DEBATE: The Reformed Doctrine of Atonement is Biblical and Important | James White vs. Jason Breda
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- Open Air Theology Conference 2024: Why Calvinism
DEBATE: The Reformed Doctrine of Atonement is Biblical and Important | Dr. James White (Affirmative) vs. Jason Breda (Negative)
Moderated by Keith Foskey
Jason's refusal to exegete a single verse that is central to the debate was the end of the debate.
Ha - I wrote this before listening Dr. White's closing statement, and apparently he agreed :)
*I am embarrassed for Dr James White. He will eagerly debate a inexperienced debater while rejecting debate offers from more worthy opponents* This is LAME
@@biagiomaffettone1497- Focusing on the debate prowess of the messenger vs the message seems to be a red herring. I’ve watched many of Dr White’s debates online. It sounds like you have inside knowledge of his debate offers. Who has he refused to debate?
@@CPAExamNINJAs He has rejected to debate Dr Flowers for many years. It's only recently that he has accepted. Also. Jeff Duban will not debate or have a discussion on theological matters with Dr Flowers... He would rather mock him on his show
@@biagiomaffettone1497- you’re aware that they’ve already debated, right?
So thankful for Dr White and his ministry Alpha and Omega Ministries. God bless 🙏
Paul says physical exercise profiteth very little and spiritual very much just so you know I was very arrogant in college my freshman year so determinism appealed to my ego I am gonna go out on a limb and say you share that with then me at Cedarville and you and Dr White still in that pride Humble yourselves and be saved the bible says over and over again what about James White is humble to you?
Isogesis on Steroids shout out to ryanbeaver6080
Me too! I remember before I was even Calvinist going to Long Island to see White argue in the Great Debates. It was so cool to see in person.
I'm not a calvanist but greatly appreciate Dr. White. Maybe I will come around to calvanism someday.
he is the worst example of a christian that i know of. arrogant, dishonest during debates, etc.
I used to drink the Calvinist koolaid and used to follow JW. Praise God the Lord set me free from Calvinism.
So thankful for AOMin and Dr. White.
*I am embarrassed for Dr James White. He will eagerly debate a inexperienced debater while rejecting debate offers from more worthy opponents* This is LAME
@@biagiomaffettone1497 🤣 anyways, back to your lie.
James White deserves a better opponent. Jason already lost so quickly!
*I am embarrassed for Dr James White. He will eagerly debate a inexperienced debater while rejecting debate offers from more worthy opponents* This is LAME
@iomaffettone1497 bro cut it out 😂
@@biagiomaffettone1497who is a better debater!!!😂😂😂
@@JohnMackeyIII There are many debaters, such as, Micheal Brown, Dr Flowers, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Frank Turek, Gary Habermas to name only a few... You are very arrogant aren't you ??
@@biagiomaffettone1497 mentioning Leighton as a “good” debater just shows how disingenuous you are and the lack of intellectual integrity you exhibit.
Tons of comments already, but I'll add my own thoughts anyway:
1) Lots of people are missing the point of James White's argument from Hebrews re: the connection between the High Priest, the intercession, and the atonement. This is not necessarily their fault, as James has explained this argument better in other contexts than he did here.
2) James White's opening did not seem as tightly focused or clearly explained as it could have been. I know he said he wasn't feeling well, and this might have played a role.
3) Jason Breda's inexperience in debate showed through. Probably the biggest mistake was not realizing that a debate where you have the job of poking holes in your opponent's position is not the time to trot out your self-admitted extreme minority view of the texts in question. It allowed White to shift the focus of the debate to Breda's interpretations, and forced him to take on a pseudo-affirmative role.
4) Breda's interpretations also led him to reference the antisemitic writings of various figures from Christian history. I get that he was trying to say an unjustified hostility toward Judaism might be why people haven't considered his interpretations, but it just seemed like a red herring and a weak "Calvinism leads to antisemitism" argument. Again, this allowed White to shift focus off his position and onto Breda's.
5) For Breda, a clear and simple "No" would have been preferable answers to the questions about hina clauses and whether he had read certain works. The "I've heard of a hina clause" response just made him seem more ignorant than he otherwise would have appeared with a simple "No" answer. That said, a hina clause is something you learn about in first year Greek, so any answer that indicated he didn't know what it meant was going to make him look unqualified for this debate.
6) When asked to exegete the verse in Hebrews, Breda replied that proper exegesis of the verse would take too much time, given that he would want to work through the surrounding context, the language, etc.. In responding this way, he focused in on the most expansive definition of the word "exegete." I've also seen many people take this tactic online post-debate to excuse the lack of response to White's argument. This is a poor response, because it was abundantly clear that the request was focused to the question of "why do you say that the group in view in the first part of the sentence is different from that in the second part of the sentence?" White was not asking for an exegetical paper on Hebrews 7, he was asking "grammatically, how did you get from point A to point B in this sentence?" A short response would have sufficed. Even just something like "taking into account the entire context of the book of Hebrews I think it is theologically justified to see a difference in the groups here, but we don't have time to go through all of my reasoning," would have been enough to move the questioning forward.
7) I'll end with some criticism of White since I spent a lot of time criticizing Breda. White seems to have gotten less patient and crankier in his old(ish) age. He comes off as short-tempered and quick to dress down opponents for perceived slights. While he's always been an aggressive debater, watching some of his older debates, even some of the tense ones, he is less abrasive in demeanor than he is today. This hinders his performance, even when he has the better side of the argument. Persuasiveness matters in debate, and people are more apt to identify with the cheerfully confident guy over the grumpy sourpuss.
Edit: 8) I just listened to James explain on his post debate recap that he didn't have a prepared opening, but just went up with a Bible in hand and an idea of what he wanted to talk about. A few comments about that:
First, that explains my first two points. Second, Dr. White, it's great that you can do this much from the top of your head, and I know that you have challenged others with the promise to do this in debates with them as well, but here's the thing: you don't have to. This is a formal debate. A meticulously crafted and practiced presentation are much more beneficial to an audience seeking to learn than a freewheeling one. I'm not saying White's presentation wasn't beneficial at all, merely that it could have benefited from some polish. At least carry an outline up there. Third, although he talks about it often on the Dividing Line, I'm not sure Dr. White realizes how much age has taken it's toll on his debating abilities. Yes, most of us would be thrilled to be as good as James White is now. But he is not as quick and focused as he used to be. There have been several times in his recent debates that I have wondered: "why is he spending time talking about x?" Now is the time for him to be carrying prepared remarks up there for his opening. If nothing else, just to glance at them from time to time to stay on track.
I think part of the reason James is not as sharp as he used to has nothing to do with James, but because his opponents are taking new and never really presented stances before. Look at the last three debates. One of the clesr declaration of the Canon, adress by that doesn't mean what it clearly means, then, I'm not going to defend purgatory, but any kind of system that changes someone after death, and then this guy say the primary audience is the Jews in Romans are all novel and not the standard arguments.
In this debate, John never really presented a counter claim for his side either, which makes it much harder to have a debate, he basically just said that wrong without giving a this is right statement.
And I mean, if in the people have to make something completely new to get around just you and your Bible, I don't think he needs a script (just being playful their), that's also BTW how a lot of of the reformers uses to debate.
@@Jondoe_04 my comments weren't about James addressing his opponent's position. I think he did fine there. They were regarding his positive presentation. He didn't present his case as clearly as I know he could and have heard him do in the past.
@gardyloogubbins I understood that what I am saying, though, is James went in there with a purposely small and Biblical based target, he wasn't trying to cite this reformer or that, he wanted to keep it small and specific, partially because these guys are not known for their positive claims. James main point was the intercession of the high priest, and he presented that well, I think keeping it thin in terms of material was on purpose, so there is less to get bogged down on.
@@Jondoe_04 maybe I'm not communicating well. I didn't criticize his choice of arguments, or his lack of citing reformers, or any of the things you mentioned. I criticized the fact that the arguments he did present, he did not present as clearly as he has in the past. I also speculated that this may be due to the decision to not prepare his opening remarks beforehand, as mentioned on the Dividing Line. Let me give an example. When discussing the intercession argument from Hebrews, he didn't draw out the interconnection between the high priest's work of atonement and his work of intercession to the degree he has in other presentations of the argument. This would have been helpful to the audience.
@gardyloogubbins thank you for the clarification. I'll blame that on being sick rather than getting old this time and for the rest of this span. That said, I really hope he feels better for Flowers.
6:35 - James White - Opening
27:00 - Jason Breda - Opening
Great debate! I thoroughly enjoyed being apart of this conference!
