to deal with “learning.” I’m honestly stupified.
@Rhyno2183 no he didn’t he equated being taught by God to being raised which is a Calvinistic presupposition. He kept harping on hearing while ignoring the fact that the ones coming to Jesus were listening to and learning from God. These are not passive actions, no one learns passively, no one listens passively.
@@RLWatson_Authordid you not listen to LF? We walked through each verse right up to that verse. And included many others for clear co text. How can you make that claim?
He does this all the time. Red Herrings and goes into all high theology straw men. I've been listening to him for years because of his other material. I appreciate his other teachings and books. I Have never heard him explain how God can be mad a a sinner who is never called to be elect. NEVER talks about that.
Listening to White cross- examine is maddening. He is completely ignoring the clear answers he is given and asking the same question again and again. He's simply proving the point - you can hear without hearing 😂
He ignores to answer the question because Mr. Flowers didn't allow him to complete the answer. Mr. Flowers has an agenda contrary from the text before them.
@bobbystanny8323 It's pretty silly how White clearly knows that proper exegesis requires reading the whole of the scriptures to be communicating a coherent, consistent message, but then loses his mind when Flowers interprets John 6 to be consistent with other Scriptures. "Is that in John 6?" The better question is which view requires deviation from the plain meaning of the text of the scriptures, taken as a whole, more often. Seems to me that Calvinism makes nonsense of most of the Bible, but the Calvinist always comes armed with an encyclopedia of post hoc "*actually* that passage doesn't mean what you think it means" explanations. Flowers is absolutely right that White brings a theology to the text rather than getting his theology from the text.
The debate is about whether Jesus preached Calvinism or not. If Jesus preached Calvinism He'd be unjust, a sadist, and equal to Satan (a baby torturer); White is fully aware of this and that's why he avoids the subject at all costs; instead of simply discarding the demonic belief of Calvinism he feigns offense, deflects, or even "flounders" to avoid the core of his belief.@@JRey-re9rl
It may be difficult for some, but for others, we're able to "read between the lines" per-se, and understand the implications of subject matters instead of only taking things purely as face-value. The scripture is the primary subject of the debate, but the core argument being had is Calvinism vs Free-will, which has even deeper nuances; some of which I addressed as "ad hominem" attacks. It would only be an ad hominem attack if I made a personal attack that was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which if you re-read what I said, I was sure to emphasize what makes Calvinism demonic: the torture of billions of babies ordained by God. There are only two different beings to worship/which can called gods: Jesus and Satan; only one would torture babies, the other would never do such a "demonic" thing, such as Calvin's god (little g).@@JRey-re9rl
@@audan2006 Argument by emotion. Basic, useless, dismissable. The emotional argument can be twisted right back on Flowers in the same way to the same effect. People need to stop thinking with their feelings and start trying to learn what is true.
I'll try it now to see how "emotional" the argument is; what happens to still-borns, babies aborted, SIDS victims, accidental death for children, etc?@@vigilantezack
There are 2 kinds of people that read the Bible: those who read it to substantiate their position and those that read it to chase the truth. JW needs more humility, less pride. You can tell who is losing any debate by the first person to begin personal ad hominem attacks and that was clearly by JW
which begs the biblical definition using "verse references" NOT Webster's dict...question: who is meant by "WHOSOEVER"?? Then there are the words "EVERLASTING" LIFE. Is EVERSLASTING like the biblical word "ETERNITY?" Eternity means withOUT beginning or ending, there is NO "start up" with eternity or everlasting.
Don't you think that was more so because Dr. Flowers did not want to talk about the text? It seems like Dr. Flowers was here to debate "Calvinism." You can see that in the questions he is asking, It's not about the text. Which would be fine, except the debate is about John 6:44;45. You can go into rabbit holes for hours about the supposed implications of the belief, but it seems more productive to be intentional and surgical and discuss only specific ideas within an organized debate. It seems like Dr. White was there to compare exegetes of John 6:44;45 not Dr. Flowers.
@@Stv4711 Only if I thought throwing out logic and biblical interpreting consistency, was the correct hermeneutic to form theology by exegeting scripture from a presupposed Calvinistic systematic lens. Then I would agree with you.
@@Stv4711 nope. pretty sure, james white was trying to deflect away from the actual implications and bog down in details of the texts to redirect away from what flowers was trying to show as the implications.
I grew up in such a terribly abusive household. All types of abuse constantly so you can imagine how I felt about myself. Had I heard JW, I would have never gotten saved. I was saved and regenerated the day I surrendered my life to Christ and believe. I am a different person today, Jesus has healed the pain, and I am able to forgive. I made a choice begging the Lord to show me if he is real and I would surrender all!! I meant it. I met the Lord that day and still moved and started to cry when I remembered. It seems so much pride and ego shines in some but I pray the Lord open their eyes. You see humility in the genuine believe. That's a work of God!! Thank you, Jesus, for saving such a sinner like me!!
Nice testimony, and doesn't do anything whatsoever to harm JW positoin. If you listen closely to yourself you'll understand why JW's position is superior. You reject it because "look at me I chased after God to do this and that, I made my choices, I begged him, me me me." You think, very oddly, that somehow you would not have been saved if you thought God was sovereign over his own creation? That makes no sense at all. Your position shows pride in yourself and strips away God's right to do with his creation what he wills. You are saying, effectually, "I will decide my fate, it's not God's decision."
