Nate, I recently discovered your channel and it has quickly become a favorite of mine. I appreciate the wisdom you share and have learned a lot. Thanks for taking the time to review this debate. May God bless you.
@@Parture Could you explain what you mean by "OSAS Arminian"? Yes, Provisionism does teach OSAS. My understanding is that "Arminianism," as defined by modern Arminianism, does not believe in OSAS at all.
@@steventhompson8130 The 5 points of OSAS Arminian: free-will, irresistible grace, conditional election, unlimited atonement, preservation of the saints. Jacob Arminius is quoted as saying never did he ever teach a person could lose salvation once saved. OSAS is not the same kind of OSAS as in Calvinism. OSAS in Calvinism is irresistibly imposed; whereas OSAS in Provisionism/OSAS Arminian, is preservation to be kept because that is the gift we receive once saved.
@@Parture "The *five points* of the *Remonstrance* asserted that: *(1)* election (and condemnation on the Day of Judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith (or nonfaith) of each person; *(2)* the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all humans, was efficacious only for the person of faith; *(3)* unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will; *(4)* grace is *not* irresistible; and *(5)* believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace." *_[Britannica: Arminianism]_*
@@steventhompson8130 The 5 points of remonstrance are 1) free will, 2) resistible grace, 3) conditional election, 4) unlimited atonement, (5) preservation of the saints. Very straightforward.
@@Tigerex966 If you go back and watch Alex talk to James white before this you can see that he predicted what Flowers would do. He wasn't suprised or excited in any way about that.
@@daveonezero6258 actually he was even I was and all those viewing even polls on Calvinist channels say he won. White response video is full of conspiracy theories etc showing he was caught way off guard. .don't believe me go to james white channel and see White's d I damage control in this own words for yourself
@@Joel-kw9tjYou're right, he doesn't think that. it's silly to think that just because someone's theology is different means that they worship a different God. Of course, I'm referring to calvinists and provisionism. I wouldn't go to the extreme of some other religion. The 2 theologies are very similar honestly, except for a few key points.
I have a friend who went to bible study with me when we were teens. We were all taught the same thing, but my friend didn't learn the same things that I did because he must not have been paying attention. I guess he chose not to listen. He doesn't want to hear what I have to say today. I could never debate.
That is a category error. Don’t put God into human categories. “They shall all be taught of God” and the next sentence are describing the same thing in this context. Therefore, being taught is describing the drawing.
@@sicmetal And the drawing leads to... A response. To accept what is being taught, to believe what is being taught, to live your life by what is being taught... Or not... God offers the gift of salvation to the world he created, that gift was paid for, and given at great cost; but it can still be rejected... We may, as those who have received the gift, look at the many who reject the gift and say, "How is that possible, don't you know how great this gift is!" But if it is rejected, that is on the person who didn't receive it, not on the person who gave it... To God be all the glory, forever and ever, amen. Blessings be upon you, D
@@sicmetal This is God trying to teach Jerusalem, but they would not have any of it. Matthew 23:37 King James Version 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
It's not about arguing about the definitions of taught and learn; it's about what the context of John 6:45 says. And based on the context of John 6:37-45 and Jeremiah 31:34 and Isaiah 54:13 (which is alluded to in John 6:45), it shows that those who are taught will listen and learn. Flowers has to insert a free will choice to accept or reject the teaching between being taught by God and them listening and learning. It is not in the text and only can be inferred by going outside to other texts that have a different context. We would never do this with a regular book. You wouldn't take two paragraphs on page 56 in a 400 page book, take the third sentence in the first paragraph then start quoting sentences from a paragraph on page 245, page 299, and 313 with differing contexts to get the context of that third sentence. Then skip to the sixth sentence in the first paragraph and do the same thing with that sentence to get that context. This would be illogical and do damage to the context of the two paragraphs on page 56. If you don't do it with regular writing, you don't do it with the God-breathed, sufficient Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
@@2timothy23 we don’t think this is a proper exegete of the text tho. What Dr Flowers did establish in his opener that is that scripture taken in isolation would produce wrong interpretation I hoped Dr Flowers would have included John 6:14-15 ESV That his teachings is intentional so the cross would be done. or maybe included John 5:37-47 where Jesus established using the same concept in John6 where he indicates that if they believe the Prophet Moses they would believe him. John 6 is about who Jesus is intention to go to the cross or John6:28-29 where Jesus says that the work of the father or maybe the author’s intention in John 20:30-31 all in the same book. You could say that those who believed Moses are the elect but it is just not evident in scripture “do not believe” is just not the same as “can not believe”. ”When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.“ John 6:14-15 ESV ”Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.“ John 20:30-31 ESV ”yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.“ John 5:40 ESV ”Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”“ John 6:28-29 ESV
@@merrickc1876 Reading John 6:37-45 is not taking verses in isolation; in fact you see the whole context in John 6:26-6:66. I've stated this before; I have no problem with reading a text of scripture, showing the context, and then going to supporting verses that validate that context. What Flowers did was begin outside of John 6:44 to establish a context and then say that was the context in John 6:37-44. Where Dr. White read through the text of John 6:37-45 (even explaining verse 45 ahead of time), Dr. Flowers, in the first seven or eight minutes did this: He set up a comparison between Calvinism and Provisionists. He mentioned the words Calvinism or Calvinist nearly a dozen times. He started attacking what he thought White's presupposition was based on his Calvinism. And the first verse he began with was John 6:32. Then he jumped to John 3:16, then John 5:43, then John 1:12, then Ezekiel 18:32, then John 6:36, then John 1:11, then Acts 28, then Romans 10:21, and then Matthew 23:37 and Isaiah 30:15. This was nearly eight minutes where he wanted to establish the difference between Calvinism and Provisionism to attack what Flowers said was the Calvinist, Augustinian presupposition. He went all over scripture to tell us the context of John 6:44 and jumped around John 6:37-45 using this method. The debate was not the presupposition of Calvinism or James White or the difference between Calvinism or Provisionism, but does John 6:44 teach unconditional election based on the context of the verses. If you're telling me, as a Christian, that I can't read ten verses in row to get the context and I need to jump all over the Bible to get the context, then by this method I can literally make any verse say what I want it to say. And churches with bad doctrines do this. This is the same method people use to tell folks in the pews that God wants them to prosper, that God wants them rich, that God always wants them healed, that churches can have women pastors, that God doesn't know the future, etc. They take verses in isolation and go to other verses to tell you what those isolated verses mean out of their context. Again, as I said in my original statement, you wouldn't do this with any other book, so we shouldn't do it with God-breathed scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We take the Bible as a whole, but there is still a context to every book and chapter of that book. Because you don't like a doctrine, you can't do these type of interpretations to try to eliminate what verses plainly say. John 6:44 plainly says what it says, and the context of John 6:37-45 actually validates it, particularly if you check the five things Jesus repeats in those verses that demonstrate coming to Christ has everything to do with God. There is no free choice between the first and second part of John 6:45, and to be honest Dr. Flowers has to cram that thought into the text by inferring it because nowhere in the text is it supported. So I strongly disagree, Dr. Flowers way of exegeting these texts does damage to the text, and it is his disdain for the whole system of Calvinism that drives this method. And that was Dr. Flowers' presupposition, which was exposed when he answered angrily in cross examination.
@@2timothy23 that’s just it 10 verses in a row where the thought John is building up on may not be fully established yet is just taking 10 verses outside of its intended context. we need to take account the whole chapter and if possible the whole book which is hard to do in a debate setting. If you actually Check the verses mention by Dr Flowers in its context you’ll see that it at least touches or builds up the case he is presenting about election. This also addresses the fact that what he is defending is not a view that’s outside scripture. example of this is the Ezekiel passage that does help to build up his case ”“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”“ Ezekiel 18:30-32 ESV he started at John6:32 if you read until v36 does establish a wide view of salvation because of "whoever believes" ”Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.“ John 6:35-36 ESV then if we then proceed to v37-39 it shows a limited view but then we go to v39-40 it shows a wide view again "that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life" and so on ”All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.“ John 6:37-38 ESV ”And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”“ John 6:39-40 ESV ”No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me- not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.“ John 6:44-46 ESV ”Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.“ John 6:47-49 ESV This is why i think the passages are taken out of context cause if we take only few verses in isolation without considering the culture, state of the crowd and what was actually being addressed at the time we will arrive at the wrong conclusion. this is why i said in my comment it would atleast better if John 6:14-15 was included or at most John 5:19 onwards cause it helps alot in the context being discussed. but its too bulky for a debate setting i believe. I do thing the things raised are worth atleast considering. I was shocked brother at the quick reply it is appreciated. 😁 Edit: Another verse where I think touches on the order of regeneration and faith is John7:37-39 as it shows atleast before the Cross those who believe does not have the spirit yet. But I dont think this is related in the debate tho, i just found it interesting while reading through the Gospel. On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:37-39 ESV
QUESTION: “isn’t the definition of being taught learning?” ANSWER: NO! 16:18 Learning: “knowledge ACQUIRED through experience, study, or being taught.” Acquire: “buy or obtain (an asset or object) for oneself. OR learn or develop (a skill, habit, or quality). Hearing: “the faculty of perceiving sounds” Hearing is passive, Learning is active, you must “Acquire” the information. Everyone who has heard AND learned. Flower’s whole argument hinges on the “AND”. You can HEAR and not LEARN so… THE EVERYONE only applies to those to chose to Learn when they Heard.
And that is the reason White kept asking Flowers to explain it. Flowers contention is that hearing and learning is conditioned on the free will choice of the person being taught. That thought is not in John 6:45, Flowers has to infer it by going outside of the text to put it there. It was his away around the inability in John 6:44 where it says "no one can come..." Flowers knew the condition to them coming was "unless the Father" draws them. Because of that, he had to introduce man's choice in the Father drawing them. The person doesn't want to hear and learn, therefore they won't be drawn by the Father. White was correct to ask questions about that view and have Flowers answer it based on the grammar. Granted, Flowers may not know Greek, but if you introduce an argument to support your view, you need to answer based on the context and grammar of the verses, not give answers talking about presuppositions or your views against Calvinism.
Taught by God is not the same as being taught by a man. There is no man who is a perfect teacher. A perfect teacher teaches in such a way that those hearing WILL listen and learn. When a perfect teacher teaches, those they are teaching DO learn. You're assuming the fallible teaching of man and overlaying it upon the infallible works of God. God is not fallible in any work he does. If he is the one teaching, then either he is fallible and man can fail to learn because he isn't a perfect teacher, OR he IS a perfect teacher and does not choose to teach every single individual.
@@MCNinjaDJthe Bible says all Israel was taught by God. Did all come to Jesus? Your premise is if God teaches people always learn what he teaches but we see in the Bible that not all of Israel is saved so…..
As a teacher I have taught many students. I can say I taught all of my students? Yes. Did some of those students fail the exam. Yes. Why? Because I didn´t teach them or because they didn´t listen and learn?
"...those who listen AND LEARN..." By the very grammar of the verse, it implies that there is a possible category of people who listen but don't learn and therefore don't qualify.
@LawlessNate the grammar of the verse is to define what "taught by God" means, and is more clear in the Greek (where "the hearing ones of God and learning" is effectively a clause functioning as a noun). In other words, everyone taught by God listens and learns. One cannot be taught by God without listening and learning. But the grammar is not alone, the semantic positioning within the context, and the references to the OT, also should inform one's interpretation. Comparison with how a mortal learns from another mortal is to miss the fact that God is the one teaching here, and His people will all be taught by Him unto eternal life, not by Scribes, Pharisees, or PhDs.
@@Charlene-y9iNate gets it just fine, but most people are struggling in their flesh with this and missing the fact that it is God who is the teacher, the one who gives us new hearts and writes His laws on them. That is what it means to be a listening one and learning one of God.
16:10 what flowers is arguing is through the law and the prophets. Every Israelite has heard of God. Those who have learned and trusted God are given to the son. When Jesus said no one can come to me, unless the father draws them, he is referring to Moses in the prophets, God sent his messengers to Israel. He started the conversation. Jesus quotes the prophet, and then says all those who hear and learn follow me. Jesus, as a and implying, there’s not enough for you to hear Moses in the profits you must believe Moses and the prophets. This lined up perfectly, with all other major doctrines of the faith.
'King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? *I know that you do believe.”* Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” (Acts 26:27-28) Agrippa believed the prophets and yet did not come to Christ.
I believe because the topic was does John 6 teach unconditional election. That particular question was not related to John 6 specifically (I don't think, although even though I've listened to the debate twice now I can't remember everything) 😂
If I have a group of people, knowing that some of them will believe me, and some won’t, and I tell them, “every one of you that here, and learn, will believe in me” that does not mean everybody in the room. That means only the ones that here AND learn
I agree. But I think White appealed to some Greek language understanding to say there is no difference. Wish he would have talked about that more and how he got to that conclusion
I don't think you need to know the Greek to make an argument for unconditional election in this verse if we look at what Jesus is saying by quoting Jeremiah. There are no people in Jeremiah 31:34 who are taught but don't listen, they are all one group within God's covenant people, from the least to the greatest. Flowers makes an assertion that there is a difference between those who are taught and those who listen, but he couldn't demonstrate that from the text, he just makes the claim that this teaching that God does is analogous to a student being taught but having the ability to not listen. I think he does this because he doesn't grasp the supernatural activity of God involved in them being taught. Notice the verse which comes before which says, "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." This is a supernatural act of God that results in his people being taught.