It was only Great because it was so obvious White was wrong and had to attack and anytime you look defensive you lose at least in the silly game of debate but Jesus said all you have to do is not be proud or rich so basically just dont be james white and you have a chance to get in
This wasn't much of a debate, sadly enough.
Pastor B GREAT JOB BROTHER ON YOUR MESSAGE OF GODS WORD!
I enjoyed it praise GOD to him be all the GLORY!!
1:14:44 cross examination
Whether it's Jason's videos or here in this debate, I always get the impression that he's borrowing from other people's arguments while not fully understanding them, himself. It's as if his exodus from Calvinism was based on one or two really impressive articles from Leighton Flowers, Ken Wilson, David Allen, or someone else, and he jumped the gun by abandoning reformed theology, wholesale. Now, he's needing to fill in the gaps and justify what he did, and he's struggling. He just doesn't have enough command of the material he's dealing with, be it the Scriptures or church history, or even his own commentary. He's simply out of his depth, here.
So, people are not allowed to use people arguments or try them out?
Talking is thinking.
And i would argue that would mean a whole lot of people are guilty of just that. How would that apply to the millions in history under the roman catholic church?
My question to you would be, does theology save?
Its Jesus is it not? Or are young kids not saved because they do not fully understand scripture?
Like so many calvinist plebes that get hooked in the cult banter. Sure, sola de calvinism another gospel.
@@LordBlkI'm not exactly sure what you're responding to with this, but I think everything you just said is reasonable.
@@LordBlktalking isn't thinking. You can work things out by talking about thinking, is primarily done through meditation on a topic and or study.
💯💯💯
I am so tired of Antisemitism being used as a proof text, a punchline to bad theology. I'm also tired of history void of context, and in stead understood only in the light of our own time. Luther and Augustine spoke, what in our time would be considered harshly regarding Jews. Inference; Reformed Theology is wrong because Reformed people are anti-Semitic. Which logical fallacy is that? I forget....I wonder what to do with myself considering I'm Reformed and an ethnic Jew.
That's the ad hominem fallacy
Romans chapter 9 verse 24 you are in the body of Christ my friend. You nolonger have a part in the Jews that reject Christ. Amen
Brother, we are not divided, we stand in Christ , he is the head us all who are saved regenerated transformed justified and santictied by the Spirit fulfilling Gods redemptive plan to HIS GLORY! He SAVED OUR LIFE BROTHER, this life and the next, he delivered us by his own righteousness fulfilled what we NEVER COULD OR WOULD , HE WOKE US UP, from death to life , 35:08 he took our filth our sin he bore it!!! How amazing is CHRIST!!! OUR SAVIOR, the savior only savior of the entire world!!! One to be saved must be saved BY CHRIST, reading Calvin’s commentary and Matthew Henrys on this matter both held to a open to all , we agree to this , but not all would come , , but the death was for all.
that’s where they ended the matter and go on to speak on the fulfillment of what Christ accomplished meeting all satisfaction of the law the accomplishment
and being the very clear to those who believe who are granted faith , Christ died for, and it plays itsself out as Our father in heaven so decrees and wills.
I don’t see his blood his torture wasted any, I subjectively stand with limited atonement on this matter as in DEFINITE ATONEMENT and stick with exactly what James white says and what I believe scripture to cleary represent
God bless brothers and sisters!
I too am a Reformed (Baptist variety) ethnic Jew. It would seem we are nearly as rare as hen's teeth, possibly due to the pejorative of "Replacement Theology." It is not replacement, but adoption....of the Gentiles into the body of Christ (Romans 9-11)
@@MikeHammer1 yes and focus on 9:24 that all who come to accept Christ are on body.
How is it that Jason was once Calvinist? I’m starting to be convinced that half of the people who claim to have been “once Calvinist” aren’t being completely honest. I would believe them more if half the time they weren’t mis representing reformed doctrine.
No True Scotsman fallacy. You guys use this logical fallacy a lot.
Absolutely I agree with you
@@dustinpaulson1123 No True Scotsman fallacy only applies when they use measures outside the standard. Not those within. A rock isn't an open face sandwich is not a logical fallacy because they are clearly separately defined. A person cannot call themselves Calvinist in name only without having adhered to any of the understandings and statements Calvin himself made. Big dofference.
@kapmahn if all Calvinists believed the exact same things, I might agree. But they don't. Not on the major tenets. Not on the minor tenets.
So then you get people that were Calvinist being NTS'd by current Calvinists that have disagreements in theology... and like clockwork, "They weren't really a Calvinist". It happens so often, that I'm starting to believe that "No True Calvinist" can exist without "No True Scotsmaning" ex-Calvinists.
Scotsmaning is like the unwritten S of TULIPS.
@@dustinpaulson1123what are some major tenets where you believe reformed theologians disagree?
@LivingChristian you have mine and my husband's support. In light of the critique, from others and probably from yourself, just know that I am grateful for the work God is doing through you.
🤢🤮
@@MichaelMannucci-fp7jb I'm not Provisionist nor Calvinist, but that was really awful and disappointing.
@@MichaelMannucci-fp7jb you obviously missed his point.
@@rocketsurgeon1746which was?
@@SickestDisciple did you listen to Jason? He explains his stance well
1:27:15 I see a new clip for the intro song of Radio Free Geneva. 😂
My Friend can you properly exergete the passage in 5 minutes during a debate ??? Dr White being a PHD should know this is impossible. He should have asked "What is your opinion of the passage"
Wow it was worse than I thought he didn't even touch Hebrews, James wins by both default and consistency, saying the elect are only jews is crazy
Worldwide love, worldwide evangelizing, individual decision to serve A or B. Thank you Jason for keeping it simple and Biblical.
😞
Why isn’t what James white said biblical? Can’t God not choose who he wants in heaven?
@@jermoosekek1101 these Elect in Christ since the foundation souls, how did they get Totally Depraved and then have to wait to be Regenerated to get In Christ again,. Verse ?
Simple and non-biblical to be exact!
@@jermoosekek1101 of course He can and He has. Both sides agree on that. What's debated is what the Bible says about His decision.
If Jesus did NOT die for ALL, as Scripture clearly states, James White needs to show me a verse that says He died for James White. I’m sure it’s in the Greek somewhere… 🙄
All means all kinds or types of men (mankind)
Your worldview requires God to fail constantly.
Your literalist view of scripture is the problem
Parables or allegorical writing flies right over your head due to literalism
@@joshsimpson10God wants all to be saved, but they don't. God is not failing, but let love to be free. If choosing is forced there is no love, but tyranny.
Scripture clearly teaches us for whom Christ died. He died for the elect alone.
@@hamtramckchronicles I don’t care what you think Scripture “teaches”. What does Scripture SAY? Certainly not THAT. 2 Corinthians 5:15, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 2:2, 1 Tim 2:3-6 and other passages are crystal to clear to those of us who believe the words on the page that Jesus Christ died for ALL.
@@Yaas_ok123 the only way you can choose to love God is through his Grace, not your own will.
What God desires and what God decrees are not the same thing.
You have a will, it isn't "free", it is bound to sin. Only by the Grace of God through faith which is given by God can your will be bound to God's will.
There is no other will for man. Bound to sin or bound to Christ. There is no in between.
Just finished watching it. No debate happened here 😅. Dr. James White's presentation was not touched at all during rebuttal and cross ex. No exegesis was given to a vital text about the atonement. The questions asked during the cross ex was questions that Jason prepared beforehand and not questions thst should be asked about His presentation. All I heard was just assertion over assertion, no defense given. Im just like watching Leighton Flowers first debate with Dr. James white. Not working with the presentation given and no exegesis. What a let down man. 😅
Did you watch WLC just demolish James White in their discussion?
@@jwatson181lol you wish.
Debating these provisionists is such a waste of time. It seems as if their main goal going into debates is to make Calvinism sound as unappealing as possible rather than actually engage in a debate. They're embarrassing themselves.
@@jwatson181how is that relevant?
I’m not a calvin follower or Arminian but
I believe John clearly did, but to you
Do you know why?
Because james white opening and thesis was non-sense. It is unanswerable it is a convoluted mix of things not even John argues. This is unreal and it’s not where the tension exist. John tackled where the tension exist. You are predisposed to Calvin and can see anything else but his language.
Just like a movie or a biblical text, Go back and watch it again.
God Bless you Jeffrey Rice, hope to be able to come to your "Why Calvinism Conference" next year, God Willing. Thank you soo much for your work in Gods Kingdom and for posting this. ✝️🌷
It’s on sanctification SO PUMPED PRAISE GOD ALMIGHTY!