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
Now that I’ve watched the debate in its entirety, I must say that-as an enthusiastic respector of James White for a number of years-I am absolutely appalled by his behavior and unwillingness to engage. He talked past Leighton whenever he could, refused to answer specific questions about the specific verse centering the debate, and then outright built a wall of derisive refusal *to the point where the moderator had to pause the debate*. And then would do the very thing he hubristically criticized Leighton for doing (focus on this verse, focus on this verse; followed by, no, I’m going to go to another chapter instead of discussing the chapters you bring up in Jeremiah). I am floored with astonishment. Shame on James White. His internal sense of superiority has clouded his judgments, if not his teachings. Wow.
Not really...He was not as strong, but that was because James pretebds to be exhausted, and doesn't want Leighton to use scripture to interpret scripture, James wants to ask leading questions through STULIP and want Leighton to stay ONLY in the chosen verse which as he pointed out if he accepted STULIP as the lens to read the text THEN White would be correct but since he doesn't hold to that presupposition then he argues differently, James is incapable of seeing it differently. So not really being destroyed just he was not going to play James game of Presupposed STULIP as the lens to read a specific text. Now granted Leighton lost points when he got angered amd overtly emotional. You have to remain displaced from your emotions largley in a debate forum.
Having a family member who is reformed and hearing John MacArthur say that free will is heretical I felt I needed to find out what I feel is the truth. I went to the early Christian teaching, Clement, and clearly the followers of Christ were given a choice to accept or deny Christ for personal salvation. Clement walked with John and heard from him directly not thru Augustine 350 years later. Augustine has lead so many astray -Luther etc. he may have had good teaching but his teaching on election was not what the early fathers said.
I have followed J.McA for many years. Never heard him say this. Not in his writings either. Let's not assume predestination and free will are somehow separate and not compatible with the Sovereignty of God. Remember that many of these theological terms / truths are still not completely revealed to mankind and are still partially "mysteries." But, that is why there is a "tension" when we delve into the mind of God. Hopefully we never get so proud that we are never uncomfortable or have questions when reading Scripture.
Dr Flowers presentation and arguments provide clear understanding of Scripture that point directly to the debate's topic. He's gifted by God with wisdom and ability to teach well. I am edified again. Glory to God! Thank you and God bless you more Dr Flowers😊
@aarontaylor6156 Yes, that is correct. The chapter they are debating says that and shows it, 6:59-66. "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. v.66 From that time, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him." John the Apostle understood clearly what Jesus meant, writing in his Epistle 1 John 2:19, saying "They went out from us but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." It's not me misunderstanding that's what the text says. 🙄 I won't pour my supposed ideas into the text and there is no break in 6:v.44 and 45. "Those who hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." And didn't he just say no man can unless the Father draw him ? 🤔 A.W Pink gave some great advice. I paraphrase. "The biblical helps all have there purpose in understanding God's word, the Greek especially, but we must put them aside at times and read the word alone begging the Holy Spirit to give us understanding." Which has been my practice ever since. I pass down that advice to you, sir. Another question: In our unconverted state, is our faith tainted or pure ?
For almost a year and a half I couldn't settle the issue of Calvinism in my mind. I was believing it and no verse seemed to suggest otherwise until today. Thanks for Flowers for this debate. I thank God for watching this video
What verse? You have a time stamp? Honestly I'm 2 years since my Accepting of christ and I didn't even realize there was a different view of what White is saying. I understand what he is saying just from my own studying and then this week found these debates and definitions.
Read, chosen by God by RC Sproul. I think you need to dig a little deeper. This is very surfacing and very sentimental, but it isn't very biblical. I've studied Calvinism for 30 years and seed. It is the most biblical defensible position on salvation.😮
@@askbrettmanning There is so much that is absolutely lacking in the Calvinist view. There is no harmony of faith and reason. I read RC Sproul and found his view of Penal substitution to be obnoxious. Bishop Robert Barron and Joe Heschmeyer speak on this
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
@@maxstrange7606 LF is well aware that Calvinists believe in TD and that man is held accountable. He did not misrepresent Calvinists beliefs, what he did was question the justice of such a system. We (non-Calvinists) are aware of how Calvinists interpret the scriptures, we interpret them differently. Both sides believe the Bible but interpret It differently. It is perfectly okay for a debater to point out how an interpretation of scripture, seems unjust. Again we are aware that Calvinists don’t think God is unjust but you can’t just say God is still just if your beliefs are true, in a debate, you have to defend your ideas. Recap: 1. We don’t believe the Bible teaches it. 2. We don’t believe that would be a just way for God to interact with humanity. It is not a strawman question the justice of the Calvinist doctrine.
@@maxstrange7606 Calvinism is a bag of contradictions. The immutable characteristic of Calvinism is that God must meet their preconception of 'all-powerful'. God's word is an intimate glimpse of his being. Because something strikes a person as incompatible with their perception of what would constitute God is materially idolatrous. The scripture explains this when it says that God chose the foolishness (I believe genius) of preaching to save those who believe. God does in fact put a fork in the road of man's existential disposition. That fork may lead in many directions but only one of those many directions leads to God.
@@maxstrange7606No one can be unable to make a choice AND be responsible, if you cannot respond by definition you are not responsible. It's literally baked into our language.