@@hookoffthejab1 I don't understand the hostility to what seems to me to be clear Biblical teaching. I take great comfort in knowing that my Faith is supernatural in origin. I know if it were up to me to somehow stir up faith within me, I'd screw it up. I know that what sanctification I can see in the many years I've been a Christian doesn't come from inside me, but by the work of the Spirit of God within me. I claim credit only for the sin, not the salvation, nor the sanctification.
And God the Father is not a limited human teacher. The question is whether this teaching is effectual: everyone drawn will be raised up on the last day. Why? Because the scripture says they will all be taught by God.
No “being taught” is not learning. He mentions this a thousand times. You can be taught and not learn, it happens all the time. We are being taught any time we hear the gospel. Whether or not we learn is dependent on the individual.
No, only the children of Jerusalem (CSB) or the Afflicted One (Other Versions) mentioned in Isaiah 54, are taught by God. Therefore, only those who have already been given to the Son are taught by God.
@Comictime2011 Incorrect. When someone is being taught it is their responsibility to learn and apply what they have learned to demonstrate that they retained the teaching and understand it. Calvinism is false, almost a cult, and borderline heretical. There is no getting around that.
@@michaellong5672First of all, nothing Jesus does is a "Waste of time" all he does has a purpose, even talking to non believers. Here's my take on it since you asked. In the context of John 6 we see Jews who withness the miracle of feeding the 5,000 who followed him across a lake to see him. Jesus reveals that, in thier hearts they're looking for physical food from Jesus, so he rebukes them and tells them what true spiritual food is. He goes on and on about him being the bread of life, he gives eternal life and those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have that eternal life. The false believes grumble about this teaching, so Jesus, knowing the hearts of men, explain to them why they do not believe in him, and what happens when people do believe in him. He sums it up here after he finished explaining that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life: John 6:60-65 CSB [60] Therefore, when many of his disciples heard this, they said, “This teaching is hard. Who can accept it?” [61] Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, asked them, “Does this offend you? [62] Then what if you were to observe the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? [63] The Spirit is the one who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. [64] But there are some among you who don’t believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning those who did not believe and the one who would betray him.) [65] He said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father.” bible.com/bible/1713/jhn.6.60-65.CSB As to why he would talk to unbelievers, i believe that in God's eternal providence a lot of what is done in Jesus's ministry is for us in scripture to have a record of his teaching, to reveal the Father's will and the relationship between the divine persons. He's not "teaching" the unbelievers 'cause they barely hear his words to begin with if they hear him at all. An arguement could be made that he's teaching the disciples, because, as Simon shows, he didn't leave, he wasn't among the non-believers, and got the message Jesus was trying to communicate. And he was chosen, yes by Jesus, but in eternity past, as I believe, he was chosen by Yahweh to be a part not just of the body of Christ, but of Christ's earthly ministry, along with the rest of the disciples. This is all just speculation of course. I certainly don't claim to know completely why Jesus does anything during his ministry other than what he has revealed clearly in scripture. Make of this answer what you will.
No. “Being taught” is not equivalent to “learning”. One only actually learns if one has the intention, and desire to learn. Otherwise the teaching is just going in one ear and out the other. When an alcoholic goes to rehab, and they are taught how to keep sober, then they fall back into drinking… they were taught, but they did not learn.
Listening to and learning from the Father, in the context of John 6:45, is the definition of "Taught". If one does not listen to and learn from the Father, they have not been taught by the Father, because they have not met the requirements of the definition of "Taught" that was provided by Jesus.
@@Comictime2011 Totally disagree with that understanding of the term. If you had someone do the carpentry on a house you wanted built. and they did a terrible job, you might ask that person "Who taught you carpentry anyway?"... But just because the person may have had a carpentry teacher, doesn't necessarily mean they paid attention, and actually learned from said teacher. The idea that someone was "taught by" a teacher, doesn't necessitate that they actually "learned". Just like many kids have really good parents that teach them all kinds of good lessons, but then grow up to make bad decisions in opposition to those lessons... those kids were still "taught by" their parents, but that doesn't mean they "learned" from their parents. Two different things.
@@ShepherdMinistry Why does it depend on who the teacher is? The teacher could be the best teacher in the world, or the worst, that wouldn't change what is incumbent on the student to do.
@@brando3342 Because God is doing the teaching and God is the ultimate teacher. God is not limited by the physical realm as man is, God teaches by humbling, softening, and renewing our minds.
I was disappointed by the presentations in this debate, and I am even more saddened by the responses I have seen to this debate. Let me give just two problems I saw with this debate, and to be fair, let me make one on each side: 1) Dr. White’s opening statement was fairly weaker than what I’ve seen him capable of giving. I believe Flowers correctly criticized White for not stating clearly a definition of Unconditional Election. Defining terms is debate 101. 2) Speaking of debate 101, one of the things you absolutely do NOT do in debate is introduce new arguments in closing. And yet, that’s exactly what Flowers did. He added an argument in closing about Greek verbs being active vs. passive. That’s really infuriating because that would have been a great argument for White to clash with. And instead, it’s the final word that goes completely uncontested. That’s extremely inappropriate. Thank you, Nate, for sharing this video. I hope many people are blessed by this.
Flowers was actually smart for that😂😂 You don’t use the Greek language as an argument when James White can respond, because he will tear it apart. I feel like few people understand koine Greek like James white
The reason why flowers brought up the coin Greek is because James White brought it up first. You probably don't remember that so I suggest you go back and look at the debate. James White argued that the verbs being used to describe listening and learning are passive. So flowers brought it up later on in the debate in his closing remarks to address the flaw in Dr flowers point. Just go to the RUclips channel "what your pastor doesn't tell you". The person on that channel Joel K, I forgot his last name, is a linguist professor and critiqued Dr White's argument on the Greek and said that this is not how the Greek works throughout the New testament. So if you think flowers introduced to new argument, you're mistaken. Dr White presented the argument in the cross examination.
@@josephthomasmusic I think you misunderstood my point. I don’t believe that Flowers was introducing a new concept in the debate, and I’m aware that White brought up the Greek throughout the debate. The problem is that Flowers made a new argument in closing. That is not proper debate form, and for good reason. Making new points in closing means that there’s no ability for White to challenge the point, which means no opportunity for clash, which is the entire point of debate. In formal debate, Flowers would lose points for that. Again, I’m aware that there are Greek scholars who disagree with White’s presentation. Not my point; my problem is that Flowers should have brought that up in either his opening or rebuttal. That would’ve allowed for a more productive debate; instead, most of the discussion on White’s knowledge of Greek has been in post-debate discussion. If White’s knowledge was really so far off, then challenge him in the debate and let him defend against the scrutiny of his fellow Greek scholars.
White undermined himself ala the Greek. It’s exposed him. He is either not all that much of an expert in Greek or a straight up liar. The dialogues that have followed since have been far stronger.
Totally wrong on the second part. When someone speaks greek in a mostly English audience debate claiming something means something in greek that greek scholars still debate, you can and should challenge it. .because it is not established, it's just quoted as a fact, which is up for debate, begging the question, not to do so, would have been the wrong thing to do. You never ever let their claim stand, which white counts on, leighton knew James would try to use his knowledge of greek as an I got you now moment, as he often does. Leighton researched and studied up on this passage quoting greek linguists way more accomplished than james white, some reformed, that disagree with James whites greek translation of the passages. That is totally a fair thing to do as whit e has debated Some of them on this very thing. This took away what white thought would be his slam dunk. So now james white is not contending with Leightons relative to whites lower knowledge of greek, he is also contending with those more knowledgeable then him on the subject of greek language translation He had to be extremely annoyed and deflated after that.
I’m surprised a former teacher would conflate teaching with learning. They are obviously two different things and everybody who’s not a Calvinist engaged in a theological debate knows this.
Yea, when I heard the debate teacher conflat that I was like this guy is the most biased and unfair teacher ever. I know you like james, but as a teacher you know much much better that you can teach, and Some students will refuse to learn. All students which we once were and teachers which we all are to some extent know this clear obvious principal. That was actually shocking to me and the debate teacher lost what little integrity and credibility He had left imho and now is sits at 0. I 🙏 pray he can become less biased and impartial in future debate reviews,as I know he really likes james white, so I give him some grace and expect him leaning that way, but come on now, that's getting close to worshipping james white.
@@mjreyes713 you are begging the question, by assuming the very thing up for debate is true, without establishing it, you just state it and think every one will accept it. Like James White does. No, that's the question up for debate, you must establish that is the context, not just state it. according to just as many if not more scholars and regular folks. That is not the context, that's why they debate it, and James has the burden of proof to prove it is, he tried, but failed. This has been debated before and will be again, the burden of proof has yet to be met and cannot be met by simply stating it is so, based on tulip presumptions. Not all who are taught, learn except and only if you start with tulip as your presumption. Which James White admits to doing. So he is harming his own case Does not mean he is wrong, he just has not established john 6.44 or "any verse" in the bible for that matter. teaches unconditional election for salvation of adults and infants, and by definition the reverse, unconditional damnation of adults and infants. Even some reform teachers disagree with James White here on his interpretation of the greek, the definitions, context, etc. Again that does not mean he is wrong, it means its not established and can equally if not more than likely be wrong.
He has a react to that on the channel already. That was a tough one for me because Nye comes across so arrogant and condescending, but Ham is not a good debater at all!
That's Flowers' point, but it's not the point of Jesus' words in the passage. In the context of the passage the ones being drawn are the ones being raised up on the last day. Ergo all being taught or drawn listen.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 have you actually read Isaiah 54 (I.e., Isaiah 54:13 in context)? If you have, you know the passage is about the restoration of GOD’s people at the end of times. If you have, you know that verse 14 says “in righteousness shalt thou be established”. My point is, the context of the passage is clear. The children in 54:13 do all learn. It’s a restoration passage.
@@TheCynicogue That could be after the first resurrection, during the millennium. Let's say it's talking about today. "All your children will be taught...." Do all children of believers stay in the faith? Unfortunately not!
to play out the logical implications of White’s interpretation of the text so as to demonstrate falsity of the interpretation is fully within Flowers’ right. It is not way off in left field but right on topic.
No its not. Leighton rejects original sin, he is truly a herectic. The only reason any believer would leave open the possibilty of infant damnation is because the scripture teach we are fallen. So you provisionist again use unjust scales because if you say babies are blameless then you have to attribute moral copabailty to God for them dieing in the first place
Which is why leighton planned it out to bring this up whem he knew james didnt have time to explain this. And yes did plan it. Theyve been gaslighting their people over ID for the past month
The debate is on the meaning of the passage of John 6:44. To debate you need to go through the exegetical methods used and argue why the opponents method is weaker or even bad. To say “Well your interpretation doesn’t make sense because logic” doesn’t even work. After all, many look at Gods condemnation of homosexuality and say it logically doesn’t make sense as well. I’m not even sure Flowers does a better job than those people who argue that way. There’s plenty in scripture that says God is beyond us and our thoughts. There are things in scripture beyond our understanding, such like Daniel’s visions of the future. Some stuff we can comprehend and get, but many of the eschatological stuff is beyond us. Heck, even in Flowers position, if it is anything like my own, is a mystery in of itself how free will and Gods sovereignty interact. The Trinity is a concept many argue doesn’t make any sense. That is a doctrine beyond our comprehension. So what stops the Calvinist from saying the same thing? You can’t argue about the overall logic of the Calvinist position philosophically. It doesn’t work. If we are going to argue about what scripture says, we need to argue exegetically. So it isn’t right on topic. If you want to lose the debate and not focus on the interpretation methods themselves than I guess it’s on topic. Btw, I am not a Calvinist. I affirm free will. I firmly believe proper exegesis is the issue here. If you are arguing any other way, you are arguing from a weaker standpoint as scripture is primary over philosophy or any line of thought we as fallen humans can have. If scripture says something I don’t understand or comprehend, maybe something that seems not to make any logical sense, I’m gonna still trust God based on the fact I know His resurrection is true.
@@gospelfreak5828 try again when you get my quote correct. your quote did not match what i said, my man. i never said, “your interpretation doesn’t make sense because logic,” nor is that what i actually think.
While I agree that Dr. Flowers' questions were not as effective as one would hope in terms of this debate, I think it's important to mention that Dr. White barely provided any material regarding unconditional election in his opening statement. This critique video only covered the cross-examination, but if you watch the full debate Dr. White spent a lot of time on "fluff" material, simply reading the text surrounding 6:44 and restating it with an occasional nod to his own deterministic lens without much exegetical commentary to back those nods up. The only two affirmative arguments I heard him make were that "listening and learning are passive actions" (wow, I must have been learning the hard way all these years!) and that "no one has the ability to come to me unless God the father does something; he expends divine power that teaches, divine power that causes to hear, that draws people to Jesus Christ". He didn't elaborate on or qualify those statements, he just read the text and assumed that interpretation. Dr. Flowers mentioned in his opening statement that he agreed with 95% of what Dr. White stated, which I'm sure was why Dr. Flowers ended up bringing in other material such as Dr. White's books and previous statements that shape the presuppositions that he carries into John 6:44. It's hard to poke holes in your opponent's case when they don't really present one! A lot of this I think was the unfortunate result of a poor choice in the debate title/framing with limiting the scope of unconditional election to John 6:44. Isolating a debate around one scripture to prove/disprove something is just a bad idea because then it comes down to how someone interprets a few words in a sentence or two, which is not good exegesis. In short, Dr. Flowers came prepared to debate unconditional election and Dr. White came prepared to read John 6:44 while assuming that unconditional election is true.