James White obviously did a better job presenting and defending his position. And I’m not saying that because I am Calvinist.
And I like how Jason preached the gospel at the end, good job. But he needs to work on his debating.
I agree Dr White looked better but his arguments did not in any way have to do with limited atonement. Being a PHD he should have done better
"For us" (Rom. 8:32) = "FOR THE SAINTS" (Rom. 8:27)
These people of (Rom. 8:28-35) are ALREADY SAINTS in verses 27! Amazing!
Some argue that is referring to the disciples.
“Even as among the rest of the gentiles”
How could that be the Jews?
“You and the rest of the football team”
Could that be someone not on the football team?
Exactly 😂
I was absolutely baffled when I heard it the first time. The implication is literally the opposite of his thesis. I thought I was crazy for a second
What immediately came to my mind was 2 Peter 3:16:
"as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."
According to the same logic, and interpretation of syntax by brother Breda, Peter did not consider Paul's writings Scriptures?
Very strange indeed. Sad to see to what lengths people are willing to go to oppose Reformed doctrine, which brings such consistency and power to the proclamation of the Gospel.
@@File001 the reformed doctrines are not found in Holy Scripture, or the Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written! James White is one of those false teachers that Saint Paul warned us about! Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and keep the commandments and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Not only is the Reformed doctrine the only way to consistently understand Christ's atoning work, but your position is in fact what Paul warned us about in Galatians, and declared your position of adding to the finished work of Christ anathema - accursed. Repent and believe the Gospel, sir.
James White is the G.O.A.T
Randy, James White is one of those false teachers that Saint Paul warned us about! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Jesus is the G.O.A.T. White is a bitter man!
@Reformed1646 I love the Catholic Bishop Saint Augustine! The same Saint Augustine who teaches Mary the Mother of God was sinless and ever virgin, and the same Saint Augustine who didn't teach the man made tradition of faith alone and Scripture alone! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Like Trent Muhammadan Horn said, "Saint Paul was wrong" lol
@CarVela2245 What did Trent Horn say Saint Paul was wrong about?
Plus, like James the unbiblical false prophet teaches, "No, Holy Scripture is in error, as we shall NOT each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered and shall NOT each be judged as we have judged others and we shall NOT each be liable to judgment if angry with others and we shall NOT EACH Receive recompense for BOTH the good AND THE BAD we have done in the body and we don't havecro strive for that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord! 🤣 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Would've liked to have seen Jason get some more experience under his belt before taking on the big dawg himself. He kept a good attitude and was very friendly, but he played the game like he didn't know the rules. You've got to properly utilize opening statements, closing statements, and especially cross-exam.
Poor camera work 🎉
Great debate for Dr White and sad situation for Jason for he was shown to be skewed in his theology
*I am embarrassed for Dr James White. He will eagerly debate a inexperienced debater while rejecting debate offers from more worthy opponents* This is LAME
@@biagiomaffettone1497who has he refused?
and this was great because the ego of Jason.
James White: Exegete a verse.
Me: What?!!! How do you exegete one verse? Proper exegesis requires looking at many verses. James White continues his idea that exegesis means reading Greek.
Yes, exactly. Jason is trying to start from the outer circle of the whole context and slowly go to the inner circle of specific verses - that is the only way to understand the text.
Would you understand what he was asking had he said ‘what does this verse mean?’ Because that’s what it means to say ‘exegete.’ Draw out meaning from the text. Surely it’s a reasonable question to ask a debate opponent who disagrees with your stated meaning to give his own?
James white my guy
ok cultists.
@@truthseeker5698 I'm 1 hour and a half in and James is cooking
Im not enticed by food for idols.@@Illuminate_identity
@@truthseeker5698 No u
@@johnathanl8396 ?
James White knows the Bible and showed this in the debate. Breda was lost in this debate.
You are delusional
wrong
Looking forward to digging into this!
I wish James had gone further in the gospel of John. Intercession is made on behalf of believers, only those whom the Father hast given Christ, and Jesus says this in different words. Many people who try and debate certain doctrines in the Bible want the teachings of it to be specific, or they will say like a certain Muslim teacher says: and I quote, " You can not show me any place in the Bible where Jesus says out of his own mouth that he is God..." end quote. Though he did in his I AM statements, which they don't understand, Jesus never said it the way the Muslim guy stated it. However, Jesus shows it indirectly and implicitly . Philip called him my Lord and my God. and was not rebuked by Christ. He asked Peter, " Who do you say I am ? Peter answered , " You are the Christ the Son of the living God." Now, John 17:8-9 says: " For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. V9. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. " The Atonement is limited."
AMEN!!!!🙏 everything you said great explanation !! took it right off my mind friend
The way his I am statements were understood by his Jewish crowd was all parallels to scripture of the OT TO WHICH they knew, it was understood VERY CLEARLY BY THEM WHAT CHRIST WAS SAYING HE IS GOD AND THE VERY GOD IN FRONT OF THEM , as you search and believe the scripture gives you eternal life the scriptures are written about me! He is and was and always will be the revelation of God himself to all humanity but not all will see, only those who believe by faith gifted from God himself , praise his HOLY NAME, we are so undeserving to the least bit of understanding that we do comprehend , we deserve CONDEMNATION but CHRIST TOOK IT HE TOOK IT HE TOOK IT!!! Praise the Holy name of YAWEH OUR SAVIOR THE ETERNAL KING
Even though my soteriology is in line with Provisionism and I therefore agree with Jason Breda on the atonement, I must admit that Dr. White clearly won this debate. The combination of Jason neglecting to deal with White's argument especially on the book of Hebrews and Jason's ridiculous interpretation on the book of Romans left me amazed and shaking my head in disappointment. His entire presentation and inability to respond adequately during cross examination made it clear that Jason Breda is not ready for prime time. It troubles me to say this because I like Jason and enjoy listening to his channel. One's first debate should not be against James White, unless your name is Leighton Flowers who I thought beat White in their first debate. I am looking forward to round two in March.
Ehat would be your interpretation of Romans???
I would encourage you to give more careful consideration to Jason's understanding of the book of Romans. Some of it may need some refinement, but he makes some very good points.
@@TimothyFish Care to elaborate? As I understood it, his main point was to say Romans 8 is only for the Jews/Israel - but also conceding it can be also apply to gentiles. Some refinement is a major understatement. His whole thesis is build on sand.
@@Metanoia235, I don't think he was saying that it was only for the Jews. I think he was saying that the first audience of Romans 8 is the Jews. It is similar to saying that the first audience of 1 & 2 Timothy is Timothy and the first audience of Titus is Titus, and the first audience of Acts is Theophilus. That's not to say that the things that are said there are not to be read by other people or that they don't apply to other people, but our understanding of why what was written was written should take into account the person it was written to. The fact that Timothy was a protégé of Paul influences our understanding of 1 & 2 Timothy. If Romans 1-8 is written to Jews, then that should influence our understanding of those chapters.
@@Metanoia235 No, he said Romans chapters 1-8 was speaking to the Jews.
Gotta love it when a new argument is brought up in the closing statement, an argument so rediculous, but it can't be refuted... Because it is the closing statement. Sneaky tactics.
Even his presentation was a rebuttal instead. Very sneaky.
his very first debate. wouldn't diagnose it as sneaky
Martin Luther wrote: "For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because He says 'This is My blood which is poured out for you' and 'for many'--He does not say: for all--"for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:28.) -
Great point. Throughout scripture we find this truth, we only have to be willing to accept it when we see it.
Even John Calvin admitted in his Commentaries that "for many" in the Bible refers to all and it is used as an opposition to few not to all. 1 John 2:2 also refutes Calvinism and many other passages.
@@Nobleeagle100it doesn’t refute “Calvinism” generally - perhaps it requires a slightly nuanced view regarding universality but reformed theology is based upon far more then a few isolated verses.
@@PaDutchRunner Not that you need it to refute Calvinism, as virtually every classic Bible story utilizes the concept of faith in ways that fundamentally contradict Calvinism. Not even Calvinists are genuinely Calvinist. As soon as Calvinist preachers get to Abraham or Job, they start teaching the morals of the stories as though they're Arminian.
@@JD-xz1mx nope. You just don’t understand how God’s sovereignty operates in the real world. If you are a Christian, you believe in Calvinism, or at least in many Calvinistic elements, without even realizing it.
Brother Jason desperately needs to stop listening to Leighton Flowers. Anyone can piece together scripture and come up with odd beliefs, cults do it all the time. Just bad and definitely influenced by L. Flowers.