Wow! I’m so used to Leighton’s quiet demeanor in his other videos, but to see this fire and passion issue forth was amazing to see and hear! Well done, Leighton! 😇
Are Calvinists aware of Acts 10:34 which says that God is no respecter of persons, meaning God shows no favoritism? That alone debunks the doctrine of unconditional election.
@@TylerRayHamblinRomans 9 is about the election of the nation of Israel, not the unconditional election of individuals. That's why you see in Romans 7 up until Romans 11, the audience that Paul is speaking to is "those who know the law", namely the Jews. In Romans 11:28, Paul says that the Jews by election are praised by the patriarchs, but by the gospel they are enemies. Paul is saying that the election of the nation of Israel is not part of the saving gospel. Romans 9 is about Israel's past, Romans 10 is about Israel's present, and Romans 11 is about Israel's future. So when it talks about God can save whomever he wants to save, it's in response to the Jews, who objected to the fact that God was extending his hand to gentiles in addition to the Jews. The old covenant was that God was to start the nation of Israel through his chosen people, and disseminate his word to them first. The New covenant said that now the Gospel of Jesus Christ is extended to everyone, not just the Jews. Paul's reputation in Romans 9:11 is that the Jews are mistaken that just because they are elected it doesn't mean that they're saved. Paul is intentionally bifurcating election with the gospel. The election of the nation of Israel is not the same type of election in which God chooses his people. The body of Christ is constantly called "a chosen people" (1 Peter 2:9). So the election that saves, is corporate election, not election of individuals.
They are, I’m a provisionist myself, but they take it that God chose people without favoritism. Now I don’t understand how that works, and neither do they, they appeal to great mystery.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you *life and death* blessing and cursing: therefore *choose life* that both thou and thy seed may live: {Deuteronomy 30:19} God has given man a choice.
The fall has systemically affected the faculties of man. It has not robbed them of these faculties, but has given them a sinful bias. A choice that is certain does not nullify its freedom. Calvinism doesn’t deny a choice is made from the faculties of man and that the entirety of these faculties are employed in the process, but rather the outcome without divine intervention is certain. 2nd Chronicles 30:10-12
If you think evangelism contradicts predestination, I have good news for you. You dont understand what we mean when we say "predestination". Its good news because now you get to go back to studying the topic you are trying to voice an opinion on and understand it better. You're welcome.
I’m not going to go through and mark the time stamps. White gave his opinion of John 6. Flowers tried to use other verses to bring context to the passage and White was having none of it. He did not want the logical conclusions of Calvinism exposed, like infant damnation.
Yes, it’s his go to method to undercut anyone he sees as a threat. It’s narcissistic behaviour at a minimum. Regardless, it always amazes me when people who have listened to him for years don’t seem to recognize this pattern, I figure it’s probably because it fits their bias so it’s warmly regarded as “calling someone out for not rightly dividing the word”. 🙄🤷🏻♂️
@@brianhill3219 White comes off like a Muslim debating the Trinity. Take a few verses, smuggle your own theological errors into the text and claim that the other guy isn't doing the work.
There’s nothing subtle about it. He’s saying that flowers didn’t deal with the question or the text, and he didn’t. Or, he did what White said he would do, which was read the text out of order so as to read his desired position back into the text. It was, in short, nonsense, given that you would NEVER do that to discuss any other issue.
@@spacemanspliff7844 JW has never dealt with the text, he just assumes Calvinism and accuses his opponent of being a Pelagian. Flowers was not only right on the text, he was prepared for JW's despicable debate tactics. JW has been routed.
@1:25:51 JW lost John 6:44 and the topic of the debate when he said drawing isn't regeneration with his dodging he ended up agreeing with Leighton point of view of drawing message/listen/learn The Gospel of Jesus! John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Sounded to me like JW didn't want John 6:45 to be there JW in his closing claimed victory on a "if" lol Great job Leighton you did very impressive!
@h2s142Why does God graft branches in? ”You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.“ Romans 11:19-23
John 15:5-6 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. It is dependent upon the individual abiding.
@ShooterReview If you are a calvinist, according to calvinism, God made me type that response. If you disagree with my post then you are fighting God. Calvinism is selfrefuting nonsense. It is a satanic doctrine that makes God the author of sin.
@@ShooterReviewit blows my mind how many people think Leighton won this debate. He couldn’t even answer the one main question white asked him that was on topic and about the text at hand…leighton just threw out emotionally charged, philosophical questions and scenarios and kept skidding away from the text.