Yeah that's a good point about the title and why Dr. Flowers keep asking from Dr. White's book or his beliefs. About the "listening and learning are passive actions" is this like the scene the road to emmaus? Jesus is giving them a free Bible Study which they couldn't understand (listening) then at the end they (learned) understand it like a miracle?
@@mariembuenaventura1278 An interesting thought, but I see it as a stretch to apply it as an overturning of the conventional meaning of listening and learning/teaching as discussed in John 6:45, a reference to Isaiah 54:13. For one, the only thing that was miraculously concealed from the two disciples on the road was Jesus' identity as he walked with them. The two even state "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?", which leads me to think that they understood what he was saying to them on the road, they simply did not believe prior to seeing with their own eyes that it was Jesus once he had broken the bread. In that same conversation, they reveal an already existent lack of belief as to Jesus' messianic identity, referring to him as a "prophet", and reveal doubt that he had actually risen from the grave, despite the testimony of their women. Further, Jesus' rebuke to them "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" seems harsh if they were somehow being prevented from believing in and of itself. What results from this account is belief on the part of the two men because they witnessed Jesus alive following his death. But this is not the cause of all peoples' belief, so again drawing that kind of conclusion seems a stretch to me.
i think both of these statements can be true. everyone in the classroom was taught by the teacher. not everyone in the classroom listened and learned from the teacher.
Not when "hearing and learning" are a description of what being taught by God is. If one does not hear or learn from the Father, one has NOT been taught by the Father.
Thank you for this really great take on the debate. But man can you and Flowers just get on and interview together and speak to each other? I'm sure he could really use your pointers and perspective 💖
I think Leighton did a fantastic job in the debate for a few reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is this very topic. He backed White into a corner by making White be forced to suggest that "learning" is something that is passively done to a person rather than something someone has to actively participate in. Anyone who is being honest would immediately admit that learning is something a person does rather than something that someone else does to them.
The question is, why should we believe that Jesus was communicating such a concept as a person having learned by, essentially, a direct download into the brain, when we have scriptures that communicate a more normative method evident in daily life?
@@LawlessNate exactly. White's view of learning in verse 45 is tantamount to Neo learning Kung Fu in The Matrix. Come to think of it, it seems adhering to Calvinism is similar to the dynamic in that movie. You have two different worlds with different sets of rules that don't crossover. I'll let you take a stab at which is which. 😉
I think teaching and learning are absolutely not the same thing. Ask any of my teachers in high school and any teacher who’s ever lived. There’s a lot of teaching happening every single day but learning what’s being taught is a different story.
If hearing and learning or passive… Then unconditional election can be affirmed. On the contrary, if hearing and learning are active, that is the death knell for unconditional election.
Passive as in grammar or passive as in real life? Arguably hearing can be called passive. You have to pay attention to actually learn. That’s not passive. Oh and what would a “passive action” mean that White brought up? Action is not passive. It’s action.
@@timkoelln3826 White said “passive action” to distinguish it from grammatically passive, since the verbs are active verbs. But he is suggesting, in the context, they are both things that lack human volition.
I have a thought. If actively listening to and learning from the Father is similar to "Seeking God". And it's true that, according to Paul quoting the prophets in Romans 3, "No one is a seeker of God" while under sin Then no one actively seeks God while under sin, before they come to the Son, therefore no one actively listens to and learns from the father while under sin. If someone comes to the Son, they must have listened to and learned from the father, and since they didn't do it actively, then the listening and learning must have been passive. Make of this logic what you will.
16:15 I’m not so sure being taught necessarily means that the one being taught has learned. I don’t think that’s a proper definition. I can be taught by a college professor, but that doesn’t mean I will learn (i.e., internalize, process, apply that information) what he/she taught me. That is also not necessarily a problem or fault of the quality/ability of the teacher or teaching, but rather the one who receives it. Love your content Nate! I might be wrong on this, but wanted to share it in case I need to be corrected in that.
You're not wrong, you're exactly right. Being taught and learning are obviously not the same thing, this genuinely seems strange that Nate says it is. Being taught shows the faithfulness of the teacher. Learning shows the student was obedient to doing what was required of him/her. Paul "teaches" that Christ is the Son of God every where he went, first to the Jew then to the gentile. Did they all learn?
He knows he is wrong, as a teacher no less, but felt bad for james white so he is showing support by denying common sense and logic. Remember his a teacher we are listening too, but at least half of us disagree with him, so we are not learning to deny truth as the other have been indoctrinated with tulip as a presupposition have learned.
“The Lord GOD has given Me The tongue of the learned, That I should know how to speak A word in season to him who is weary. He awakens Me morning by morning, He awakens My ear To hear as the learned. (Isaiah 50:4) God opens the 'ears' for a person to learn. As Jesus says consistently “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Mark 4:9, Matt 11:15, Mark 4:23, Rev 2:7,11,17,29). Likewise 'Then He opens the ears of men, And seals their instruction.' (Job 33:16). Both hearing and seeing are a metaphor for understanding/revelation. 'And He replied: "Go and tell this people, 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' (Isaiah 6:9) It is God who gives understanding. 'And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures' (Luke 24:45) He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.' (Luke 8:10) Likewise God can choose to blind people. 'Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear.' (Deut 29:4) 'For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.' (Isaiah 29:10) To close one eyes is to shut up a person's understanding. As Flowers said (17:45 timestamps in this video) he does not believe that God can open and close minds to understanding which is contrary to every scripture here quoted which clearly demonstrates that God can open and close minds and hearts. Further 'And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deut 30:6) 'I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD. They will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with all their heart.' (Jeremiah 24:7) 'Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.' If God can open and close hearts than Flowers is wrong. As these texts clearly show God can open and close hearts and minds.
@@JimmyGGGGG God enables learning and hearing in us all. We are not on our own as Some Calvinist try to forcibly insist. He has made the provision. It is our responsibility to learn just like any student or child to actually listen and learn accept or we cannot be willing to learn, and reject even as he holds out his hands all day long to gather us to him. This way Gods judgement is just and our learning and faith or refusing to learn is really and on us and our responsibility...not God and his judgement is therefore righteous and just. And faith is not a salvation meriting work so we cannot boast. And rejecting God is not predetermined before we are even born making Jesus the gospel prophets apostles creation holy spirit all of not effect whatsoever. Basically demoting and replacing the cross and blood of jesus that saves with predestination which shed no blood and saved no one ever. without the shedding of blood there is no redemntion of sin. And there are no preselected respected persons of God. And not passed over or prejudged and pre damned persons of God. Jesus has made provision for all people who believe and follow him to have salvation by Gods grace through faith from the beginning to the end. Not augustine not luther not john calvin not john macarthur nor John piper not james white not leighton flowers not your or I.
Your teacher wasn't God. "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children." (Isa 54:13) Couldn't your objection be raised by the Israelites here in the same way?
15:58 How can teaching and learning be the same thing? One involves the sender, and the other, the receiver. I can be in a class where my teacher is actively teaching, but I have the option to either ignore him or reject what he's saying and therefore not learn anything. I don't see any issue here. Why does verse 45 say "everyone who..." if the act of teaching everyone necessarily means that everyone learned? It appears that Calvinists may have a misunderstanding with conditional clauses.
Exactly….It doesn’t further Whites position to claim a biblical text fails a simple check of coherency. Leighton’s continual appeals to reason about the logical and philosophical implications of James exegesis fall on deaf ears.
“Isn’t being taught learning?” Absolutely not. Any parent or person who teaches for a living can attest to the fact that their teaching does not always translate into learning by those being taught. It’s also signifies two separate but related actions. Also, I think “learned” is closer to “believe” than “be taught” is to “learned”.
“The Lord GOD has given Me The tongue of the learned, That I should know how to speak A word in season to him who is weary. He awakens Me morning by morning, *He awakens My ear To hear as the learned.* (Isaiah 50:4) God opens the 'ears' for a person to learn. As Jesus says consistently “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Mark 4:9, Matt 11:15, Mark 4:23, Rev 2:7,11,17,29). Likewise 'Then *He opens the ears of men,* And seals their instruction.' (Job 33:16). Both hearing and seeing are a metaphor for understanding/revelation. 'And He replied: "Go and tell this people, 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' (Isaiah 6:9) It is God who gives understanding. 'And *He opened their understanding,* that they might comprehend the Scriptures' (Luke 24:45) He replied, *"The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you,* but to others I speak in parables, so that, *'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'* (Luke 8:10) Likewise God can choose to blind people. 'Yet to this day *the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear.'* (Deut 29:4) 'For *the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes,* namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.' (Isaiah 29:10) To close one eyes is to shut up a person's understanding. As Flowers said (17:45 timestamps in this video) he does not believe that God can open and close minds to understanding which is contrary to every scripture here quoted which clearly demonstrates that God can open and close minds and hearts. Further 'And *the LORD your God will circumcise your heart* and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deut 30:6) *'I will give them a heart to know Me,* that I am the LORD. They will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with all their heart.' (Jeremiah 24:7) 'Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. *The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.'* If God can open and close hearts and minds then Flowers is wrong. As these texts clearly show God can open and close hearts and minds.
Leighton Flowers lost yet another debate with James White. Not surprised at all. James White knows the Bible too well. Flowers does not have sound doctrine.
@@JimmyGGGGG thanks fro bringing up Lydia. Lydia is really underrated in every debate about this topic. And I like the passages you brought up to underline that being drawn is also being opened up to understand and accept.
My husband is high school teacher. He spends hours and hours every week teaching but do all the kids in his class listen and learn what is being taught? No! Not by any stretch.
25:34 I recall James White did state in a previous video that drawing is the same as regeneration. Shouldn’t he have acknowledged his position here? this is what confused me in the debate review. Is it a viable strategy to deny your stated position if it is mentioned outside the debate venue? Im not really good at debate strategies this is a real question regarding the debate.
For those who may have gotten lost in the debate, here’s the main crux of the debate, with JP's comments at the end. Flowers’ argument No one [whole] can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him [subset]; and I will raise him [same subset] up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all [whole] be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father [same subset], comes to Me. White’s argument No one [whole] can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him [subset]; and I will raise him [same subset] up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all [still the same subset] be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father[still the same subset], comes to Me. The arguments boiled down to who is the “they…all” that shall be taught of God. Is it only the ones drawn who are taught, listened, and learned? White: Yes Flowers: No Is it all Israel taught, and the ones who listened and learned are drawn (and come)? Flowers: Yes White: No Is there any change in the “who” and “how” Jesus will draw in John 12:32? Flowers: Yes White: ???? No maybe??? Not clear That’s pretty much the debate on how each side reads and argues from these verses. JP comments: Since Flowers believes that Jesus was only gathering a subset before the cross/exaltation anyway, he could actually affirm or grant White’s entire interpretation above (even if he thinks it’s wrong) and Unconditional Election still does not follow from it. Even White admits some in the crowd could believe later (assuming by UC or whatever, but that doesn’t matter). The only thing that does follow is temporary rejection (of each other) by both Jesus AND by the audience. Temporary rejection ≠ Unconditional Election Now, Unconditional Election may be true on other grounds, but Unconditional Election is not proven even on White’s reading of the text of John 6. He can presuppose it on those other grounds, but that’s irrelevant and question begging. He had to prove it from this text. He didn’t.
New viewer here. I really like how you focused on the skill of the debate. you put into words the way this debate made me feel. No matter what side you fall on, it's important to be able to state you view clearly and stay on topic. I think you comments will help me when having discussions in the future.
If Nate says even one nice thing about Flowers... lol just kidding. I thought Flowers did well in White's first cross, even if I disagree with Flowers.
I thought the same thing. I thought Dr. Flowers had good answers but bad questions. His only sticking point was towards the end of Dr. White’s second cross examination when he didn’t understand Dr. White was saying the “all”s in 45 should be grammatically understood to be the same people. He later accepted correction by Dr. Korytko on this point since he realized it doesn’t prove Calvinism in itself.
@@ryanwall5760 John 8:47 (NASB95): 47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” We read that those who hear are of God. Flowers states those who hear are not always of God as they must learn.
Jesus never once said that we need to be theologians to be saved. Growing and maturing in Christ doesn’t mean picking apart every word and creating a church based on a word or concept. We need to be more unified than this.