Very good description/ depiction of calvinism reformed theology cult groups. The satan looks out for its own causes. Sola de your choice.
I would say that Dr. White won this debate easily. I don't believe Breda knew the topic that well, and he also had a very poor way of chopping up Romans 8. I thought the debate as a whole could have dealt more thoroughly with other passages from Scripture, and almost got derailed at times by dealing with Breda's unorthodox approach. White made his points well and revealed some of Breda's weaknesses, but I think he goes on too long sometimes, and does too much ridicule.
I think James was kind of annoyed that's why he was ridiculing his argument so much. Like, he wants to actually have a debate with these guys but they want to keep going to other topics and not the text.
What, are you a parrot? 😂 Those things you said are almost direct quotes from White.
Are you saying there’s justification to ridicule people? Hmmm
Is THAT scriptural?
@@Jondoe_04, James was annoyed because he doesn't have a good answer for the claim that the "golden chain" is talking about the saints in the old testament. He's smart enough to know that claim works with the text but he needs it to be a statement about all of the elect to shore up Calvinism.
@TimothyFish because in every sense of the word, it's not. And nobody, until recent history to get around Calvinism thought it did.
One of these brothers displays a knowledge that puffs up, while the other brother displays a love that aims to build up. I'll let the unbiased observer decide which brother is which.
I noticed this too. I would also say prideful.
“Love” without truth does not build up.
God is a God of Truth, and He preserves His truth above all.
James is defending the truth, and Jason is defending a lie. May God help him.
@@emadeleon2205 they were both defending what they believe to be true. Ye shall know them by their fruit.
Puffed up or zealous?.. Christ corrected others with a similar zealousness.
@@T-Wyler my default is to reject dichotomies. Could absolutely be both.
Good work Jason Breda! Keep on
1:20-124 was a real hook up for Breda!
@@Mike12349 How so?
Good work? Huh? Did you listen to the same "debate?"
Wasn't even a debate. Jason addressed nothing relative to the synergistic harmony of the Trinity in salvation.
@@ManassehJones There was a lot that wasn't addressed on either side. I appreciated Jason's humility in the debate.
Jason Breda got creamed :( ... It was bad during cross examination. He couldn't even exegete one text 😅
Are you happy that in your view brother Jason didn’t performed well? I hope a spirit of humbleness dueles in our hearts
I followed Jason and he is a very humble young men, always stretching the importance the fruit of the spirit
@@roxanasalazar1234 if you agree with Jason and yet think he didn’t perform well, could I ask why you think he did poorly?
Do you believe he is just lacking skill as a debater? Or is it possible he was defending an erroneous position?
@@Postmillhighlights
Good questions
He is lacking skills for sure, but practicing makes perfect. JW has tones of experiences.
I am listening to Jason and keep reading the Word of God in case I have been reading with reformed lenses or it is all true.
But there is so many verses that talks clearly about how people get save.
By believing with no mentioned of any kind of regeneration first. John 3 is the context I was taught to learned about regeneration preceding faith.
James White talks about intercession ( hebrews 7:25 ) as salvation preceding faith, and he believe in the Elect being in Christ before they are saved, I never thought of that before.
Is Jason argument wrong… maybe… but I am checking my bible as I listened to both sides.
The difficult part for me, it is when you start talking of the meaning of greek, and we lay people have to depend of scholars to understand, which means translations are not reliable because when I read I don’t see the active, passive, etc.
Now, we can say well we need educated pastors to teach us…
Well, really??
Anyways, long message sorry
Thinking aloud I guess:)
Holy Spirit guide us in all truth but most important, teach us to love one another and please correct me from any wrong thinking as we study your word:)
@@PostmillhighlightsJames white got demolished in his debate with Greg Stafford, doesn’t mean the trinity is false.
It's not so much about skill, it's about what you know the bible says, and one has to have a passionate knowledge of the subject to do well debating.
White won pretty handily
Yes James White clearly Won Second Place as he always does
@@hudsontd7778
He won The debate thesis. The opponent was unprepared and didn’t interact
@@hudsontd7778 you’re letting your bad open theist theology blind you from the obvious
@@thesirevn334
Is that Greg Bahson LOL 🤣
Do you have any discernment what so ever, maybe instead blaming your Calvinist god for problems you should actually take accountability for Actions and do something productive for society?
@@hudsontd7778
I’m not blaming God but that picture is Greg Bahnsen
Appreciate both debaters. White hands down won.
i disagree. you are clearly a calv. white is dishonest at best. you fell for his act
Romans 1-8 was written just to Jews… and then 9-16 the audience shifts…? This is the exact moment Mr. Breda lost the debate. To say that chapter 1-8 just doesn’t apply to non-Jews is absolutely crazy, and a very desperate attempt at defending one’s system rather than deriving one’s view from the text of Scripture.
What great start for Jason hopefully he will continue "crushing weak theology" and gain his voice in confidence. Provisionist must build a tougher Performance, yes I said performance. They must become much more courageous in tone and quit claiming they're just nicer. They must understand the opposition ,yes I said opposition. Jesus was never nice, but always loving Pick it up men, be bold and courageous.
while defending the truth. God will bless you're convicting faith.
But please, also have your homework done and know the relevant texts...
Breda made a total hash of this. It was a mess. He spoke beyond his actual knowledge on several occasions. In his videos, he addressed White directly and argued from the Greek that White's positions could not be true. In the event, he couldn't substantiate any of his claims.
Anyone can make claims, but in a debate, you have to back those claims up. I disagree that White's theology is weak, but even so, a weak defence of a strong theological position isn't to be commended, especially when that weak defence was proceeded with a lot of hype.
@@PrenticeBoy1688 you are clearly a white fan boy and fall for his dishonest antics
If I didn’t believe in definite atonement prior to watching this I’d have to affirm it now. Dr. White gave a reasonable defence for what he believes and why he believes it while Jason was busy scooping water out of a sinking ship with his sieve. He really does have his feet firmly planted in mid air, but hey, he says he was once a Calvinist but no longer, maybe at some point he’ll realize that he has left truth for error, we can pray to that end.
Shame that God decreed it so.
Interesting over all but one of the things that got me the most was Keith calling himself either Doug Wilson or Chris Arnzen. Found it more amusing than I probably should have but well played.
I swear Dr Leighton Flowers was speaking to Jason Breda through an earpiece during the debate.
I watched the entire debate and took notes in an attempt to follow the arguments. I realize Jason has never debated before and he admits this from the beginning. Seems to me his motivation was quite different than Dr. White’s.
If I was judging this as a formal debate, I can see why most believe Dr. White won, but I am not so sure that’s what is important here. Jason did deal with a number of Dr. White’s arguments, which I would score for Jason. Formal debate judging may give the win to Dr. White but is that what is most important?
Firstly, Dr. White’s argument from Hebrew 7:25, while common amongst those who hold to LA, is simply not supported by exegesis. “…those who draw near to God through Him…” is a condition that can only be said of believers. Yes. This is a specific group but nowhere does it tell us that Jesus’ intercession makes them believers. Jason dealt with that very clearly when Dr. White asked him about it in the cross examination time. Yes. He should have dealt with it in his opening argument but he’s new to debate.
Secondly, Dr. White’s argument for the Trinitarian Harmony theory did not support the debate topic which was, according to the RUclips thumbnail, “The Reform Doctrine of the Atonement is Biblical and Important.”. Jason clearly presented that there are many, different atonement theories among the Reformed, so I would score for Jason on that point, as well. Seems the debate organizers need to take a lesson from Jason.
Finally, Jason wins the debate simply because he presented himself in a humble, Christ-like manner. He recognized his shortfalls when it comes to debating but stood for the Gospel among many who would take a very differing view, including the moderator and his opponent. Dr. White, on the other hand, presented himself as all-knowing, arrogant and condescending; his position, of course, is the one that is most consistent and biblical. Of Jason’s position and arguments, Dr. White said it is, among other insults, “the most dangerous eisegesis”, “not biblical, incoherent, and indefensible”. Dr. White’s prideful arrogance should not be celebrated but rather he should be exhorted to repent and apologize for his demeaning attitude toward a brother-in-Christ.
If unbelievers were to watch this debate, I believe they would see Christ in Jason and be moved to listen to him more so than Dr. White.
Nice of you, that you want to defend Jason. But your first argument is not valid. You want to tell everyone, that your exegesis is now the standard and the truth?! And therefore Jason was right? What do you say about the manner of James? (Besides if you are in a public debate that should be informative for the audience it is clearly not helpful if you are not up to speed with the relevant texts and relevant knowledge)
Your second argument is also very shallow. There may be differences in how some of the reformed camp see certain details but the overall concept is very clear: Jesus didn't die for the men that will be punished in hell. And by showing the BIBLICAL consistency of the redemption work of the Trinity it shows the importance of the topic because it is about the nature of God himself.