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
WOW...while I was listening to James during his opening (for the 4th time) I finally HEARD the word "given" which is a word in PAST TENSE which is pretty darn enlightening! There WERE two groups within the house of Israel at that time. These two groups are the products formed by their forefather's teachings. If we go way back to when a large group in Israel rebelled against God we will see a group among them who WALKED AWAY from God to idols who gave them worldly promises. Then there was a small group in Israel who did not walk away and remained faithful to God. Fast forward many generations and enters Jesus walking among THE CHILDREN of Isreal whose fathers either walked away from God to idols or remained faithful. The fathers who remained faithful TAUGHT their children from the Father, therefore they were drawn to the Son because they had the same voice and the sheep followed the voice of their master. The Fathers who walked away from God TAUGHT their children TRADITIONS of men, therefore they were not drawn to the Son because the voice of their god was not being heard by them. I will spell this out very plainly for you to easily swallow. The Father had GIVEN (past tense) the Son the children of Israel who were LEARNING from the Father by their fathers who remained faithful. The children who were not given to the Son WOULD NOT COME and God made certain that they would not come by speaking to them in parables as a PUNISHMENT, but it was also for their own good because after Christ was RISEN they COULD COME. After all, the veil was torn down!!! 💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡 Now, we are living in the time I refer to as "BUT NOW". Everything has changed for everyone everywhere (even those who would not come before Christ died on the cross) because God RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD, and He was seen by over 500 WITNESSES, and then PREACHED into the world so that the world may turn from idols unto the one true Holy God, the Father of us all through the persuasive testimony of Christ Jesus being preached! God is so GOOD!😍 John 6:39 “And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” P.S. In Greek, it actually says, "This NOW is the will of the Father..." The Father gave Jesus all the people of that time who were already following the Father. But listen: Acts 17 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; BUT NOW commandeth ALL men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath GIVEN ASSURANCE unto ALL men, in that HE HATH RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD.” John 6 is in the past explaining the circumstances of God dealing with the children of Israel AT THAT TIME...He was not letting Himself be heard by the children who did not believe Moses. They are an example of what not to become. 💌
Great job by Dr. Flowers giving a powerful presentation of the true gospel during this debate. No doubt many people are going to leave Calvinism because of it. I see hard heartedness, condescension and smugness coming from Dr. White.
No, what you see is an individual who understands God’s Sovereignty (White) and someone that doesn’t (Flowers). Apparently you don’t understand God’s Sovereignty either.
You lost in term of formality in the debate on how to debate and articulate. Preaching the message louder and being passionate about it makes you look like an amature, but ultimately God’s message gets across, and the truth is exalted. Don't change, this debate may get into your head because you really got Dr. White this time. I believe it's just a matter of time before he quit Calvinism and He'll owe it to you for getting in his nerve everytime.
Dr. James White seemed deliberately dense so as not to concede any point of contention. He acts like he is handling scripture properly when he is only looking at one verse and then demanding a proper exegesis when that is exactly what Leighton brought the other scripture that would be applicable to the subject. How can we understand John 6:44 without understanding the rest of the chapter, book, or the previous revelation and quoted passages that apply to the subject at hand?
Most of my life I was in a church with very similar teach to dr Flowers. I stated to see the things in scripture that dr white is talking about. However I had no idea what any of that was about nor did I learn it from a person. The more I studied the Bible and looked up the Greek words for myself the more convinced I became. It was honestly a terrible place to be for a time. How do you interpret or understand Matthew 13:10-16?
@@jennyalvis4568So did DR. Flowers just not to Dr. White’s liking, the debate was not on what the verse said but on how it was understood. Dr. White didn’t support his position.
@@Gettindirty187what I would say after looking at the passage is that we do not know how the ‘one who has’, possesses any and without further study it could support either reading of the text. Still it seems more logical that those who are continually coming to God with a proper attitude and desire to learn are the ones who will be given more.
That’s the point. Calvin is in is arrived at when you plainly read the text. You don’t insert the meaning of Calvinism into it. All James White is doing is reading the text and what it actually says. No one comes To the sun unless the father draws him. It’s plain as day that that’s God doing a work.
And John 12:32 is plain as day that after the cross He draws ALL people to Himself, and scripture after scripture says we must come to Him by belief/faith. Calvinists take John 6:44 out of context and dismiss all the passages that put it in context. It’s sad.
Is Jesus saying the Father is involved in the drawing of men to Jesus. It is not saying the Father only draws some but the Father is involved in the process ,the Father and Jesus are one. Jesus I believe is saying the Father himself loves you.
Greetings from colombia Dr flowers I have always thought that calvinism is not biblical.. And Now I'm completely sure about it .. Thanks a lot Dr flowers
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
I also noted that attitude. Obviously in a debate you must be persuasive. But you do not help your argument by mocking how the other person speaks or what points they have brought up. Just argue the points persuasively.
@@benanderson4118 I would agree that it doesn't help you in a debate which is why I wondered at Dr White debating in the first place. I can't stand Dr Flowers' tactics. They are misrepresentative of Holy Scripture.
@@rita8091 No. He is consistently condescending. Many of his interactions with detractors online display this as an unfortunate character flaw of White's.
The sum total of what scriptures teach on any subject determines the TRUTH on that subject. Any other method fails to adequately provide truthful conclusions.
I have been associated with Calvinism for many years. I studied at a bible school in Adelaide Australia years ago. I got and still are so discouraged by the Calvinistic teachings of this but also perserverance, Lordship salvation etc, so I do my self a favour and keep my distance Church, the bible and the angry unfair God it seems to potrays. . I believed it but ultimately I took it to its logical conclusion that I could never live up and I might not be elect so I stopped going to church. I didn't think anyone could truelly challenge Calvinism from the scriptures as I interpreted it through that lenses and it became a depressing, terrible crushing weight I couldn't bear it!!! I often feel that there is just no way I could ever be one of the elect because I still struggle with sin. Like many others I am sensitive due to having a father on earth who often treated me, my siblings and my mother with violence and anger. I honestly just question too much and keep taking ideas to their logical conclusion. I don't know why but I have spent the last few days listening to bible teachers again and I came across Dr flower's. I can or am beginning to see it now, that there is an alternative. Thanks.