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 Assuming a position is not what the debate was about. The title of the debate was not "can we just assume that the text says what James White thinks it says"... James White even asked that as a question, and thought he had won when Dr Flowers said "yes"... JW:If the text means what I think it means, would I be correct? LF: Yes, but I don't think it means what you think it means. JW: You see! I won!! He agreed with me. Wow, this debating thing is easy... All flippancy aside, we all have our lenses, our bias, our assumptions when we come to the text. The aim is to try and lay those down, but it is hard because many of the times we are not even truly aware of them. They come from our upbringing, our education, that throw-away remark that Grandma said on Christmas Day in 1985... It can all affect our reading of the text. How many times have you read a verse, made a note about it in your journal, and a few years later you go back to it and find something else speaks to you from the text? We should not assume... Or if we do, we should take our assumptions from the bible. God bless you, D
You’re assuming that Flowers came to debate the topic. That’s not what he came to do. He came to attack Calvinism and promote his own ministries, sadly.
Why are Calvinists now always debating? Evangelism is more productive. Imagine if they directed their energy and attention like Whitefield or Brainerd.
Is the point of the debate to engage the audience or engage your opponent? Ed would argue in a professional debate. It would be the latter but In public debate, it’s the first
I appreciate what you said about raising the level of discourse, and I think this debate shows one way. White seems to be intentionally obfuscating his previous stated views on the text. Anyone familiar with White’s comments on this passage knows he believes the drawing is in reference to or includes regeneration. Even in this debate he says that shows irresistible grace, and he has often equated IG and regeneration in his published work and recent DL shows. It’s clearly a tactic to derail Flowers’s line of questioning at the start, wasting all of his CX time since he’s not an experienced debater. To me this shows White is more interested in winning a debate than displaying truth, which I think goes against the purpose of your channel.
Nate, I respectfully disagree with you that being taught is the same as learning. I was a Professor for 31 years and I can tell you for a fact that not every student I taught learned what I was teaching. So while someone who has been taught would have heard, they may not have necessarily learned. Students can listen to a lesson and not learn what is being taught, no matter how carefully they listen or think. That is the point Dr. Flowers is trying to make, i.e., some of Israel are closing their eyes and ears. Thus, they may hear Jesus but do not learn or believe. Also, John 6:45 has two conditions that must be met in order to come to Jesus. ESV translation states, “Everyone WHO has heard AND learned from the Father comes to me.” Both conditions must be met…hearing AND learning. Dr. Flowers point is while “they will all be taught by God” and thus hear, that does not mean that they all have learned. It also seems Dr. White is interpreting this passage by dropping the “who”…and reading the passage as, “Everyone has heard and learned from the Father and will come to me.” Also, note how Dr. White keeps misquoting what John 6:45 actually says. He keeps dropping the second condition and misquotes it as: “Everyone hearing from the Father comes to me”. Flowers keeps correcting him that it is “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me,” but the White goes right back to misstating the passage again. (Kind of ironic that Dr. White is hearing but clearly not learning or understanding Dr. Flowers point.) Every translation I looked at except KJV had the “who” in the passage (ESV, NASB, NLT, NIV, NET) The KJV read, “Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh to me.” I think the two conditions are more clearly stated here as “hath heard and hath learned” in order to come to Jesus.
@@Inverted_big_toeno! How on earth? Some must be taught more than once before they learn? If someone gave you 1 lesson on how to drive an F1 car or how to fly a commercial aeroplane do you have the confidence to go do it? No! You heard some stuff and youll ask repeatedly to be taught. Only thing yiuv learnt is that youv learnt nothing. You must be taught continuously
@@Charlene-y9i if your boss told you to teach someone to run a piece of equipment for one day and tomorrow they will run it on there own. The next day the boss gets there and wants the person to run it on their own but they didn’t learn how , what would you say? I tried to teach them , if they can’t that means they didn’t learn . No man seeks God , not one.
I think White dropping the "and learned" really hurt his position. It was obvious to anyone who was looking at the text that he was dropping it and that made it seem like he didn't wan to deal with it. He needed to make a case as to why learning is unconditional. For this passage to support unconditional election, there needs to be unconditional learning that is equivalent to prevenient grace. Not only did White fail to do that, I don't think he even realized that he needed to do that.
Is it wrong to think it's okay for Flowers to attack James on unconditional election when the debate was on does John 6 44 teach unconditional election? If they exhaust John 6 44 and its a stale mate just reiterating the text does nothing for anyone. So why wouldnt flowers attack the other point in contention that being unconditional election
In my honest opinion if you can prove unconditional election isn't biblical outside of John 6 44 then it proves John 6 44 can't be teaching unconditional election
@@Cadeath The only problem with that strategy is that the other person could claim that since John 6:44 DOES teach unconditional election, that proves your interpretation of the other passage must be wrong. You'd be at a stalemate at that point until you actually started grappling with John 6:44 directly.
@@introvertedchristian5219I mean just claiming isn't enough they would have to prove it right? And if they could do that while staying within John 6 44 that's awesome. But I don't see any issue if they were to bring up other texts to help support their reading of John 6 44 or helped support the idea of unconditional election. From what I saw in the debate they both believed their view of John 6 44 was correct so to just keep stating their positions wouldn't have helped at all it would be better to supplement the positions. Or for Flowers who isn't in the affirmative to attack unconditional election. And James could have gone to other texts to support unconditional election.
@@Cadeathbut that would be ice agent the text and reading one passage into another for it to mean the same thing, which would require a bigger burden of proof depending on who does the referencing. Hence why that would be off topic
If they had exhausted points which centered on the text, then perhaps you would have a point. But Flowers needs to be strongly reprimanded for leaving the topic when he had in-text and exegetical grounds to continue on the matters directly related to the interpretation of John 6:44. He threw the debate in order to attack Calvinism and I just don't understand why people who take his side refuse to see that.
Maybe people don't get this, but Flowers has made a living off of responding to and "debunking" anything James White says. White could BREATHE in his direction, and there'd be a 2 hour video response to it. This has been years and years of this, and James White doesn't go nearly as far as Flowers does in this regard. Lots of Whites videos are about way different topics than Flowers.
@@jacobchesney1558 Flowers is not attacking white. He is defending his postions from whites attacks of his position. We really need to be more charitable to our brothers in christ.
Where does this "unconditional" come from? The Bible? Calvinists invent words to prove their doctrine of Election. There is no such thing as 'Doctrine of Election'.
Flowers started off with accusing White of ‘revamping’ ‘whosoever.’ He has a question prepared based off that assertion. White clears up Leightons misrepresentation and yet he still asks the question he had prepared based off the misrepresentation. Just reading the list off one by one, no matter what the answer is.
He did, he tried to use greek to say whosoever should not be in john 3.16. He failed as many greek scholars, some even reformed, way more accomplished then him, put that scheme in the trash bin where it belongs, immediately, and said whosoever is the best english translated word for john 3.16.. What other human or entity do you know, that wants whosoever removed from John 3.16? James white knows that whosoever all etc., conflicts with his stulip and hyper calvinist teachings and divine determinism presumptions, so he needs whosoever gone from the john 3.16 verse. Not going to happen, even reformed leaders are against that. I don't have whites link on his show about john 3.16 or Leighton pointing out the rebuke he got from other scholars for suggesting it, but it should still be on youtube. Leighton, knowing White was going to play the I know greek better than you card, therefore my interpretation is right and yours is wrong card, like he does whenever debating some one less knowledgeable about greek than him, was setting this up for his point " if you start with a bad presumption in english or even greek, you will end up with a bad conclusion in english or even greek" He was also setting up defenses against whites he is not doing proper exegesis, a routine debate tactic and claim that his fans love and eat up and repeat for him. And he's running away from the text, all over the place, while he does the same thing, but to a slightly lesser degree. His fans instantly repeat this but don't see White's doing the same things at all. .he knew white would complain about and refuse to answer certain questions to Waste time and not answer, while demanding his repeating the dame questions over and over be answered over and over to avoid the real points of contention and debate subject, does John 6.44 teach unconditional election. which was his burden of proof, that was never established .white often talks about his other debates ministries accomplishments and things his opponents actually agrees with him on, to avoid what they differ on and waste time while strawmanning gaslighting and throwing in multiple insults and rudeness, that's how he "wins" debates instead of seeking the truth, he's three only to win by any means necessary its his $$ profession. It did not work this time because leighton wanted to preach the gospe, and his presumptions that contradict unconditional election and that is actually John 6.44 6.45 3.16 by any means the holy spirit would use. Even James attempted scheme to conflate teaching and learning with greek failed miserably because they have different meanings as all teachers and students inherently know, and this pissed off James White as without that he could not establish unconditional election so he unfortunately claimed victory based on a hypothetical question HE ASKED Leighton, were Leighton agreed if his presumptions were correct his view was also correct, forgetting somehow that Leighton made clear he thinks his pre assumptions are false. Once James realized his mistake he was even more rude angry pissed even Livid, just checkout his after debate damage integrity control review where he has conspiracies theories that cults were all ganged up against him and somehow were feeding Leighton information and questions throughout the debate. When everyone already knows james white believe adults and infants are either elected for salvation and the majority are passed over for hell. By divine decree that's what the U in tulip represents doomed from the womb, but he was too ashamed to own what he believes and preaches. Thus is common knowledge he believes that. John.macarthur and John Piper and other Calvinist leaders disagree with that and call infants innocent not guilty of Adams sin and go to be with the Lord or add and age of accountability doctrine etc. He should man up either you believe it or you don't. Since he could not establish john 6.44 teaches unconditional election regardless of Leighton or anything else he lost the debate because it was his burden of proof to establish. what made it worse was he claimed victory falsely forgetting maybe because of sickness that Leighton did not agree with his preassumptions at all. He merely said If If If they are true you are right but they are not true.
An interesting thing that happens in this debate that we just barely touch here is James’s interpretation of the Greek. Leighton maybe wasn’t prepared for this exact point of contention and it’s fair to dock him for that. But James corners him here and points out that if Leighton can’t exegete this ANY other way, then he must concede. He arrogantly declares himself the winner here because Leighton himself offers no other exegesis, however Leighton does point out there are many experts who do not hold the same position as White. Leighton does not himself claim to be an expert on Greek. The real eye opening happens post debate, where the Greek experts do come forth to defend Leighton and completely dismantle Whites Greek interpretation. This really unravels the Calvinist position on John 6:44 in the end.
Hi Nate, you are repeating the error of suggesting that everyone that is taught has listened and learned. This simply isn't biblical. Check out the following reference... Jer 32:33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: THOUGH I TAUGHT THEM, rising up early and teaching them, YET THEY HAVE NOT HEARKENED to receive instruction. Mar 11:17 And HE TAUGHT, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. Mar 11:18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine. God teaching does not mean that the hearers will all learn.
Your Jeremiah passage is not in the same context as what John 6:45 is referencing. John 6:45 is a description of the drawing in verse 44. Nate isn’t wrong.
@@enfire2146 I'm not saying it is... I understand the reference is of Isaiah 54:13. James arguments for saying that it is an effectual teaching is based on more or less three reasons, none of which have any validity. The first is a greek grammar argument which greek scholars have already refuted. The second is that it is because God is teaching, that it is somehow effectual. Jeremiah 32:33 shows that God teaching does not mean it is effecual. The third reason is because he says it is a new covenant promise, which again is really quite circular reasoning. However, Jeremiah chapter 31 and 32 both deal with the new covenant (see Jeremiah 31:31 and 32:40). So yes, even with regards to the transition from Old Covenant to New Covenant the teaching of God is not said to be effectual, but rather that many would reject it. Even Ezekiel spoke of repentance as necessary before getting a new heart. Eze 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
@@Jeremyb2023 wrote: "God teaching does not mean that the hearers will all learn." In the New Covenant it *does* mean just that. _“And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”_ (Hebrews 8:11) _“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,”_ (Jeremiah 31:31) _“And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”_ (Jeremiah 31:34) What does it mean to have "heard and learned" (John 6:45)? Jeremiah explains prophetically: _“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”_ (Jeremiah 31:33) Hence, the teaching is effectual. By the way, not all of Jeremiah 32 is about the New Covenant, including v33. Most of the chapter is historical narritive. Not until v40 do we see prophetic text regarding the New Covenant. And, in Mark 11:17-18, Jesus is teaching under the Old Covenant from Isa. 56:7. Remember, the New Covenant is unlike the Old: _“not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.”_ (Jeremiah 31:32)
@@electronicMI Hi, I understand where you're coming from, but I would encourage you to take a step back from the traditional calvinist interpretation of these things and try to approach it with a bit of a blank slate. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but just hear me out. To be clear, the way that the New Covenant was presented to the Old Covenant people of Israel is not as clear cut as we would like it to be. We know that God's covenant people in the Old Covenant was the nation of Israel. They were under a covenant of works. They failed in big ways. When God promised that the new covenant would be different, it did not mean that all of the people of Israel would be participants in the new covenant. Many of the texts in the Old Testament which speak of the new covenant are speaking of the fulness of the new covenant and not the covenental transition. The earthly ministry of Jesus was that covenantal transition. Much of Israel tripped and fell (Romans 9-11). This was both prophesied in the Old Testament and also for the purpose of bringing about fulfillment of prophecy in the crucifixion of Christ. I am getting a little bit distracted.... Back to the point, much of the OT texts on the New Covenant explain the new covenant as different from the Old and obviously more powerful. What was not said as that not all of the people of Israel would be partakers of the new covenant... many would be excluded as the broken branches of the good olive tree explained in Romans 11. They were broken off for their unbelief. As Paul said in Romans, not all Israelites are of Israel. Also, what was not revealed in the Old Testament, at least not clearly, was the inclusion of the gentiles by faith. The gentiles would be the grafted in by faith. As Paul said to the galatians, we are made children of Abraham by faith. Much of the verses speaking in the Old Testament about the New Covenant explained the fulness of the New Covenant. We are not yet in that fulness. The phrase that many Calvinists like is "already and also not yet." This is the case with the verses you shared... “And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” (Hebrews 8:11) “And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34) We presently live in a time when we do teach one another. Jesus said, "go ye into all the world and TEACH all nations." The church constantly teaches and preaches the Gospel. Many are still entering into the new covenant by faith. The promise of regeneration is an "already" aspect of the new covenant. However, it is a benefit OF the new covenant. It is not the means by which we are enabled to become partakers of the new covenant. Do you understand what I'm saying? God doesn't give us new life so that we may become partakers... rather He teaches us so that we may come by faith and become partakers of Christ by faith.