@@Metanoia235 Not Valid? According to you?
Yes. My exegesis of the phrase in Hebrews 7:25 is accurate. ‘Those who draw near to God’ are believers. Do you believe that they are unbelievers? Dr. White most likely does not even think that.
What I say “about the manner of James”? His manner is quite off-putting. I am ashamed of his behavior and his question begging. For someone who has debated so many times, he is an expert at rhetoric and using logical fallacies.
My second argument may be shallow but the debate topic was quite broad. And you seemed to fail to consider Jason’s argument that many Reformers held to a universal atonement which would mean Jesus did die for men who refused to trust Him and end up in Hell.
You can claim biblical consistency but that does not equate to your systematic being consistent.
Thanks for engaging. Good night.
Well said.
James does not display the love of Jesus Christ. It’s shameful.
Ah, the moral point police never fail to come. White is a bulldog… confident, and strong speaker. If you wanted a sermon, go to church, this was a debate.
@@ReformedlyGuy
Matthew 12:33 KJV
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Satan is a master theologian.
He's talked to God, interacted with God, believes in God's existence, and knows more about God's attributes and abilities than most...
...and yet Satan doesn't love God.
Knowledge about God doesn't equal faith in God.
1 John 4:11-12,20 KJV
Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. [12] No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. [20] If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
This was disappointing. Anyone have a link to a good debate that a regular church goer can grasp about the extent of the atonement? (I’m really curious)
Check out theGospeltruth 5hãmoun vs Mátt Slick
Change the 5 to S and ã to a
I was feeling the same way throughout the debate. I actually was about to hop to look up another video after a little over 1.5 hrs of listening to this cuz I just wasn't gleaning anything substantive. It was hard to tell what the precise topic of the debate even was until about 20 min.
Thank you, Dr. James White, for your clear and articulate defense of the biblical teaching of the atonement in this engaging debate. Your commitment to upholding the truth of Scripture, particularly on such a crucial doctrine, is both commendable and necessary. The depth of your arguments, rooted in a thorough understanding of biblical teachings, provides a valuable resource for Christians seeking to deepen their understanding of God's redemptive work through Christ's sacrifice. This debate underscores the importance of sound biblical doctrine and the need for believers to anchor their faith in the clear teachings of Scripture. Your presentation has been edifying, and I am grateful for the light it sheds on the significance of the atonement. May your ministry continue to equip believers and strengthen the church in truth and love. Grace and peace to you.
Amen...Well said ...We need to hear this Truth now and Forever...🔥✝️🔥 God bless you
James that's very kind of you to thank yourself.
Jason Breda does wonderfully
🤣
😖
He is a good dresser
Why is a person as smart as Dr. White having a hard time understanding the larger context that Jason’s explaining?
Because Jason is completely off base and incorrect in his interpretation.
Because Jasons discrimination against the work of the Trinity in salvation is mind boggling. Literally mind boggling.
Jason's job was to rebut Dr. White's arguments and present his own positive case. He never touched Dr. White's arguments. He somewhat tried to put forth a positive case, but most of what he covered wasn't even truly related to the debate subject and Dr. White pretty much obliterated anything that Jason did try to build up. Plus it is almost like Jason gave Dr. White "bonus points" by bringing up easily refuted non debate points that Dr. White shot him down on from the scriptures. It was a poor showing for Jason, but what else could you expect? I'm sure in his mind it was an honor for him to get taken to the wood shed by Dr. White and probably worth the beating since many non Calvinists will just love him for it and probably try to follow his you tube and social media more closely now.
@mikegreene9137 and James white doesn't have his own show?
Man, the negative inference fallacy is pretty significant and James was stumped at least once.
@@LordBlk 😅🤣 "negative inference fallacy." Ok Leighton
Jason did great 🎉
Participation trophy?
Then you nor him know how to debate. That was no debate. No rebuttal, nothing. It was truly a waste of my time.
@@rogervincent2092 it sorta feels like an episode of the dividing line.
@@ChristisLord2023 - Looks to me like classic "Radio Free Geneva" fodder.
Great falling on his face.
I think, individual reformers are not the secondary resource we must checked upon if one wants to understand reformed theology but their creeds and confessions.
So if a Samaritan (not of the Elect) was in the desert and looked to the snake on the pole he wouldnt be healed? WOW, thats quite some eisegesis.
Who said no Samaritans are of the elect?
Or course he would be. Judas Iscariot was elect - it just means chosen for service. Pharaoh was elect, Herod was elect, Joe biden is elect - they were all chosen for service by God.
Only those told to look upon the brazen serpent, and were close enough to it to look upon it, were healed.
The others perished.
Of course if one looked to the brazen serpent in faith they would be healed. Faith is a gift of God not a work of man.
@@wretchedsinnerRighteousSaviorSure of the last one ?
Feel bad for Breda.. they clearly served him up to Dr.White with little debate experience and only "soteriology101" talking points. He couldnt even address Dr.Whites presentation or any arguments. Instead, we got refutations to calvinism lol
I have not watched it yep but I am curious on the sotereologu101 talking points as he had a picture with Flowers right before and was a guest at Flowers podcast and in my opinion Jason sounded a bit like a mini Flowers.
Of course atonement is limited. If not, no one could or would ever go to hell. How is this even up for debate?
Not at all what is meant, that's not the point of contention.
Rejecting particular redemption leads to a cross that only provided an impersonal potentiality, people in hell covered by the blood of Jesus that they didn't activate/apply, and a Trinity that's in disunity, at odds in their salvific work.
You have a Jesus that POTENTIALLY paid the full ransom price. When Jesus said it is finished, tetelestai, what He really meant was that it is potentially finished. He didn't ACTUALLY take all your sins and pay the full debt you owed. If He had, then your debt would be gone. If Jesus paid the full ransom that was needed to release a captive, and the captive wasn't released, would God be just or unjust? The cross had to only create an impersonal potentiality. In this theology God must have not known who would believe, so He couldn't actually be a personal Substitute. He had to only create an opportunity for a nameless faceless group and hope someone would take advantage.
This is not the what the Bible reveals about the cross. The work of salvation is a work of the Triune God for His glory. Each Person has a role. The Father elects a specific people, not based upon any foreseen merit in them or anything else, solely on the basis of His will (Ephesians 1), to give as a love gift from the Father to the Son, the Son dies for these people by name, providing actual propitiation, and the Holy Spirit regenerates these people in God's appointed time to new life in Christ, persevering them to the end. Definite atonement is simply the recognition that the Son acts in perfect harmony with the Father and the Spirit in bringing about the redemption of God's people. Salvation is the work of the Triune God for His glory. Election, propitiation, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification are all the one work of God, if God elects, then the rest are certain to follow. From God's viewpoint, all of these parts to salvation are just one work because they're certain for His people.
This is the number one reason to believe in a definite atonement : the unity of the Triune God.
Christ died for His sheep by name (John 10:3, 11)
Christ died for those the Father gave Him (John 6:39)
Christ died for His people (Matthew 1:21)
Christ died for His friends (John 15:13)
Christ died for His Church (Acts 20:28)
Christ died for His Bride (Eph. 5:25)
Christ died for those chosen in Him-the elect (Eph. 1:4)
Christ died for the same group He purchased /ransomed. (Rev 5:9)
Christ died for the elect for whom who He makes intercession. (Romans 8:31-34) (Hebrews 7:25)
Jesus is the actual Savior of His people, He is not a potential Savior.
Matthew 1:21
Romans 8:31-34
"What then shall we say to these things? If God is for US, who can be against US? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for US all, how shall He not with Him also freely give US all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s ELECT? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for US."
One of the clearest, most compelling statements of the particular redeeming work of Christ there is.
You have to ask, why would someone want to escape this truth?
Because there's no place for us to shoehorn in our own glory.
There is no one God could not have saved had He chosen to do so.
Ephesians 5:25 was the one that convinced me personally.
Amen and amen. These wonderful truths puts gladness in the hearts of Christians who love the lord and his word .
Amen .. Beautiful. 📖✝️🌷🐑 Well said...We are a Blessed people, with a Glorious God and we know it. The Holy Spirit has bore witness that we are the children of God. 💕 God Bless you...💥
That's quite an argument you make against what a provisionist might believe about provisionism if they were a Calvinist.
If only that was actually what provisionism stood for, you'd be getting somewhere, because you do an admirable job arguing against the argument they aren't making.