My brother we all were sinners saved by grace.. when the elect are spoken of it means not only those who believe but much more like enduring in the word and in Christ it means gathering together with those of like mind until we have matured in our faith to the point where we can use the gifts God has blessed us with to help and lead others to him.. God from the beginning desires for all to be saved.. but we humans decide if we want that or not. God will draw us to Christ but he allows us to choose and if we decide to walk away and turn back to willful sin meaning habitual, intentional sin. The wrong we know is wrong and the wrong our inner man and conscience knows is wrong.. then we inwardly seek the same separation from God Lucifer did and therefore he will not force us into paradise with him and by this those who chose sin over Christ choose speration from him.. The point is our God is true love and just we chose to except the drawing and the call, we choose to follow and do God's will not ours, and we choose to turn away therefore we determine where we end up by our choices so it's not God who puts us in hell it's us.. and if we seek paradise Jesus is the way and the shepherd to follow. We may have been sinners and we may still slip along the way but if we truly follow Christ as laid out by him and by many other examples in the word and do all we can to not intentionally sin and avoid by our choice any situation or confront it as wrong that which we know would and is wrong.. we while hear are surrounded by sin but we do not have to take part or allow it we make free will choices and we will be held accountable for them as we should be... God bless you brother.. if you have questions or I missed something please feel free to reply..
Beautiful. Was born anew. And then was immediately brought to r.c Sproul. Same deal for me somewhat. Within a year I stepped out of Calvinism It all started with a deep study on limited atonement. After that fell. They all fell. Thank GOD
Complete opposite story for me. I can NOT lie, I am a horrible person, even after being born again. The more you read the BIBLE and see how the stories are all the same. NO ONE deserves God's salvation. If you can choose it, you can lose it. My name is written in the Lamb's book of Life. It can NOT be removed!!!
How can you bring up presuppositions and then ignore it when your own presupposition is used to ask a question about the text? That’s disingenuousness on White’s part.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 You're welcome. I don't go around correcting everyone. I just love the word "spiel" and like to see it used (so I'm glad you edited it) 😅👍🙏
Wow Leighton wasn't playing around with this one. Leighton clearly won this argument and while I agree with him JW clearly has a superior beard. Do with that information what you will but we all know it's factual.
White's beard and dark attire is either a conscious or unconscious attempt to emulate the appearance of his teacher John Calvin. I have seen other "Reformed" teachers following the same trend. In this regard we must remember what Paul said about being a disciple of a disciple rather than a disciple of Jesus. …11 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?… (1 Corinthians 1:11-12)
Leighton just shouted nonsensical questions that were off topic and he couldn’t answer the one clear question on the actual topic at hand that White asked him multiple times. Leigh didn’t even come close to showing up for the debate properly.
It's really annoying that James eats up his opponents rebuttal time by either refusing to answer, or getting upset that his answers are getting interrupted for clarity. News flash James, IT'S LEIGHTON'S TIME. HE IS ALLOWED TO INTERRUPT. Particularly when you're going off topic. The same courtesy is given to you when it's your time. He did this with Trent too, it's irritating.
Are you being serious!? Dr Flowers is clearly misquoting Dr White in his cross examination and he’s asking leading questions!! Dr White is clear in his argument and the topic being debated while Flowers really is all over the place. Please understand how debates are supposed to work.
Leighton was the one who went off topic. He was doing a clear straw-man of Calvinism and James was refusing to participate in the misrepresentation. At 1:39:20, Leighton uses the analogy of Rob the Reprobate to ask about the salvation of infants. This has nothing to do with the debate and to force James to respond to a complex unrelated question in a cross examination is absurd. It would force him to give a short answer that can then be manipulated. The topic was John 6, not the salvation of infants or who is responsible for the fall/salvation.
Dr. Leighton was actually the one doing most of the interrupting. You can see it at 1:27:20. If interruptions are allowed whenever someone disagrees with their opponent, what’s the point of having rules? Additionally, many of Dr. Leighton's interruptions were used to misquote or misrepresent Dr. James's positions, and then steer the discussion onto a different topic. If you're not going to stick to the main topic, then you shouldn't agree to participate in the debate because it just leads to chaos.
I was never a Calvinist, but I was basically an apologist for them. “No, they don’t really believe that. It’s just a different way of saying the same thing.” Then I realized what they really believe, and I am in a completely different place. Over the last three years, I have learned what they believe. I can now see the importance of pushing back on this false doctrine.
@@elkellenhabla I'm not the guy you asked, but Limited Atonement is just wrong. I accept T, U, probably I and don't have a problem with P. L is just wrong and Calvinists are guilty of elevating their own theological system / their own reason above scripture regarding this. The most egregious case being when they push the blatantly, *obviously* wrong line that 'world' means the elect in John. Have they read John? The word 'world' is negative 2 times out of 3!