@@Jeremyb2023 wrote: "...but I would encourage you to take a step back from the traditional calvinist interpretation of these things and try to approach it with a bit of a blank slate." Please kindly explain how I used a, "traditional calvinist interpretation"-whatever that is-in my response to you. - You wrote: "We presently live in a time when we do teach one another. Jesus said, "go ye into all the world and TEACH all nations." Do we put His law within them, and write it on their hearts? When we teach and preach the Gospel, who accomplishes the following?: _“And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”_ (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26) _“And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”_ (Ezekiel 36:27) This is the work of God: _“Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”_ (John 6:28-29)
30:34 Flowers just asked a question about unconditional election and your asking why he doesn't stick to the debate topic? It's appropriately about the debate topic to show problems with other scripture being consistent with what John 6 supposedly teaches. If the idea of unconditional election is clearly refuted by other scripture then John 6 cannot be teaching it.
The debate topic is on John 6:44. You don't attack the system you reject by going to other verses with different contexts and proving that system wrong to say another verse doesn't mean what it says in its context. You would never do that with any other theological systems. And yet Open Theism does this a lot. They infer God isn't omniscient by taking outside verses and making verses that indicate God is omniscient say something different. And since Flowers is friendly to open theists, it's not surprising he has similar ways to interpret scripture.
@@2timothy23 I men, in this timestamped part is was James White who pulled from Ephesians chapter 1. Just pointing out how big a hypocrite Calvinists tend to be on things like this. BTW -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with going to other scriptures even with other context to get how a phrase of figure of speech is used, or how an idea is communicated. After all, White argues the non-backable idea that Total Depravity wasn't a new doctrine at the time, even though no Jewish sect has ever held to that.
@@briancross9571 Not when you're cramming the context of another verse to derive the context you're looking for in the verse in question. You read John 6:37-45 in its context and grammar first then go to supporting texts that have the same context. And don't make a blanket statement about all Calvinists because they're Calvinists. Just show from the text how they're wrong; attacking the character of fellow believers isn't right no matter which side of a theological argument they're on.
No, being taught does not mean learning. I was taught things in school which I did not "hear" because I was not actively engaged in learning. I was doodling. This was never true of you?
Im surprised flowers didnt bring up 47 which is the conclusion of the passage: Truly, truly I say to you, whoever believes has external life. Also if he is quoting Isaiah, Isiah begins with a lament at how they hear but dont listen. Which would have been understood by the audience
The other thing that would have been understood by the audience is that listening and learning from the Father is done by means of his word. In fact, that's what was said all the way back at the founding of their nation. Moses told the people to gather and read the law every 7 years so that the people could listen and learn to fear the Lord. Those who listened and learned were those who paid attention to the message that was already given to them through the scriptures.
He's really not, unless we hold him to be a liar or I am misremembering terrible, because during the krufuffle that arose after his debate review of the Romans 9 interaction between Flowers and White, he affirmed that he was not Reformed.
@@reimannsum9077He said nothing of the kind. He took great pains to say that he wasn't taking sides. Flowers interpreted Sala's criticism as being Calvinistic, and it seems you've done the opposite. He's made some remarks in other presentations that lead me to believe he's not Reformed, but he's never explicitly stated one way or the other.
Thanks, Nate! I thought you addressed this debate accurately and fairly except for one point. "Taught" does not mean "having learned." As a homeschooling parent, I have this specific conversation with my 10 yo often. Taught is the past perfect tense of what I have done. She could have either "learned" or "ignored" or "played" or "checked out" or various other things. She was taught by me(passive), but it does not mean nor even imply that she learned what I taught her. #1. I believe that James White is terrible to debate one verse. He has been hammering this verse for years, believing that it's his nail in the "provisionist's" coffin. Every wise Christian knows that we never take one verse alone! Flowers laid out a fantastic opening argument that was pretty much ignored. He was addressing the issue (though X was not good) but couldn't "stay on topic" because the topic was too confining. #2. While I agree with L. Flowers theology, I think he's very unwise to continue to engage White in this argument over and over again. He should stop debating, stop making anti-calvinism videos, and just focus on teaching the Bible. #3. Why do we think so greatly of ourselves to believe that the emphasis in this verse is on man. How about we read it, "No one can come to ME unless the Father draws him. And I WILL raise him up on the last day." They should have defined what "draw" means and why God has to draw in the first place and TO WHOM the Father is drawing. This drawing is an attracting. Isaiah told us that the Messiah would be someone lightly esteemed. Unless the Father attracts people to HIM, no one would pay attention. Plus, the Father will NOT draw people to someone who is NOT his Anointed One. (This can be likened to a man and a woman. The man is attracted to a woman, and so he tries to draw her to himself; attract her to him. But it matters not how much drawing he does - if she wants nothing to do with him, she'll reject him. If he forces himself upon her, it's considered NONCONSENSUAL.) So the one that is drawn to Jesus by the Father - because they respond to the drawing, the attraction - Jesus will raise that one up. #4. (which should probably be #1) White and Flowers should pay attention to the first thing that Jesus commanded directly before vs 44 - "Do not grumble among yourselves." Titus 3 is another good place to go when deciding whether we should engage in these fruitless arguments.
Point #1. Why do the debate then if you aren't willing to work within the confines? It is a formal debate on a specific thing. If that is "unfair" to go off topic the agreed on topic needs to be broader. But if that happens then nothing is debated. #2 is why Flowers sounds bad in these. He is trying to do a sermon and instead missing the point and honestly making White come off as more convincing. #4 as I said it seems like Flowers has the bone to pick and thinks the grumbling is warranted. He is warning of the other position. Which he straw mans through both debates.
Nate, not everyone who has been taught learns from the teaching. For example, I have taught my class how to paint but not everyone will be able to absorb the teaching therefore cannot apply the teaching internally; they just heard the teaching but not learned it.
16:15 bias commentary.. they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard AND LEARNED from the father comes to me.. some heard the gospel but they dont accept that is why hearing and learning is important.. taught doesnt mean learned unless he is willing to accept your teaching...
It's really hard to hear someone debate from the position of emotional basis, and proof texting. That said, I really appreciate Nate's commentary, I learned a lot about proper debating, and how to analyze a debate! Thanks Nate!
As someone who regularly teaches Sunday school, I can say that just because I taught something, it doesn’t mean my students learned what I was teaching.
And it is not in our nature as Spurgeon said to want to be drawn to God. If it was we would all beleive in Jesus. How that drawing happens is the questions and really not relevant to my understanding of how God works. He can do what he wants when he wants.
@daveonezero6258 we have both the spiritual nature and carnal in us. Having ears to hear is what draws us to Him. If our heart isn't willing to listen it is of our own doing not God's. He wants us to believe but not all will.
Being taught (16:25) is not the same as learning. Someone can teach you and you do not learn. You must listen and learn. Both. When you listen to a teacher you are being taught, but that in no way implies you will learn that teaching.
I think his point was “Were you really taught if you didn’t learn?” If I said, “He taught me how to read Greek,” but I didn’t understand any Greek, would the statement still be valid? Wouldn’t it have to be reworded, “He tried to teach me how to read Greek, but I didn’t really learn anything”?
Notice the words "teach". I can teach you but you may not understand, you may not listen, you may not be paying attention or whatever the reason may be. Therefore you fail to learn anything but I'm still teaching. You can be taught yet not learn anything because of various reasons.
I teach people all the time, and they dont learn. I dont think Jesus is referencing anything about election here. Hes trying to tell them the Father has been teaching you guys and you obviously haven't learned from Him because you don't come to and believe. If they can't learn from the Father because they are chosen then why even make the statement at all it would seem Jesus is throwing words into the air with no one to perceive
Highly intelligent breakdown. Appreciated the unbiased approach to the subject. Have always wanted to hear analysis like this before because I wanted confirmation from an expert in debating that could better explain & breakdown what I was sensing but couldn’t articulate before, so thank you!!!
To be fair White's believe in Calvinism colors is interpretation of every verse so I believe it actually is quite relevant to his understanding of John 6
someone might be taught in Harvard university could still be a bad lawyer in his practice. Being taught does not mean one will definitely learn everything. the Jews who came to listen to Jesus was drew by God to follow Jesus but they did not believe in what Jesus said.
It seems like James White said this is what I believe about the verse and you should believe it too without giving any actual explanation as to why he believes what he believes about the verse.
I mean... A lot of us disagree with that conclusion. He exegeted the text, asked flowers to explain certain aspects of the texts that seem to disagree with his own conclusions. Not agreeing or disagreeing with White
@@henrylopez7721 I'm sorry I just don't see it. In his opener he read the text and then gave his opinion of what the text says I did not see any exegesis whatsoever.
@@henrylopez7721His exegesis was later dismantled by a REAL Greek expert from Oxford both on a neutral take video and Leighton’s channel. I suggest you watch those and you will understand why White is just plain wrong. He is a better debater than Flowers, that is certain, we already know that. “Winning” the debate sometimes comes much later when all the dust settles.
@@-justin-4077Respectfully, that scholar was not neutral or unbiased and woefully misrepresented White. White responded to him recently on his dividing line program and did a good job of answering him. Whether or not you or I agree with White or not is not my issue here. My issue is that that Greek scholar did not handle things well with regards to White.
@@CT-316 I respectfully disagree. I think white handled the Greek scholar very poorly actually. He was very disrespectful and dismissive of his work and status as a legitimate expert. The ad homenin is what you’d expect if you don’t have any actual rebuttal.
White was clear that he was letting the text speak for itself...and made every effort to keep the debate on track... he is a seasoned vet unequaled in the number of moderated debates he's done. I appreciate his consistancy and he didn't try to sell his points with emotionalism or attack.. he defended admirably and clearly in his exegesis.. it really made me see as has been claimed.. " Provisionism is merely semi-pelagianism repackaged "
Debate teacher reacts.. 12:30 in. Commentary on questions, nice. No reaction to body language. Cool. No reaction to a clear zinger answer.. Cool,cool. No reaction to answers at all.. cool. cool cool. Alright.. that's it for me. I kinda thought I was gonna get some kind of idea of how to score the question and answers. Accomplishing task? Good/bad strategy? rhetorically effective? Was the "stay on topic" line good form or bad form? Not sure why I am watching. No insult intended. Watching the watch parties was more fun.
7 месяцев назад+3
Flowers did horrible, like you said, not because of faults in his view, but because he was trying to hit White with whatever blunt object was available instead of focusing on what White actually said in the opening statement.
@@ShepherdMinistry "The Father did not teach Judas." Which verse supports your response? "Are you saying God can fail at teaching someone?" Trying to deliberately misunderstand or manipulate what I didn't say? Did God "teach" Lucifer, before he rebelled? You, obviously, don't understand the point being made in John 6:44-47, and the process involved.
At around the 28:00 mark, Flowers is grilling White on inconsistency. James White has this strategy where when he is cornered on something he will take the strategy of "I don't believe that" or "that's just absolutely rediculous..." instead of actually engaging, and then go on to restate the same thing in a more palatable way. I think James White did a really good job on the cross examination, but Leighton Flowers did a better job on the opening statement. Edit: as I am thinking further about this, I'm not so sure Flowers did so bad in cross examination. His questions are not particularly great phrasings to ask in debate, but I think he did a pretty good job of cornering him and left White stalling and dodging to avoid contradicting himself. Flowers definitely appeared to have a better grasp of the areas of contention than White, and was more prepared as well. You can only do so much to nail Jello to the wall, and James White did a really good job of being Jello.