If you want to understand what they actually believe, to either refute it or understand it, then let's have that conversation. But if it's more fun to beat up a straw man, then by all means, have at it. Just don't expect provisionists to change their mind when they don't believe what you're refuting in the first place.
@@AndrewJohnH I know exactly what they believe. What I posted is true.
Did James White not realize that Jason Breda IS that guy on RUclips who teaches that the first part of Ephesians is talking about the Apostles? 😂
Jason did a great job! Especially considering it was his first time! 🎉
He might have been referring to kevin thompson.
@@LordBlk I have never heard Kevin Thompson say that. If you have and know which video he does so in please share because I would love to watch it. Thanks!
@@PrudenceMcFrugal yeah, I must be mistaken.
JW said, ephesians 4? I'd have to go back, but. No, I can't find a video.
I was saved in a denomination that was very much anti-reformed, and came to the reformed faith in my 20s. Now almost 60, I view those from my past as brothers with whom I have some soteriological disagreements. But when I hear someone like Breda talk, it makes me wonder if we are part of the same religion. The Bible and his positions seem to be two very different things.
I agree, Calvinism isn't Christianity. In Christianity Jesus died for all. Nobody believed differently until the 800s AD. Pre Augustine NOBODY believes any points of TULIP. History is an albatross for Calvinism not a support.
@@Richard_Rzsillyrabbie64 is a Calvinist!
@Richard_Rz, when do you think Augustin lived? Pre 800? Augustin was alive between the 4 and 5 centuries. Also, Clement taught election was by the will of God. Diognetus taught the inability of man to come to God and yeah I can keep going on.
IKR? Even more importantly, the writers of scripture taught the inability of man to come to God!@_04
@@Jondoe_04 Johndoe, Augustine is the father of your cult. Along with the satan and gnostic influences, Augustine brought the system leeching fromm scriptures. A great deception. Sola de your choice bro!
this was just painful...I have no idea what that guy is talking about (Not James, the other guy)
Excellent job Dr White. 💥 This really was not a debate....only one side understood the Truth of Scripture. God Bless these debates...They stand as a Testimony for The Truth of Jesus Christ and the work of the Triune God of Scripture. Reformed Theology is a biblical outline of the Glorious Truths of Scripture. Dr. James White destroyed the foolishness of these ridiculous beliefs that are rising up against Gods Truth. Praise the Triune God of Scripture. ✝️🌷🐑
Hey my sister
@@ParticularBaptist ....Hey Brother...🌷Always love to see Dr White clean house ....🥰
He cites Muller in favor of the “Calvin against the Calvinists” thesis 😂😂
James was brilliant! Theological, doctrinal, and thoroughly biblical! The other gentleman was woefully unprepared. Thank you James!
wrong. foolish comment
2:17:16
Why on earth to the anti-Calvinists say that God's election is arbitrary??? Where are they getting this from? It is not arbitrary, it is all for His glory. To say otherwise is to fundamentally misrepresent Calvinism. Hard to take these guys seriously.
@Reformed1646 Absolutely agreed. This is why I have been more and more frustrated with guys like Leighton Flowers. Very ready for that particular debate.
@@sevencrickets9258Great help would be simply understand what provisionist try to say. Flower's new review video answers to your frustration...there is a reason.
@@Yaas_ok123 I'll check it out, but I've been disappointed before. Regardless, there is never a reason to misrepresent those you disagree with. Calvinists do not think God is arbitrary in anything. LF says they do. Unless he is repenting in his latest video, then it will hardly address or answer my frustration of misrepresentation.
@@sevencrickets9258 This division comes largely from presuppositions. It really effects how you see the text. If text says " Seek God", many calvinist say "You can't !". What about not to assume anything, just read what the text says...
@@Yaas_ok123 If you want to go off on random tangents that are not related to my original comment, that's up to you. I'm not interested in that here. Tell me why LF and other provisionists blatantly and knowingly misrepresent Calvinism on the original point I made. Or don't. It's just a youtube comment section. It does say a lot that you, a presumed supporter of provisionism, cannot or will not answer to my original comment. Only deflections.
We must protect James white at all costs.
From waking up ?
LOL @@Yaas_ok123
> We must protect James white at all costs.
I literally laughed out loud reading this.
Poor Jason was in over his head. Was that not obvious to you from his 5-part anti-Calvinism series? Did you even listen to it? (I did) Jason had more than a few egregious errors in it, whether or not one cares to be a Calvinist. He was gracious to me when I pointed a number of them out, but other than a "I'll check this out later", he didn't reply. I don't fault him - these things take time.
But to think anyone feels a need to rush to White's defense against someone of Breta's caliber is ... wow.
@@timfoster5043 If you check Flower's debate review, many questions get answer.
@@Yaas_ok123 I've followed Flowers since at least his Romans 9 debate with James White 8 years ago. I'm quite familiar with his strengths and weaknesses. And his weaknesses outnumber his strengths.
Thanks anyways.
Breda is arguing minutia getting hung up on literary distinctions. At the risk of being harsh, Breda is using the same nonsensical arguments that the jehova witnesses use to try and defend their ideas.
Why did they shrink the video image? It's like watching through a peep hole.
So thankful for godly men of God like James White.
Funny how Jason skipped Romans 1 vs 7 as James pointed out. It is so clear that Romans is only supporting Calvinism.
"To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints'
Specific love for those God has called with an effectual call.
Still deceived Dave pontificating his cult memos.
@@truthseeker5698 James closing statement was the best and most important part of this debate, go back, listen and be humble to worship the God of the Bible.
@@truthseeker5698 My quoting scripture and you calling it a cult memo is all I need to see from someone who rejects the God of the Bible.
@@davevandervelde4799 Dave, your lens and application of scripture. Please develop this for your own well-being and basic relating. Sola de your choice.
@@truthseeker5698 God is able to open the eyes of those who He chooses. No man who believes otherwise is submitting to the text of scripture.
And yes, you do have a choice. That is why we are culpable.
You are ineffective at swaying men who God has effectively called.
How many times does Breda promote White's own show called "The Dividing Line"?
You can just see on James White’s face during Jason’s opening statement: “I like this guy. Let’s put on the kid gloves.”
Jason lost the debate the moment he said that the first 8 chapters of Romans is addressed to Jews.
“ can you show me a verse that says Jesus only defeated sin for the elect or only died for the elect?” Yes
Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Lol
Classic example of a calvinist reading into scripture something that CLEARLY isn't there.
@@KevC1111 Classic example of a free will worshiper not understanding scripture
@@aletheia8054 😂🤣
I'm super curious, how exactly is this saying limited atonement? Like you do realize this is an unlimited atonement proof text?
Not a calvinist, but White won.
12:00 why did James misquote romans 8? why did he purposely leave out "for those that LOVE GOD"? Is it to avoid the obvious where the "US" are those who "love God"?
Fun debate although it was one sided
Appreciate both men
Doc white for the win
Wow, Jason failed hard here. Certified amateur
Anybody want to give the Calvinist interpretation of this verse?
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
1 John 2:2 ESV
I just started listening so they may get to it.
"for the sins of the whole world" as opposed to "for our [that of the jews] sins only"
Sure. There is no propitiation for anyone outside of Christ. "The whole world" does not mean that every single person's sins have been atoned for. If that were true then nobody would go to hell. Rather, John is stating that Christ's atonement is sufficient for the whole world meaning that everyone in the world who looks to Christ will have their sins propitiated.
@chrisjohnson9542 but in calvinist doctrine people have no choice (God makes them), so no not everyone can be saved, only the elect that God arbitrarily chose.
So who is the "our" referring to in the verse? @ohnson9542
How would you all explain that the Holy Spirit is able to apply the atonement to the elect within time who were once “dead in their trespasses and sins”? Wouldn’t they have been redeemed since the foundation of the world and would never have needed to place their faith in Christ under James White’s logic. If atonement is applied to the believer within time on the condition of by grace through faith, I see no reason there can’t be an unlimited extent of the atonement and limited application to those who place their faith in Christ.
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will". (Ephesians 1:4-5)
Jason Breda made no opening presentation. Instead of what was supposed to be his presentation he turned into a rebuttal giving him 2 rebuttals periods lol. All in vain since he lost when he gave an interpretation of Romans 8 never ever heard before from the depths of imagination land.
*James White states:* _"Anyone the Son interceded for will be saved._
*My RE:* Christ intercedes only for those who will believe and are believers, not that he guarantees that they will believe or remain faithful.