Having viewed this debate again it has become clear to me that James White’s exegetical explanation of this passage is impossible to understand. It is impossible to understand because JW has not taught in a clear, understandable manner. It is utterly nonsensical. It seems to me that there are reformed believers who can’t understand JW either and rather than admitting so, they seem to be assuming that JW must be interpreting the Bible correctly because he can read the Bible in Greek. I appeal to my fellow reformed brothers and sisters. Whether you think you are smart or dumb, you are all capable of asking questions of your teachers. In that vein I propose the following: 1. Do you think that JW established from the text (or any of his other OT references: Isaiah 54:13, Jeremiah 31) that John 6:44 teaches unconditional election? I would say not even close. JW claimed that he was dealing with the grammar of the text, but in no way whatsoever did he demonstrate that the grammar of the text taught that God elects people unconditionally. As a non-Calvinist I could have even done a better job of conjuring up a semi-literate Calvinistic interpretation here. JW asks LF to “Show me where from the text you make the distinction that is absolutely necessary for your position”. LF responds: “and they will all be taught of God” and that means that everyone of them, have no excuse because they have heard what they need to hear. Everyone has been taught of God. “Everyone who hears from the Father and learns comes to me”. Not everyone who is taught will listen and learn. Some of them will close their eyes. I don’t know how that can be more clear Dr White?” It’s embarrassing to say that this was simply a reading comprehension exercise and JW failed spectacularly. It seems to me that many reformed believers are ideologues who are not willing to challenge their worldview, even in the face of simple reading comprehension instances.
It is hard to conclude if a text proves one doctrine or another, but we can ask what is being taught. John 6:44 seems to clearly teach that: 1. The only ones who can come to Christ are those drawn by the Father 2. All who are drawn by the Father will come to Christ and be raised on the last day I think "draws" here carries the same meaning as hearing and learning from the Father in 45, so that the learning and listening is something being carried forward by God himself, as a means of drawing the person to Christ. The passage quoted by Jesus seems necessarily to describe the time of the new covenant (based on the possible OT passages), so that the "all" Jesus describes must be referring to all those who are being brought into the new covenant. (Both the Isaiah 54 and Jeremiah 31 passage are contrasting how things were under the old covenant to how they will be under the new, so this can't be referring to the general teaching under the old covenant). Jesus seems to be describing a kind of chain of inevitability in this verse, similar to verse 37. The clear teaching is that those who will be raised in the last day are specifically those whom the Father draws. In my opinion it does seem to be the clear teaching of the text that it is the action of God (of giving specific people to the Son) that leads to salvation, and that there is no other way for someone to come to the Son. To me this does support the doctrine of unconditional election.
@@Matthew-eu4ps thank you for the response. Yours is a possible interpretation, but it is full of presuppositions. When exegesis is performed we must stay with the text and be wary of inserting presuppositions. The major presupposition that you have inserted is that all who have heard, will learn. It’s a very big assumption!
Try and figure our God out? You won't. This is why we are where we are with these debates, our God is wise far above our own understanding. Both sides make good points, but The Lord Does NOT lose any that are drawn.
@@Matthew-eu4psthe Problem is Calvinists presuppose election as the method of drawing. Whereas the entire breadth of the New Testament does not at all seem to operate on that principal. Besides, it seems very clear to me the “Drawing” spoken of is satisfied by God sending Jesus Christ and then the Holy Spirit. Then providing the Gospel and the bible in its entirety. How much more drawing needs to be done? Ohhh you mean you need a more secretive election? It’s always surprised me how Calvinists believe in Election and the randomness of it (to us) and how hearing the gospel has no bearing on salvation unless elected, so how then is there an assumption that the children of Calvinist will be elected. God is no respecter of persons, and your kid is just another person, and growing up hearing the gospel in the house won’t make a difference because it’s ineffectual without election so really Calvinists paint themselves into a corner. By those constraints, your Children have no better chance of election than some random dude living half a city away. But if the Gospel and the Holy Spirit and the work of Christ are in fact how God draws people to himself, then it stands to reason that rather than a random distribution of elected people, people will preferentially be saved through exposure to the gospel and via family, fathers in particular this is what we see. Reality continues to defy the clumsy election and determination mechanics of Calvinism…and yet you remain unmoved. 🤔
Dr White doesn't really believe what he's teaching. He's too smart to hold to an Elementary teacher named John Calvin who was young and a baby in his faith when he defined his doctrine. Flowers demolished White and White just repeated his talking points like a politician
@@Roger-il8iw My only holdback from the debate was Dr FLOWERS inability to balance the fact that God can and does do as He pleases when He pleases, and this does not make Him unloving even if one was born reprobate. Who are we to say He couldnt make a pawn for His purpose just to annihilate that same pawn later. In many ways Job was willing to accept that God was good though He couldn't understand why his whole family had to die, etc... Many of these things can't just be explained by the ability of man to hear, understand, and accept the gospel. Sometimes you just have to step back and realize that God's got everything under control.
@@eternalinvestments3422 I’m not entirely sure I follow your point. But I do agree that non-Calvinists (which are the vast majority of Christians) have a more powerful and more sovereign view of god. I believe god can absolutely do whatever he wants. He does not have to control everything as Calvinists say, but he absolutely could if he wanted to. In other words I actually believe god is god.
Blessed to find out about you ! My daughter and son in law know Steve Gregg and I’ve listened to both and feel your preaching style is more convincing love you brother!
There's only one thing that they both need to do in their preaching, they need to stop calling calvinists their brothers and sisters. A system of theology that makes God the author of sin and evil, no different than Satan, is blasphemous, and saying people will be saved by election and not faith is a different gospel. PERIOD.