I dont agree with your assessment that only the U of TULIP is relevant to this debate. Every single letter of tulip is represented in James White's interpretation of the passage. Leighton was simply going after the calvinistic presuppositions white holds. Total inability- "no man can come" Limited atonement - Jesus is telling the crowd some can't come Irresistable grace - "the Father draws him" Perseverance of the saints- "raise him up on the last day"
There have been many comments in the comment section about John 6:45, which says, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God. Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." The comments that defend Dr. Flowers' position are saying that being taught is not the same as learning. In other words, God is teaching, but it is up to the free will of man to accept the teaching or reject it. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the text that indicates this; this is something that has to be inferred based on a presupposition of free will Dr. Flowers is injecting in the text. And there are also contextual and logical problems with this as well: First, verse 45 is referencing two Old Testament verses; Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:34 (and even alluding to Micah 4:2). Isaiah 54:13 is part of a promise to those that God would deliver; read verses 5-17 and you see clearly the promise. There's no dynamic that being taught would be rejected. In Jeremiah 31:34 it says all shall know the Lord for He will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. This is right after Jeremiah 31:33, where it says God will put His law in their minds and write it on their hearts because He will be their God and they will be His people. Notice the teaching of the Lord here is not something that will be rejected because God puts it in their minds and hearts. Even part of Micah 4:2 says, "...He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in his paths..." Verse 45 is taking from the Prophets the spiritual truth that God will teach those who will listen and learn; this is the way God is drawing them (John 6:44) so that He gives them to the Son (6:37 and 6:39). There's nowhere in any of the contexts of the verses referenced or John 6:45 itself where you see someone being taught and rejecting it. Second, the Greek word for the phrase "has heard" is akouo, which has differing meanings depending on the context. When I looked this up, here is what is described as "akouo" in John 6:45: "to perceive in the soul the inward communication of God:." This isn't an outward listening where you're not paying attention or discarding it; this is a person understanding what God is teaching. They heard, then they learned. Again, based on the context, there's nothing in the verse that even remotely indicates the ones listening and learning make a free will decision to reject it. Finally, John 6:39 says the will of the Father is that all He gives the Son, the Son will lose nothing. John 6:40 says the will of the Father is that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life and will be raised up on the last day. The will of the Father is to give to the Son who will come and they will believe. Nowhere from verses 37 to 45 in John 6 is the will of the Father to give the Son who will come dependent on man's will. Again nowhere in John 6:37-45 is the giving, coming, and believing based on man's decision outside of God doing a work in them. Dr. Flowers has to insert this "a person can choose to not listen and learn" dynamic in the text when it isn't there at all. (In John 8:26, the same word akouo appears when Jesus says He was to speak those things which He heard from the Father. And in this context the word akouo means "to be taught by God's inward communication." So did Jesus have the ability to hear from the Father and reject it?)
14:21 James White: "But it specifically states, 'Everyone hearing from the Father comes to Me.'" No Dr. White, it specifically states, "Everyone having heard from the Father *_AND HAVING LEARNED,_* comes to Me." Not all who hear, learn. As it is written, there are those who are "ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven." If you have to CHANGE the Word of God, or ignore specific sections to make your theology work, then you're wrong. Leighton even corrects him, and then White immediately ignores him and reads it again leaving out "and having learned" a second time, even when corrected. He is hearing, but he is refusing to learn.
The real kicker was Jer 32:33 - "They have turned their back to Me and not their face; though I taught them, teaching again and again, they would not listen to accept discipline." It shows that White's argument for v45 is purely question begging based upon his presuppositions.
Hearing and having learned is the exact same group of people in the text. That is the point. There is no difference between the people who have heard and who have learned.
@@christopherneedham9584 yes, because Jesus is referring to those who come to the Him. They are the ones who hear, and learn. We all agree on this point. However, to try and get from that, that everyone everywhere whoever hears, learns, is simply not the teaching of Scripture. Indeed, the testimony of Scripture is that most people, when they hear, harden their hearts and refuse to listen and learn.
@@beowulf.reborn sorry, I wasn’t clear. In the context of the passage, there is no distinction between the one who is drawn and the one who hears and learns. The people who hear and don’t learn are the ones who are not drawn.
Let's all be nice to eachother in the comments. Some videos I see some truly hate filled people saying calvinists are satanic or they worship the devil. Andit always disgusts me.
I agree people shouldn't say that. But I also strongly believe that its blasphemy to say God decreed murders and rape. God is the objective morals. God holds people accountable to not be stumbling block. The moral God of the bible says he temps no one. So, if God was to decree evil he's breaking his own moral system and is an accomplish to the sin. The Holy Spirit was not yet given and that means Calvinism is wrong because the Holy Spirit didn't regenerate them to believe. Easy enough.
@@faithfulservantofchrist9876we must also carefully define what we mean by "decree." There are some definitions that would be genuinely blasphemous, as you put it. But there are other articulations that are NOT blasphemous in any way. And not all Calvinists agree on this either. Someone like Chris Date and James White, while both determinists, do NOT articulate determinism the same way, and that matters. So, while I hear what you're saying, I'd encourage some digging into the different definitions of decree, as not only will this clear things up, but this is not just a problem for Calvinists but for all Christians.
The problem I had was Whites opening had few if any points of contention and he didn't present a good case to the affirmative that the passage teaches unconditional election. So when it comes to cross examination Leighton has to fish for points of contention before he can address it.
@@Postmillhighlights if he exegeted the text, then he needs to show how. A person could say Flowers exegeted the text. The point of the debate is to show whose biblical interpretation makes sense with good hermeneutics. Reading the text like White did and then assuming his view on it, only looks like he presupposed UE.
For everyone saying Flowers was off topic, remember the subject was does J6:44 teach unconditional election…..that means any other part of scripture can be used to show unconditional election is unbiblical thereby proving J6:44 does not teach unconditional election unless one wishes to argue the Bible contradicts itself. Nate should have know that.
I personally find Flowers to be unfair in the his understanding of Calvinism (not surprising) and very inconsistent in his teaching, however its because he keeps bouncing around
Maybe the both of them should have started at verse 43? John 6:43 (NIV): 43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,”
😂😂 this is the best comment. 100% true
Amen
@@VesterEmanuel, if they did that, White would have to explain why people who are predestined to grumble are being told to stop grumbling.
@@TimothyFishbro it’s just a funny comment he wasn’t trying to get you to start arguing😂
@@fruitsnacks155bro, his was just a funny comment too. He wasn’t tying to get people grumbling about comments lol.
Nate, I recently discovered your channel and it has quickly become a favorite of mine. I appreciate the wisdom you share and have learned a lot. Thanks for taking the time to review this debate.
May God bless you.
OSAS Arminian seems to be the same as Provisionism. By the way I don't like Nate's debating tactics.
@@Parture Could you explain what you mean by "OSAS Arminian"? Yes, Provisionism does teach OSAS. My understanding is that "Arminianism," as defined by modern Arminianism, does not believe in OSAS at all.
@@steventhompson8130 The 5 points of OSAS Arminian: free-will, irresistible grace, conditional election, unlimited atonement, preservation of the saints. Jacob Arminius is quoted as saying never did he ever teach a person could lose salvation once saved. OSAS is not the same kind of OSAS as in Calvinism. OSAS in Calvinism is irresistibly imposed; whereas OSAS in Provisionism/OSAS Arminian, is preservation to be kept because that is the gift we receive once saved.
@@Parture "The *five points* of the *Remonstrance* asserted that:
*(1)* election (and condemnation on the Day of Judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith (or nonfaith) of each person;
*(2)* the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all humans, was efficacious only for the person of faith;
*(3)* unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
*(4)* grace is *not* irresistible; and
*(5)* believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace."
*_[Britannica: Arminianism]_*
@@steventhompson8130 The 5 points of remonstrance are 1) free will, 2) resistible grace, 3) conditional election, 4) unlimited atonement, (5) preservation of the saints. Very straightforward.
'Flowers got excited that he got James White in a room, so that he could grill him '. 🤣🤣🤣 Best quote of the video. 👌
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡
I was there and it got tense lol. Good experience though
ActuAlly it was the other way around.
@@Tigerex966 If you go back and watch Alex talk to James white before this you can see that he predicted what Flowers would do. He wasn't suprised or excited in any way about that.
@@daveonezero6258 actually he was even I was and all those viewing even polls on Calvinist channels say he won.
White response video is full of conspiracy theories etc showing he was caught way off guard.
.don't believe me go to james white channel and see White's d I damage control in this own words for yourself
Will you review the sola scriptura debate he did with Trent horn?
That would be excellent! It’s a clash of the titans scenario.
Yes please!!
I think Dr Flowers talks about Calvinism more than Calvinists do lol
Because calvinists usually don't call themselves out on their false teaching. Someone has to shed light on all the misinterpreted scripture.
@@Darthrocker06I think Dr Flowers can just agree to disagree and move on. Unless he thinks Calvinists are lost and need redemption, which he doesn’t.
@@Joel-kw9tjYou're right, he doesn't think that. it's silly to think that just because someone's theology is different means that they worship a different God. Of course, I'm referring to calvinists and provisionism. I wouldn't go to the extreme of some other religion. The 2 theologies are very similar honestly, except for a few key points.
@@Darthrocker06They are more similar than different, I would agree.
Hahaha so true
I have a friend who went to bible study with me when we were teens. We were all taught the same thing, but my friend didn't learn the same things that I did because he must not have been paying attention. I guess he chose not to listen. He doesn't want to hear what I have to say today.
I could never debate.
You silly ;)
Maybe not all kids focus on that. I didn’t when I was a kid. I’m an adult now and do take my theology and relationship with God seriously.
That is a category error. Don’t put God into human categories.
“They shall all be taught of God” and the next sentence are describing the same thing in this context. Therefore, being taught is describing the drawing.
@@sicmetal
And the drawing leads to...
A response.
To accept what is being taught, to believe what is being taught, to live your life by what is being taught...
Or not...
God offers the gift of salvation to the world he created, that gift was paid for, and given at great cost; but it can still be rejected...
We may, as those who have received the gift, look at the many who reject the gift and say, "How is that possible, don't you know how great this gift is!"
But if it is rejected, that is on the person who didn't receive it, not on the person who gave it...
To God be all the glory, forever and ever, amen.
Blessings be upon you,
D
@@sicmetal
This is God trying to teach Jerusalem, but they would not have any of it.
Matthew 23:37
King James Version
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Taught does not mean to learn. Taught means past tense of teach.
It's not about arguing about the definitions of taught and learn; it's about what the context of John 6:45 says. And based on the context of John 6:37-45 and Jeremiah 31:34 and Isaiah 54:13 (which is alluded to in John 6:45), it shows that those who are taught will listen and learn. Flowers has to insert a free will choice to accept or reject the teaching between being taught by God and them listening and learning. It is not in the text and only can be inferred by going outside to other texts that have a different context. We would never do this with a regular book. You wouldn't take two paragraphs on page 56 in a 400 page book, take the third sentence in the first paragraph then start quoting sentences from a paragraph on page 245, page 299, and 313 with differing contexts to get the context of that third sentence. Then skip to the sixth sentence in the first paragraph and do the same thing with that sentence to get that context. This would be illogical and do damage to the context of the two paragraphs on page 56. If you don't do it with regular writing, you don't do it with the God-breathed, sufficient Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
@@2timothy23 we don’t think this is a proper exegete of the text tho. What Dr Flowers did establish in his opener that is that scripture taken in isolation would produce wrong interpretation
I hoped Dr Flowers would have included John 6:14-15 ESV That his teachings is intentional so the cross would be done. or maybe included John 5:37-47 where Jesus established using the same concept in John6 where he indicates that if they believe the Prophet Moses they would believe him. John 6 is about who Jesus is intention to go to the cross or John6:28-29 where Jesus says that the work of the father or maybe the author’s intention in John 20:30-31 all in the same book. You could say that those who believed Moses are the elect but it is just not evident in scripture “do not believe” is just not the same as “can not believe”.
”When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.“
John 6:14-15 ESV
”Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.“
John 20:30-31 ESV
”yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.“
John 5:40 ESV
”Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”“
John 6:28-29 ESV
@@merrickc1876 Reading John 6:37-45 is not taking verses in isolation; in fact you see the whole context in John 6:26-6:66. I've stated this before; I have no problem with reading a text of scripture, showing the context, and then going to supporting verses that validate that context. What Flowers did was begin outside of John 6:44 to establish a context and then say that was the context in John 6:37-44. Where Dr. White read through the text of John 6:37-45 (even explaining verse 45 ahead of time), Dr. Flowers, in the first seven or eight minutes did this:
He set up a comparison between Calvinism and Provisionists. He mentioned the words Calvinism or Calvinist nearly a dozen times. He started attacking what he thought White's presupposition was based on his Calvinism. And the first verse he began with was John 6:32. Then he jumped to John 3:16, then John 5:43, then John 1:12, then Ezekiel 18:32, then John 6:36, then John 1:11, then Acts 28, then Romans 10:21, and then Matthew 23:37 and Isaiah 30:15. This was nearly eight minutes where he wanted to establish the difference between Calvinism and Provisionism to attack what Flowers said was the Calvinist, Augustinian presupposition. He went all over scripture to tell us the context of John 6:44 and jumped around John 6:37-45 using this method. The debate was not the presupposition of Calvinism or James White or the difference between Calvinism or Provisionism, but does John 6:44 teach unconditional election based on the context of the verses.