*John 17:20* (WEB) 20 Not for these _[the original believers in Christ - his disciples]_ only do I pray _[make intercession],_ but for those also *who will believe* in me through their word
*Luke 21:34-36* (WEB) _Teaching and Admonition to the believers in Christ to remain in the faith to be saved eternally_
34 *So be careful,* or your hearts will be loaded down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day will come on you suddenly. 35 For it will come like a snare on all those who dwell on the surface of all the earth. 36 Therefore, *be watchful all the time,* praying that you may be *counted worthy* to escape all these things that will happen, and to *stand before the Son of Man.*
The atonement is for all, but is appropriated to the {{{we}}} and {{{us}}}.
*Question:* Who are the {{{we}}} and {{{us}}}?
*Answer:* those who love God, the Believers *(John 3:14-18).*
*Question:* So who are the *"us"?* Who are redeemed?
*Answer:* The "Believers" are the {{{"us"}}} whom God "elected" to save by the blood of His Son *(John 3:14-18).*
The *"Golden Chain"* or Redemption *(Romans 8:28-30)* are promises and plans of God for *{{{"those who love God."}}}* -- the *"us."* -- Believers
*Romans 8:28* (WEB) 28 We know that all things work together for good for *those who love God*
The ones who are justified from all charges against them are those *who believe* *(Romans 5:1-2).*
*Question:* Who are those God elected to save to the uttermost?
*Answer:* Those who draw near to God through him.
*Hebrews 7:25* (WEB) Therefore he is also able to save to the uttermost *{{{those who draw near to God through him,}}}* seeing that he lives forever to make intercession for them _[those who draw near to God]._
*Forgiveness* of sins and *redemption* is by Christ's atoning work on the cross, but is always *through faith* *(Ephesians 1:13; John 3:14-18),* and *repentance* *(Acts 20:20-21; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Luke 24:44-47; Acts 17:30-31).*
The *“them”* and *“they”* who are granted eternal life are true believers who *listen* to and *follow* Lord Jesus *(Matthew 28:19-20; John 1027-29),* confessing him as their Lord.
*John 10:27-28* (WEB) 27 My sheep hear [listen] my voice, and I know them, and they *follow me.* 28 I give eternal life to *them* _[the sheep who listen to and follow him]._ *They* _[the sheep who listen to and follow him]_ will never perish, and no one will snatch *them* _[the sheep who listen to and follow him]_ out of my hand.
The indwelling Spirit will only give Eternal Life to the Christian who continues in the faith manifested by *sowing to the Spirit* {{{without giving up.}}}
*Galatians 6:7-9* (WEB) _Written as teaching and admonishment to the Believers in Galatia_
7 Do not be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man *sows,* that he will also *reap.* 8 For he who *sows to his own flesh* will from the flesh *reap corruption.*
But he who *sows to the Spirit* will {{{from the Spirit}}} *reap Eternal Life.* 9 Let {{{us}}} not be weary in doing good, for {{{we}}} will *reap* in due season, {{{if we}}} *do not give up.*
The atonement is God's Work to those *"who believe."* *We* _[Believers]_ who were dead in sin, pass from death to life *by faith.*
*John 5:24* (EWEB) Most certainly I tell you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and doesn’t come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
_[Regeneration is by faith]_
Typical eisegesis of ALL Exhaustive Self Determints. As decreed.
@@ManassehJonesdidn't even read all of that 😂 Blessings, brother!
@EnJaponesConRafy His first "My Re" were he clearly is worshipping an imaginary autonomous free will is ALL needed to be read.
Exhaustive Self Determinism and the "lovers of self" prophecied in 2 Tim 3:1-2 is immediately exposed.
🎯
Just read John 1,13 carefully
Brother Jason nailed it!
Praise God!
Nailed what? He avoided all the questions!
Think he meant “Failed it”
@@T-Wyler No! It was “NAILED IT”
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. ....Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. Rom 14:1;19
He said “anyone that can” rather than everyone can. A slip of the tongue.
Jason's performance here was ABSOLUTELY awful. Why would you think to argue about church history and consensus and what not? Make the core of your argument the actual scriptures.
I'm honestly confused as to why he would even agree to a debate if he was this unprepared.
Coming from a position similar to Jason Breda’s, no, it’s not possible Christ’s death would have accomplished nothing because Christ also died for Abraham and David and every faithful believer that came before Jesus’ earthly ministry. His death and resurrection would have accomplished salvation for at least those faithful before that time.
Did Jesus "take away" the sins of everyone without exception or only for believers?
Neither, in the Reformed sense. To take away is to remove. This is about removal of sin from one's personal life, in the sense of "go and sin no more." When you remove lying lips or some other sin you do not transfer it somewhere else, you stop doing it. (No, I'm not intending the extreme of impeccability here.)
"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Yes, Jesus was handed over by God to the evil wills of men and devils as if He had impenitently committed every sin of all time.
@@paulthomson8798 did Jesus "take away" the sins of everyone without exception? Then why is anyone going to hell?
@@paulthomson8798 Jn 1:29 does not say, “Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God who pays for the sin of the world.” That idea began much later. Jewish people had no context to be thinking in terms of penal substitution. They would have thought that Jesus is figuratively the lamb that God has provided, who serves as the means of reconciliation between God and men by leading men to remove sin from their lives.
“Takes away” is the Greek word “airōn,” which means “removing.” A lamb served in the process of removing sin. If you remove the sinful habit of lying from your life, you are not transferring lies from one place to another, it is simply understood that you are stopping the habit of lying. Jesus functions as someone who stops us from our sinful habits by removing them.
The “lamb of God” needs to be understood in a Jewish/Hebrew framework. The lamb functioned as a reconciliation gift to God, not a payment or a substitute, and it was not punished for any sin. It was shared as a meal between friends, where God was welcomed to be present.
In Jewish culture, it was typical to eat together as a sign of being in harmony. Neither the altar nor the sacrifice were substitutes for sin, as sacrifices were to be done after the sin was taken care of. For example, Jesus taught, “Therefore, if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; FIRST be reconciled to your brother, and THEN come and present your offering” Mat. 5:23-24 NASB. The offering was not to be given as a substitute for being reconciled to the brother.
Also Psalm 51:10-19 “Create in me a clean heart, God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me…For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You do not take pleasure in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, God, You will not despise…THEN You will delight in righteous sacrifices, in burnt offering and whole burnt offering; THEN bulls will be offered on Your altar” NASB. Cleansing the heart comes first. Sacrifices were not a substitution for first removing the sin from the heart and life of the sinner.
The sacrifice was related to the covenant, indicating a relationship. It was not a payment. ““Gather to me my faithful ones, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice!” Ps. 50:5
“that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:19) Christ's death applied to the world, in particular, the "ungodly" who are enemies of God (Rom. 5:6-8).
Complaining about the debate title after the debate has started is ridiculous. Those are issues that should have been addressed before agreeing to the debate. Slipping in this complaint gives him license to argue vaguely and try to shift the debate from himself to Calvinist vs Calvinist, very dishonest, shame on him. He should have learned White’s position and debated that, not mention that “there are six positions on one verse” six men are not there debate the one before you.
Did this guy just throw out the “whosoever”? 😂 oh my!
Amen
My understanding is that James White backed out of the original debate because the guy he had agreed to debate wanted to narrow the topic of the debate. Jason was just the guy that was inexperienced enough that he didn't push back enough to make James White uncomfortable.
John 3:16 in context is directed to believers. Notice who Jesus was talking to, Nicodemus, a Jewish teacher. The thought was that Jesus/the Messiah came only for the Jews. The snake on the pole was for Jews.
Then it says God sent Jesus, the Savior on a pole /tree, not ONLY for Jews, but also for the whole world (Gentiles). Those who look at the snake on the pole don't perish.... Believers! Out of those groups, He said that He was sent by the Father for (pas ho pisteuwn) everyone believing. Does everyone believe? Have you ever noticed that there's particularity in John 3:16?
For God so loved (This is how God loved) the "world" (not only Jews, but Gentiles too, world without distinction, not without exception) (ultimately BELIEVERS/ THE ELECT from every tribe and language and people and nation, purchased by Jesus' blood, Revelation 5:9.)
that He gave His only Son, (He gave His Son as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of His people, Titus 2:14.) that whoever believes (goes on believing) (every believing one, Pas Ho Pisteuwn = “Everyone Believing,”) in Him
shall not perish but have eternal life (go on having eternal life) (Will be saved from the wrath of God.)
Everyone Believing...Who believes?
Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and all those who had been APPOINTED (DESIGNATED, ORDAINED) to eternal life believed.