Steve Gregg is a wonderful teacher. I'd love to watch/hear him debate Leighton Flowers on Once Saved Always Saved. Steve also has a really long teaching on Calvinism where he argues from both sides and he also debated James White on Calvinism years ago.
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
Watching James White and other Calvinists completely ignore the logical conclusions of Calvinism is incredibly hard to watch. If God predetermines everything, man is not responsible for their sin, and God is the author of evil. There's no ignoring it.
1:38:50 2 WILLS OF THE TEACHER I think actually when the teacher says “I want you to HEAR AND LEARN AND LISTEN, I really want you to HEAR AND LEARN AND LISTEN And when I hold up my hands to you all day long He actually want them to come, that is what I believe” CLEAR ENOUGH??? YESSSSSS
I don't attack personalities, or style of debate. I try and stick with the facts. But I would like to see a debate that is on 2 Peter 3:9, or a 'proof text' of Provisionism. The demands that James White makes the Dr Flowers stick with John 6, which is a proof text for Calvinism is unfair. Dr Flowers must give context for John 6:44 by reading before, after, and what the bible says throughout. I would like to see James White debate 2 Peter 3:9 with the same demands of 'I thought we were debating 2 Peter 3:9'. Of course James White would have to give context and pull verses throughout the bible to show his perspective. But it seems that all these debates are on Calvinist 'proof texts'.
@jourdancarter5912 I agree it's perfectly fine. So why does Leighton get told he is not sticking to the text and pulling passages out of context, when he is showing they are speaking about the same things?
@jourdancarter5912Never mind. I see you were talking to someone else that I guess pulled their comments. I got confused when you said 'your Lord Calvin'. Then I realized you were replying to someone else. Lol!
*The premise of the debate is ridiculous. You don't prove or disprove anything in scripture based on one verse. White being the master debater would only accept this debate if it was limited to one verse, otherwise it would have been impossible for him to hope of winning. Flowers made this absolutely clear to everyone !!!*
James White presents such an awful picture of God and Jesus. I genuinely encourage Christian believers to steer clear of him and those like him. Angry, bitter, sarcastic. None of the things we picture in a John 13:35 kingdom.
White continues to highlight the need to "Consistently go through the text" and for him this clearly means, treating the text according to his interpretation. When in reality, consistency, also begs cross-referencing to other texts and using other subjects to prove the subject at hand now that in 2024 we have the full text at hand. This is him evading to be honest and true to the text.
I love and highly appreciate James White for specifically and honestly telling the truth about 'humanistic philosophical gospel of calvinism' , since in calvinistic philosophy we dont know who God really loves and hates James White said that "we proclaim the gospel because we are commanded to do so" and NOT because of loving the people since again how can we love the people that have the chance of being hated by God since the beginning of the world ? in other word it's is a 'merciless loveless gospel' not to mention Gospel motivated by LAW and NOT love because it's not out of compassion but COMMAND .
That's the heart of the issue. Calvinism is a cult that makes God unloving and arbitrary and my disappoint is Leighton's unwillingness to call out the cult for what it is. He has no problem doing it with Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses but since he was formally a Calvinist, he refuses to defend the love of God and call it out as a cult. I wonder if Leighton is too prideful to admit having fallen for a cult. Whatever the reason, he does a great job defending God in other ways, he just needs to step up and call out Calvinism as a cult instead of embracing its followers as believers. He could be encouraging them straight into damnation.
I think he is trying to stick to the argument amongst people he considers brothers,but he’s certainly not afraid to go to the core of the issue which is why infant damnation was brought up.
The cognitive dissonance of someone to say something like that is almost laughable. It’s as if they never thought to ask themselves “Why does God tell me to do this if it will do literally no good anyway?”
@@DaysofElijah317 I have no problem calling a lay, unstudied Calvinist, a brother in Christ. I do take issue calling a studied, and moreso a "scholar" like White, a brother because they should understand the text well enough (through study and supposedly guidance by the Holy Spirit) to not make a caricature of the basic nature of God. Additionally, when one of these studied men, or scholars, engages on the topic, I see the same dishonest and disingenuous tactics over and over again when defending Calvinism. The thing that often makes one want to embrace them as brothers is their good works, (e.g. Durbin's anti-abortion efforts, White's defenses against other cults, etc.). But should those works blind us to what their core beliefs are. I have met some amazing Mormons but their core beliefs are damning. Same goes for Jehovah Witnesses. But again, their core beliefs are damning. Why would we need to be warned about teaching of other gospels or wolves in sheep's clothing if we could ignore core beliefs and simply look to good works? It's the core beliefs (faith in God and His nature) that save, not works, no matter how good.