If you're telling me, as a Christian, that I can't read ten verses in row to get the context and I need to jump all over the Bible to get the context, then by this method I can literally make any verse say what I want it to say. And churches with bad doctrines do this. This is the same method people use to tell folks in the pews that God wants them to prosper, that God wants them rich, that God always wants them healed, that churches can have women pastors, that God doesn't know the future, etc. They take verses in isolation and go to other verses to tell you what those isolated verses mean out of their context. Again, as I said in my original statement, you wouldn't do this with any other book, so we shouldn't do it with God-breathed scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
We take the Bible as a whole, but there is still a context to every book and chapter of that book. Because you don't like a doctrine, you can't do these type of interpretations to try to eliminate what verses plainly say. John 6:44 plainly says what it says, and the context of John 6:37-45 actually validates it, particularly if you check the five things Jesus repeats in those verses that demonstrate coming to Christ has everything to do with God. There is no free choice between the first and second part of John 6:45, and to be honest Dr. Flowers has to cram that thought into the text by inferring it because nowhere in the text is it supported. So I strongly disagree, Dr. Flowers way of exegeting these texts does damage to the text, and it is his disdain for the whole system of Calvinism that drives this method. And that was Dr. Flowers' presupposition, which was exposed when he answered angrily in cross examination.
@@2timothy23 that’s just it 10 verses in a row where the thought John is building up on may not be fully established yet is just taking 10 verses outside of its intended context. we need to take account the whole chapter and if possible the whole book which is hard to do in a debate setting. If you actually Check the verses mention by Dr Flowers in its context you’ll see that it at least touches or builds up the case he is presenting about election. This also addresses the fact that what he is defending is not a view that’s outside scripture.
example of this is the Ezekiel passage that does help to build up his case
”“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”“
Ezekiel 18:30-32 ESV
he started at John6:32 if you read until v36 does establish a wide view of salvation because of "whoever believes"
”Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.“
John 6:35-36 ESV
then if we then proceed to v37-39 it shows a limited view but then we go to v39-40 it shows a wide view again "that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life" and so on
”All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.“
John 6:37-38 ESV
”And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”“
John 6:39-40 ESV
”No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me- not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.“
John 6:44-46 ESV
”Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.“
John 6:47-49 ESV
This is why i think the passages are taken out of context cause if we take only few verses in isolation without considering the culture, state of the crowd and what was actually being addressed at the time we will arrive at the wrong conclusion.
this is why i said in my comment it would atleast better if John 6:14-15 was included or at most John 5:19 onwards cause it helps alot in the context being discussed. but its too bulky for a debate setting i believe. I do thing the things raised are worth atleast considering.
I was shocked brother at the quick reply it is appreciated. 😁
Edit:
Another verse where I think touches on the order of regeneration and faith is John7:37-39 as it shows atleast before the Cross those who believe does not have the spirit yet. But I dont think this is related in the debate tho, i just found it interesting while reading through the Gospel.
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 7:37-39 ESV
@@2timothy23
If you don’t know the meaning of the word then you won’t understand what it’s saying.
QUESTION: “isn’t the definition of being taught learning?” ANSWER: NO! 16:18
Learning: “knowledge ACQUIRED through experience, study, or being taught.”
Acquire: “buy or obtain (an asset or object) for oneself. OR learn or develop (a skill, habit, or quality).
Hearing: “the faculty of perceiving sounds”
Hearing is passive, Learning is active, you must “Acquire” the information.
Everyone who has heard AND learned. Flower’s whole argument hinges on the “AND”. You can HEAR and not LEARN so… THE EVERYONE only applies to those to chose to Learn when they Heard.
Taught is not learning. The contex of John 6 is that those that reject Jesus has already rejected the father that spoke to them to go to Jesus.
And that is the reason White kept asking Flowers to explain it. Flowers contention is that hearing and learning is conditioned on the free will choice of the person being taught. That thought is not in John 6:45, Flowers has to infer it by going outside of the text to put it there. It was his away around the inability in John 6:44 where it says "no one can come..." Flowers knew the condition to them coming was "unless the Father" draws them. Because of that, he had to introduce man's choice in the Father drawing them. The person doesn't want to hear and learn, therefore they won't be drawn by the Father. White was correct to ask questions about that view and have Flowers answer it based on the grammar. Granted, Flowers may not know Greek, but if you introduce an argument to support your view, you need to answer based on the context and grammar of the verses, not give answers talking about presuppositions or your views against Calvinism.
Taught by God is not the same as being taught by a man. There is no man who is a perfect teacher. A perfect teacher teaches in such a way that those hearing WILL listen and learn. When a perfect teacher teaches, those they are teaching DO learn. You're assuming the fallible teaching of man and overlaying it upon the infallible works of God. God is not fallible in any work he does. If he is the one teaching, then either he is fallible and man can fail to learn because he isn't a perfect teacher, OR he IS a perfect teacher and does not choose to teach every single individual.
if they do not believe the prophets, they will not believe one who comes back from the dead
Who’s doing the teaching?
@@MCNinjaDJthe Bible says all Israel was taught by God. Did all come to Jesus? Your premise is if God teaches people always learn what he teaches but we see in the Bible that not all of Israel is saved so…..
As a teacher I have taught many students. I can say I taught all of my students? Yes. Did some of those students fail the exam. Yes. Why? Because I didn´t teach them or because they didn´t listen and learn?
"...those who listen AND LEARN..."
By the very grammar of the verse, it implies that there is a possible category of people who listen but don't learn and therefore don't qualify.
Nate doesnt understand this either😅
@LawlessNate the grammar of the verse is to define what "taught by God" means, and is more clear in the Greek (where "the hearing ones of God and learning" is effectively a clause functioning as a noun).
In other words, everyone taught by God listens and learns. One cannot be taught by God without listening and learning.
But the grammar is not alone, the semantic positioning within the context, and the references to the OT, also should inform one's interpretation.
Comparison with how a mortal learns from another mortal is to miss the fact that God is the one teaching here, and His people will all be taught by Him unto eternal life, not by Scribes, Pharisees, or PhDs.
Are you God?
@@Charlene-y9iNate gets it just fine, but most people are struggling in their flesh with this and missing the fact that it is God who is the teacher, the one who gives us new hearts and writes His laws on them. That is what it means to be a listening one and learning one of God.
16:10 what flowers is arguing is through the law and the prophets. Every Israelite has heard of God. Those who have learned and trusted God are given to the son. When Jesus said no one can come to me, unless the father draws them, he is referring to Moses in the prophets, God sent his messengers to Israel. He started the conversation. Jesus quotes the prophet, and then says all those who hear and learn follow me. Jesus, as a and implying, there’s not enough for you to hear Moses in the profits you must believe Moses and the prophets. This lined up perfectly, with all other major doctrines of the faith.
Amen. It has nothing to do with Calvinism.
@@calebcrawford2520Nothing that scripture teaches has to do with Calvin. I simply do not understand why some of these guys can't get that.
'King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? *I know that you do believe.”* Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” (Acts 26:27-28)
Agrippa believed the prophets and yet did not come to Christ.
Not sure how that glorifies God, it sounds like you're denying inability, which scripture makes plain.
I don’t see how discussing on what basis people are judged isn’t related to the topic of debate.
It’s unconditional election. It’s directly related.
I believe because the topic was does John 6 teach unconditional election. That particular question was not related to John 6 specifically (I don't think, although even though I've listened to the debate twice now I can't remember everything) 😂
@@countdowntomidnight692So God doesn't know names that would be blotted out?
I can be taught something by a teacher and not learn it. I experienced that all the time in math class.
If I have a group of people, knowing that some of them will believe me, and some won’t, and I tell them, “every one of you that here, and learn, will believe in me” that does not mean everybody in the room. That means only the ones that here AND learn
Or, indeed, hear...
I agree. But I think White appealed to some Greek language understanding to say there is no difference. Wish he would have talked about that more and how he got to that conclusion
I don't think you need to know the Greek to make an argument for unconditional election in this verse if we look at what Jesus is saying by quoting Jeremiah. There are no people in Jeremiah 31:34 who are taught but don't listen, they are all one group within God's covenant people, from the least to the greatest.
Flowers makes an assertion that there is a difference between those who are taught and those who listen, but he couldn't demonstrate that from the text, he just makes the claim that this teaching that God does is analogous to a student being taught but having the ability to not listen. I think he does this because he doesn't grasp the supernatural activity of God involved in them being taught. Notice the verse which comes before which says, "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." This is a supernatural act of God that results in his people being taught.
@@hookoffthejab1 I don't understand the hostility to what seems to me to be clear Biblical teaching. I take great comfort in knowing that my Faith is supernatural in origin. I know if it were up to me to somehow stir up faith within me, I'd screw it up. I know that what sanctification I can see in the many years I've been a Christian doesn't come from inside me, but by the work of the Spirit of God within me. I claim credit only for the sin, not the salvation, nor the sanctification.
@@hookoffthejab1amen
brother
Being taught does not mean learned. Teachers struggle with this issue all the time.
I think all home-schooling parents would agree with you.
And God the Father is not a limited human teacher. The question is whether this teaching is effectual: everyone drawn will be raised up on the last day. Why? Because the scripture says they will all be taught by God.
Who’s doing the teaching?
The Father teaches in an effectual way. Ezekiel 36:25-27, Jeremiah 31:31-33, Isaiah 54
yes it does! if you didn't learn then you were never truly taught.
No “being taught” is not learning. He mentions this a thousand times. You can be taught and not learn, it happens all the time.
We are being taught any time we hear the gospel. Whether or not we learn is dependent on the individual.
No, only the children of Jerusalem (CSB) or the Afflicted One (Other Versions) mentioned in Isaiah 54, are taught by God. Therefore, only those who have already been given to the Son are taught by God.
@Comictime2011 Incorrect. When someone is being taught it is their responsibility to learn and apply what they have learned to demonstrate that they retained the teaching and understand it.
Calvinism is false, almost a cult, and borderline heretical. There is no getting around that.
I don’t believe that. If that is true, then why is Jesus wasting his time talking to a crowd of nonbelievers?@@Comictime2011
@@michaellong5672First of all, nothing Jesus does is a "Waste of time" all he does has a purpose, even talking to non believers. Here's my take on it since you asked.
In the context of John 6 we see Jews who withness the miracle of feeding the 5,000 who followed him across a lake to see him. Jesus reveals that, in thier hearts they're looking for physical food from Jesus, so he rebukes them and tells them what true spiritual food is. He goes on and on about him being the bread of life, he gives eternal life and those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have that eternal life. The false believes grumble about this teaching, so Jesus, knowing the hearts of men, explain to them why they do not believe in him, and what happens when people do believe in him. He sums it up here after he finished explaining that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life:
John 6:60-65 CSB
[60] Therefore, when many of his disciples heard this, they said, “This teaching is hard. Who can accept it?” [61] Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, asked them, “Does this offend you? [62] Then what if you were to observe the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? [63] The Spirit is the one who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. [64] But there are some among you who don’t believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning those who did not believe and the one who would betray him.) [65] He said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father.”
bible.com/bible/1713/jhn.6.60-65.CSB
As to why he would talk to unbelievers, i believe that in God's eternal providence a lot of what is done in Jesus's ministry is for us in scripture to have a record of his teaching, to reveal the Father's will and the relationship between the divine persons. He's not "teaching" the unbelievers 'cause they barely hear his words to begin with if they hear him at all. An arguement could be made that he's teaching the disciples, because, as Simon shows, he didn't leave, he wasn't among the non-believers, and got the message Jesus was trying to communicate. And he was chosen, yes by Jesus, but in eternity past, as I believe, he was chosen by Yahweh to be a part not just of the body of Christ, but of Christ's earthly ministry, along with the rest of the disciples.
This is all just speculation of course. I certainly don't claim to know completely why Jesus does anything during his ministry other than what he has revealed clearly in scripture. Make of this answer what you will.
@@michaellong5672exactly! Calvinism and Calvinist are so illogical
No. “Being taught” is not equivalent to “learning”. One only actually learns if one has the intention, and desire to learn. Otherwise the teaching is just going in one ear and out the other.
When an alcoholic goes to rehab, and they are taught how to keep sober, then they fall back into drinking… they were taught, but they did not learn.
Listening to and learning from the Father, in the context of John 6:45, is the definition of "Taught".
If one does not listen to and learn from the Father, they have not been taught by the Father, because they have not met the requirements of the definition of "Taught" that was provided by Jesus.
Depends who’s doing the teaching. Who’s the teacher in this verse?
@@Comictime2011 Totally disagree with that understanding of the term. If you had someone do the carpentry on a house you wanted built. and they did a terrible job, you might ask that person "Who taught you carpentry anyway?"... But just because the person may have had a carpentry teacher, doesn't necessarily mean they paid attention, and actually learned from said teacher. The idea that someone was "taught by" a teacher, doesn't necessitate that they actually "learned". Just like many kids have really good parents that teach them all kinds of good lessons, but then grow up to make bad decisions in opposition to those lessons... those kids were still "taught by" their parents, but that doesn't mean they "learned" from their parents. Two different things.
@@ShepherdMinistry Why does it depend on who the teacher is? The teacher could be the best teacher in the world, or the worst, that wouldn't change what is incumbent on the student to do.
@@brando3342 Because God is doing the teaching and God is the ultimate teacher. God is not limited by the physical realm as man is, God teaches by humbling, softening, and renewing our minds.
I was disappointed by the presentations in this debate, and I am even more saddened by the responses I have seen to this debate. Let me give just two problems I saw with this debate, and to be fair, let me make one on each side:
1) Dr. White’s opening statement was fairly weaker than what I’ve seen him capable of giving. I believe Flowers correctly criticized White for not stating clearly a definition of Unconditional Election. Defining terms is debate 101.