Amen
The snake on the pole was for anyone who believed it would work. It just so happened that there were only Jews around. If a believing Egyptian out blood on his door out of obedience to the Jewish God he and his household would have been saved also.
CSB and NRSV offer the better translations of John 3:16 based off the original Greek. However, it makes no big difference. World means all humanity. The latter part of the verse is referring to the elect. Calvin would agree with me on this.
I suggest you listen to Dr. Sinclair Ferguson's view of this verse.
Note how you use the serpent on the pole but you dont realize it actually disproves yours. Christ used that as an exact example and youw ill note God DID NOT make certain Israelites look at the serpent and keep others from looking at it. The same goes for the Passover and of course the Wedding Feast cements this fact.
*FORGIVEN DOES NOT MEAN NOT GUILTY*
In the following verses GOD explains how atonement works:
Num 14 :18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, 👉 *forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty,* 👈 visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Exo 34 :7. Keeping mercy for thousands, 👉 *forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty;* 👈 visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
JESUS died as the atonement for all; JESUS was resurrected for the justification of those who believe.
Rom 4: 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was *raised again for our justification.*
Rom 3 :26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the *justifier of him which believeth* in Jesus.
an hour and 20 minutes in and the debate was over...kinda sad
Because the Arminian guy couldn’t answer the questions!
In James White's closing argument he said that the atonement was not a mere provision it was an accomplishment. That doesn't really appear to be consistent with scripture. The bronze serpent was a provision and so was the Passover lamb with the blood on the door post. God did not do those things for the elect. He provided a provision in the faithful obeyed.
Wow- this wasn’t even close. Easy “W” for Dr. White. As a non-Calvinist I am sincerely disappointed in this debate. From what I understand is James challenged Jason, what was the purpose? That he could smoke a novice. This brother is not an adequate debater nor skilled in this subject. How can he not exegete a related passage?!
I can think of 20 people who are both better debaters and more skilled to handle this subject-- Craig, Flowers, Allen, Brown, Keener, etc. This is a step backward from the debates with Dr. Michael Brown. I truly love Dr. White and crew, but they could have done better. And I pray White doesn’t think this is how it will go with Flowers- he is far more skilled now since their last meetup and greater in terms of Bible knowledge. Y’all got the “W” on this- no doubt, but much better defenders are coming up. Grace and peace to all, semper reformanda!
Flower's new review video will answer clearly your questions. They are in different frameworks, that is why there is disconnection. Jason is trying to point that out, but White just turns to mocking.
@@Yaas_ok123Right on. But you think White mocked him in this debate? I felt he did great. I was even thrown off by Jason’s overall point in Romans. And the scholars he mentioned that affirm it are obscure.
Likewise, he should be self aware to how much work it takes to even explain his view in Romans and spend the majority of his time going over the other 100 verses that teach unlimited atonement. Not to mention be ready to respond like Brown did to the “lost Amaleikite” (which I’m surprised White didn’t mention) or at least to the intercession argument. He wasn’t even willing to exegete a passage in Hebrews, one of White’s top three places to go in these kinds of debates.
I look forward to Flower’s review.
@@whatdoyoubelieve194 Flowers gives good answers. White assumes so hard TULIP that it kills what text says. When it says, "Repent", White: "You can't repent !"
JW wasn’t aware of who he would be debating in this until little before the debate. His dividing line show assumed he’d be debating flowers but flowers sat in the audience
@@whatdoyoubelieve194 Flower's review is posted and answers your questions, i think. White was rude and lift humself above first timer Jason. He said, that had never heard position Jason took, even though it is pretty much traditional babtist stuff without TULIP garbage. Flower's STULIP, (S= sovereignty added) comment revials the problem. When White is mesmerized by that STULIP, he can't take what text clearly says.
Cross examination consisted of an evisceration by White. No one should imagine for a single moment that he did not emerge from the debate as the clear winner because Breda did not seem to know how to develop answers, counterarguments, or meaningful questions by responding to the actual content of the debate.
Regardless of your position on the extent of the Atonement, you must concede that the Yea side won the debate itself.
The argument that Romans' first several chapters are directed to a Jewish audience is so irrationally outlandish, so horrifying, so much the product of pure, desperate eisegesis that it is incredibly sad that Breda should be teaching anyone if this kind of warped methodology is being employed.
It’s sad some people are still propagating the heresy of limited atonement.
Colossians 2:13-14
Did Jesus atone for the sin of unbelief? If so, there’s only two conclusions here. Universalism or atonement only for the elect. Hope this helps. 🫶🏻
@@ashleytanner2290 Yes he did, but the atonement is only applied when you believe. That’s why universalism is also wrong.
It’s a common mistake to confuse the extent of the atonement with the application of the atonement .
Hope that helped 👍🏾
@@lauromartinez8948 faith is the gift granted by God, so what I’ve said still applies. Phil 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, Romans 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. And, Ephesians 2:8-9 and many other verses that won’t all fit in this character amount comment lol ☺️
One of my FAVORITES 😭: Matthew 16:15-18 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
@@ashleytanner2290 Anyone can believe and have faith.
That’s very point Paul is making in Romans 10
“The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Anyone and everyone can believe in the true God. For his grace has been offered to ALL
For the grace of God has appeared, that OFFERS SALVATION TO ALL PEOPLE
Titus 2:11
Really can’t get any clearer 😅
That cross examination was about as one sided as I’ve ever seen in a debate. Breda got torched
Jason argues his case in the last two minutes of his closing statement!!! What the!!?!? Where was this earlier
James. While no debater . He is good for teaching calvinsm to the Yong reformed
If this verse wasn't in Scripture, I could maybe see someone making an excuse for limited atonement. But as death came upon *_ALL MEN_* through the First Adam's disobedience, so forgiveness, and eternal life, is available to *_ALL MEN_* through the Last Adam’s perfect obedience. If you believe that, then God is ESPECIALLY your Savior. If you don't, He's still your Savior, as you were offered the free gift.
1 Timothy 4:10
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the *_Savior of ALL MEN,_* especially of believers.
These words appear in the entire KJV:
Elect 27 times
Believe 280 times
All men - “Pas” : some of all types
Especially - “Malista”: specially, particularly.
So death came to some of all types? You see the problem here?
Pas does mean all, but it’s meant differently depending on the context.
The context is literally identical. Do you see the problem?
Wonder why the debater framed the debate on the REFORMED view of atonement? I didn't realize Jesus lived so anachronistically that we all had to wait until 16th century formulations of the atonement before we could say anything about the 1st century death of Christ.
It's because that is the accepted and common nomenclature.
Because the Reformed view of the atonement is the Biblical one. It wasn't invented in the 16th century, it just happened to have been formulated into a written systematic then. It was around from the beginning. It's found in scripture and as Gill & Toplady demonstrated in their works, we have every one of the so-called "5 points" of Reformed soteriology present in the early church in epistles, sermons and letters from early church figures. They just didn't systematize it at that time. We don't see any complete systematic theologies before the Reformation. Augustine taught doctrine, but he didn't formulate everything into a coherent system. Neither did Aquinas.
It's not some scandal that these things were formulated into systematic before the 16th century. That's just when it became practical to do such things. The early church had these truths, they were just in a more abstract form.
Because that’s literally what the debate is about? Lol.
@@Michael_Chandler_KeatonPSA or the “reformed view” was not even established until the 15-16th century. The earliest view of substitution of atonement was not around until 1000ad. So no penal substitution is straight hog wash. You can exegete until your blue in the face and narrow down scripture until your blue in the face but for one you can exegete words and come up with multiple meanings especially to fit your theology but the aspect of context of the entire biblical story should be consider not only a total of 30 verses all in scripture to fit one’s theological beliefs.
@@IHIuddy Can you please walk me through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy without coming to understand PSA?
Penal
There is a penalty for breaking the Law of God
Substitutionary
Just like the sacrificial animals were substitutes for the worshippers (who symbolically transferred theirs sins to the animals, most notably to the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement), Jesus was our substitute on the Cross, bearing the wrath of God (the penalty mentioned above) for our sins
Atonement
Jesus atones for our sins in that He satisfies the righteous wrath of God rightly due to us as sinners for our sins
PSA might not have been formulated into a form exactly like we know it today until the Reformation, but you can't seriously say that it was created then. For instance, just go look at the Epistle of Mathetes to Diogneteus (c. 150 AD, maybe earlier) for a clear example of how this was expressed very early on in Church History.
White: "..the term Jews doesnt appear, right?" Jason:" ya that's why it's ambiguous"... A bit of a faceplant by Jason. Im still waiting for an arminian who can do some accurate exegesis.