That’s a red herring. Jesus tells us to love our enemies, love our neighbor which boils down to love everyone. “How do we love the people God has hated since the beginning of the world?” First of all, love your enemies… that doctrine sort of covers everything. Secondly, as it was clearly stated by James White, we don’t know who God’s elect are but we preach according to the hope that God’s sheep will hear his voice. Proclaiming, repenting and believing the gospel are commands. Thats just a fact, not sure what your problem with it is other than to act as if it’s a gotcha moment like “aha! he said he only preaches the gospel because it’s a command, im so much more loving and pious than him!” But in reality that was only one of the reasons he gave and it was specifically to refute the common objection provisionalists make that “what’s the point of preaching the gospel if God’s elect will be saved no matter what?” And he explained that God is a God of the ends as well as the means. It’s as absurd as asking “if God predetermined that I would eat lunch today, then why should I eat?” Well sure, God predetermined that you would be full by means of eating food and likewise that you’d be saved by his servant preaching the gospel. It’s a bad argument, and the fact that you look at this as a sort of “aha” moment shows you don’t understand the point that was made or you’re being blatantly disingenuous. You: “Not to mention gospel motivated by LAW not LOVE because it’s not out of compassion but command” Jesus: “if you love me obey my commandments” Wow, so as we see, Jesus’ own words don’t jive with whatever it is you’re saying. Love is the motivation to obey commands. Law can be the motivation, that is, if you think you’ll be justified by doing good and obeying God’s commands. Ironically, that’s exactly how folks like you present the gospel, teaching that it’s up to me and you to live good lives otherwise we’re going to hell. As far as damned babies go. Scripture clearly tells us we’re evil from birth, “the wicked are estranged from the womb they go astray telling lies even from birth.” David tells us he formed in iniquity from his mother’s womb. Does an infant who dies go to hell? Well the scripture doesn’t say, but rest assured God is perfectly just and full of mercy, I’m sure he’ll be able to sort em out. JW didn’t really address that point because he doesn’t need to. Babies going to hell is not a reformed talking point, some more fringe branches of reformed thought might hold to that but you have the fringe people in everything. It’s irrelevant. Calvinists hold that man is sinful and depraved from birth, a doctrine clearly taught in scripture as I quoted above from two psalms for a couple examples.
There could not have been a more unappealing presentation of the Gospel than that which Dr. White presented in this debate. He simply defeated himself.
Then (W)ho is worthy or decides who goes to heaven? John 1: 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
I have come to decide recently, that James White has some arogance and pulls such rank over Flowers and other non Calvinist. He is snarky and feels anything others say is beneath him. I do enjoy on occasion listening to White and MacArthur and learn much, but watching these debates makes me not respect him as much and grow in my respect for Mr Flowers
Grammatically, you're saying that Leighton is a Catholic. He's not. Maybe what you mean is what is suggested by the following: "As a Catholic, I think that Leighton..."
maybe some greekies can correct me here but dr white kept saying “genitive ablative.” aren’t those just 2 different noun cases? maybe he means to say “genitive absolute.” and to my knowledge, Greek doesn’t have an ablative case, Latin does. if I’m wrong please correct me!
according to wikipedia the ablative in greek "fell into disuse during the classical period" so it definitely wouldnt be present in the koine greek of the hellenistic-era NT
One of the many things that James White and other Calvinists/heretics miss is that the Lord draws all, not some. We still have the obligation to accept Christ, and if we don't, we're not saved. We have to put our faith in Christ and His finished work at the cross. Additionally, we have the obligation to maintain our faith in Him and Him crucified. Beware of false preachers, like RC Sproul, James White, Steven Lawson, John MacArthur, John Piper, etc..
Thank you Leighton for your continuous work against this cult None will be able to stand against you, God has raised you up to expose this cult. God bless you Mr Flowers.
There were mistakes on both sides. Dr. Flowers irritatingly went off-topic, which, I believe, was a huge mistake. He should have pressed Dr. White more on John 6:45. Dr. White, oddly, insisted that Dr. Flowers not interrupt him during the cross-examination, which Dr. White has repeatedly said in the past is the time when the asker gets to interrupt the answerer, cut them off, talk over them, etc. Either way, I think they both talked past each other. The lynch pin was John 6:45. Dr. White kept quoting it as, "Everyone having heard from the Father comes to me-" and Dr. Flowers kept pointing out that the verse says, "Everyone having heard from the Father _and having learned_ comes to me-". Dr. White says "having learned" is passive, Dr. Flowers says it is active. The Greek says it is an Aorist Participle Active verb. It is an Active verb, but Dr. White says that since it is a Participle, it means the learner is being acted upon, in this case, by God, making the learner passive in the learning. However, being a Participle simply means that it refers to another verb, in this case "comes" is immediately after "having learned". So, "Everyone _having heard_ from the Father and _having learned_ _comes_ to me-" If I'm wrong about this, please let me know. 🍻
@@larrybedouin2921 Not sure if you're serious or mocking me... I will say that, to be fair, when you're under pressure, it can be hard to focus on what's immediately relevant. Versus someone like me who can relax while I watch and pause, rewind, replay, etc. Nevertheless, what's important is what is true and it seems clear that it is true that John 6:44 does not teach Unconditional Election.
The best thing James White can do for Calvinism is just disappear from the public eye. He has 0 fruit and is one of the most miserable people I know of. Meanwhile Leighton is always full of joy.
Why can’t he believe that all men are drawn? Let’s be real every single person has thought about God and I would say most have heard of Jesus and heard the gospel. Even atheists have thought about God at one point but what do they do they willingly choose to not believe. Jeremiah 29:13 King James Version 13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Scripture says if you know the Father you will know the Son.
Flowers is clueless about God's SOVEREIGNTY. Some leaders think they are more righteous and just than God when they try to defend God's righteousness and argue for man's free will when it concerns salvation!😅
Thank you leighton. I’ve been listening to Calvinist for a few years now and you really make a lot more sense. When you put that subject up side by side your right..