2) Speaking of debate 101, one of the things you absolutely do NOT do in debate is introduce new arguments in closing. And yet, that’s exactly what Flowers did. He added an argument in closing about Greek verbs being active vs. passive. That’s really infuriating because that would have been a great argument for White to clash with. And instead, it’s the final word that goes completely uncontested. That’s extremely inappropriate.
Thank you, Nate, for sharing this video. I hope many people are blessed by this.
Flowers was actually smart for that😂😂
You don’t use the Greek language as an argument when James White can respond, because he will tear it apart. I feel like few people understand koine Greek like James white
The reason why flowers brought up the coin Greek is because James White brought it up first. You probably don't remember that so I suggest you go back and look at the debate. James White argued that the verbs being used to describe listening and learning are passive. So flowers brought it up later on in the debate in his closing remarks to address the flaw in Dr flowers point.
Just go to the RUclips channel "what your pastor doesn't tell you". The person on that channel Joel K, I forgot his last name, is a linguist professor and critiqued Dr White's argument on the Greek and said that this is not how the Greek works throughout the New testament. So if you think flowers introduced to new argument, you're mistaken. Dr White presented the argument in the cross examination.
@@josephthomasmusic I think you misunderstood my point. I don’t believe that Flowers was introducing a new concept in the debate, and I’m aware that White brought up the Greek throughout the debate. The problem is that Flowers made a new argument in closing. That is not proper debate form, and for good reason. Making new points in closing means that there’s no ability for White to challenge the point, which means no opportunity for clash, which is the entire point of debate. In formal debate, Flowers would lose points for that.
Again, I’m aware that there are Greek scholars who disagree with White’s presentation. Not my point; my problem is that Flowers should have brought that up in either his opening or rebuttal. That would’ve allowed for a more productive debate; instead, most of the discussion on White’s knowledge of Greek has been in post-debate discussion. If White’s knowledge was really so far off, then challenge him in the debate and let him defend against the scrutiny of his fellow Greek scholars.
White undermined himself ala the Greek. It’s exposed him. He is either not all that much of an expert in Greek or a straight up liar. The dialogues that have followed since have been far stronger.
Totally wrong on the second part.
When someone speaks greek in a mostly English audience debate claiming something means something in greek that greek scholars still debate, you can and should challenge it.
.because it is not established, it's just quoted as a fact, which is up for debate, begging the question, not to do so, would have been the wrong thing to do.
You never ever let their claim stand, which white counts on, leighton knew James would try to use his knowledge of greek as an I got you now moment, as he often does.
Leighton researched and studied up on this passage quoting greek linguists way more accomplished than james white, some reformed, that disagree with James whites greek translation of the passages.
That is totally a fair thing to do as whit e has debated Some of them on this very thing.
This took away what white thought would be his slam dunk.
So now james white is not contending with Leightons relative to whites lower knowledge of greek, he is also contending with those more knowledgeable then him on the subject of greek language translation
He had to be extremely annoyed and deflated after that.
I’m surprised a former teacher would conflate teaching with learning. They are obviously two different things and everybody who’s not a Calvinist engaged in a theological debate knows this.
Yea, when I heard the debate teacher conflat that I was like this guy is the most biased and unfair teacher ever.
I know you like james, but as a teacher you know much much better that you can teach, and Some students will refuse to learn.
All students which we once were and teachers which we all are to some extent know this clear obvious principal.
That was actually shocking to me and the debate teacher lost what little integrity and credibility He had left imho and now is sits at 0.
I 🙏 pray he can become less biased and impartial in future debate reviews,as I know he really likes james white, so I give him some grace and expect him leaning that way, but come on now, that's getting close to worshipping james white.
The context equates them together. Jesus quotes the scripture and expounds on the text by saying the text he referred to is hearing and learning.
@@mjreyes713 you are begging the question, by assuming the very thing up for debate is true, without establishing it, you just state it and think every one will accept it.
Like James White does.
No, that's the question up for debate, you must establish that is the context, not just state it.
according to just as many if not more scholars and regular folks.
That is not the context, that's why they debate it, and James has the burden of proof to prove it is, he tried, but failed.
This has been debated before and will be again, the burden of proof has yet to be met and cannot be met by simply stating it is so, based on tulip presumptions.
Not all who are taught, learn except and only if you start with tulip as your presumption.
Which James White admits to doing.
So he is harming his own case
Does not mean he is wrong, he just has not established john 6.44 or "any verse" in the bible for that matter. teaches unconditional election for salvation of adults and infants, and by definition the reverse, unconditional damnation of adults and infants.
Even some reform teachers disagree with James White here on his interpretation of the greek, the definitions, context, etc.
Again that does not mean he is wrong, it means its not established and can equally if not more than likely be wrong.
@@mjreyes713no i don't think it does. In the book of James it says; "be a doer and not a hearer only.."
@@Tigerex966Nate would earn my sub if he had Leighton on his show
It’s a really long debate, but the famous Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate would be interesting to watch you react to!
He has a react to that on the channel already. That was a tough one for me because Nye comes across so arrogant and condescending, but Ham is not a good debater at all!
All will be taught but not all will listen, that is the main point
But John 6:45 is quoting Isaiah 54:13 and all who are taught in Isaiah 54:13 do learn, therefore all who are taught in John 6:45 do learn
That's Flowers' point, but it's not the point of Jesus' words in the passage. In the context of the passage the ones being drawn are the ones being raised up on the last day. Ergo all being taught or drawn listen.
@@TheCynicogueWhere does it say they all learn in Isaiah 54:13? It just says they were taught.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 have you actually read Isaiah 54 (I.e., Isaiah 54:13 in context)? If you have, you know the passage is about the restoration of GOD’s people at the end of times. If you have, you know that verse 14 says “in righteousness shalt thou be established”. My point is, the context of the passage is clear. The children in 54:13 do all learn. It’s a restoration passage.
@@TheCynicogue That could be after the first resurrection, during the millennium. Let's say it's talking about today. "All your children will be taught...." Do all children of believers stay in the faith? Unfortunately not!
to play out the logical implications of White’s interpretation of the text so as to demonstrate falsity of the interpretation is fully within Flowers’ right. It is not way off in left field but right on topic.
No its not. Leighton rejects original sin, he is truly a herectic. The only reason any believer would leave open the possibilty of infant damnation is because the scripture teach we are fallen. So you provisionist again use unjust scales because if you say babies are blameless then you have to attribute moral copabailty to God for them dieing in the first place
Which is why leighton planned it out to bring this up whem he knew james didnt have time to explain this. And yes did plan it. Theyve been gaslighting their people over ID for the past month
The debate is on the meaning of the passage of John 6:44. To debate you need to go through the exegetical methods used and argue why the opponents method is weaker or even bad. To say “Well your interpretation doesn’t make sense because logic” doesn’t even work. After all, many look at Gods condemnation of homosexuality and say it logically doesn’t make sense as well. I’m not even sure Flowers does a better job than those people who argue that way. There’s plenty in scripture that says God is beyond us and our thoughts. There are things in scripture beyond our understanding, such like Daniel’s visions of the future. Some stuff we can comprehend and get, but many of the eschatological stuff is beyond us. Heck, even in Flowers position, if it is anything like my own, is a mystery in of itself how free will and Gods sovereignty interact. The Trinity is a concept many argue doesn’t make any sense. That is a doctrine beyond our comprehension. So what stops the Calvinist from saying the same thing? You can’t argue about the overall logic of the Calvinist position philosophically. It doesn’t work. If we are going to argue about what scripture says, we need to argue exegetically. So it isn’t right on topic. If you want to lose the debate and not focus on the interpretation methods themselves than I guess it’s on topic. Btw, I am not a Calvinist. I affirm free will. I firmly believe proper exegesis is the issue here. If you are arguing any other way, you are arguing from a weaker standpoint as scripture is primary over philosophy or any line of thought we as fallen humans can have. If scripture says something I don’t understand or comprehend, maybe something that seems not to make any logical sense, I’m gonna still trust God based on the fact I know His resurrection is true.
@@rwhite3831 according to Scripture what is the condition for salvation?
@@gospelfreak5828 try again when you get my quote correct. your quote did not match what i said, my man. i never said, “your interpretation doesn’t make sense because logic,” nor is that what i actually think.
While I agree that Dr. Flowers' questions were not as effective as one would hope in terms of this debate, I think it's important to mention that Dr. White barely provided any material regarding unconditional election in his opening statement. This critique video only covered the cross-examination, but if you watch the full debate Dr. White spent a lot of time on "fluff" material, simply reading the text surrounding 6:44 and restating it with an occasional nod to his own deterministic lens without much exegetical commentary to back those nods up. The only two affirmative arguments I heard him make were that "listening and learning are passive actions" (wow, I must have been learning the hard way all these years!) and that "no one has the ability to come to me unless God the father does something; he expends divine power that teaches, divine power that causes to hear, that draws people to Jesus Christ". He didn't elaborate on or qualify those statements, he just read the text and assumed that interpretation.
Dr. Flowers mentioned in his opening statement that he agreed with 95% of what Dr. White stated, which I'm sure was why Dr. Flowers ended up bringing in other material such as Dr. White's books and previous statements that shape the presuppositions that he carries into John 6:44. It's hard to poke holes in your opponent's case when they don't really present one! A lot of this I think was the unfortunate result of a poor choice in the debate title/framing with limiting the scope of unconditional election to John 6:44. Isolating a debate around one scripture to prove/disprove something is just a bad idea because then it comes down to how someone interprets a few words in a sentence or two, which is not good exegesis.
In short, Dr. Flowers came prepared to debate unconditional election and Dr. White came prepared to read John 6:44 while assuming that unconditional election is true.
Yeah that's a good point about the title and why Dr. Flowers keep asking from Dr. White's book or his beliefs. About the "listening and learning are passive actions" is this like the scene the road to emmaus? Jesus is giving them a free Bible Study which they couldn't understand (listening) then at the end they (learned) understand it like a miracle?
@@mariembuenaventura1278 An interesting thought, but I see it as a stretch to apply it as an overturning of the conventional meaning of listening and learning/teaching as discussed in John 6:45, a reference to Isaiah 54:13. For one, the only thing that was miraculously concealed from the two disciples on the road was Jesus' identity as he walked with them. The two even state "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?", which leads me to think that they understood what he was saying to them on the road, they simply did not believe prior to seeing with their own eyes that it was Jesus once he had broken the bread. In that same conversation, they reveal an already existent lack of belief as to Jesus' messianic identity, referring to him as a "prophet", and reveal doubt that he had actually risen from the grave, despite the testimony of their women. Further, Jesus' rebuke to them "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" seems harsh if they were somehow being prevented from believing in and of itself.
What results from this account is belief on the part of the two men because they witnessed Jesus alive following his death. But this is not the cause of all peoples' belief, so again drawing that kind of conclusion seems a stretch to me.
i think both of these statements can be true.
everyone in the classroom was taught by the teacher.
not everyone in the classroom listened and learned from the teacher.
And we know this because it's evident in every day life, unlike the Matrix-like version of learning that White proposed.
And not everyone believes, hears, and understands the teacher.
Not everyone has a heart for Physics and / or Football and not everyone can learn physics and play football.
Not when "hearing and learning" are a description of what being taught by God is. If one does not hear or learn from the Father, one has NOT been taught by the Father.
Who’s teaching them?
Thank you for this really great take on the debate. But man can you and Flowers just get on and interview together and speak to each other? I'm sure he could really use your pointers and perspective 💖
Flowers wouldn’t listen 😂
Everyone being taught is not the same as learning go back your high school days and that point should be obvious
I think Leighton did a fantastic job in the debate for a few reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is this very topic. He backed White into a corner by making White be forced to suggest that "learning" is something that is passively done to a person rather than something someone has to actively participate in. Anyone who is being honest would immediately admit that learning is something a person does rather than something that someone else does to them.
The question is, why should we believe that Jesus was communicating such a concept as a person having learned by, essentially, a direct download into the brain, when we have scriptures that communicate a more normative method evident in daily life?
@@LawlessNate exactly. White's view of learning in verse 45 is tantamount to Neo learning Kung Fu in The Matrix. Come to think of it, it seems adhering to Calvinism is similar to the dynamic in that movie. You have two different worlds with different sets of rules that don't crossover. I'll let you take a stab at which is which. 😉
@@AndrewKeifer Neo is the Calvinist, the people in the matrix are the free willers 😂
@@tomtemple69 I think you have that opposite friend! The Matrix is the faux world of determinism!
I think teaching and learning are absolutely not the same thing. Ask any of my teachers in high school and any teacher who’s ever lived. There’s a lot of teaching happening every single day but learning what’s being taught is a different story.
If hearing and learning or passive… Then unconditional election can be affirmed. On the contrary, if hearing and learning are active, that is the death knell for unconditional election.
Are passive*
Passive as in grammar or passive as in real life? Arguably hearing can be called passive. You have to pay attention to actually learn. That’s not passive. Oh and what would a “passive action” mean that White brought up? Action is not passive. It’s action.
@@timkoelln3826
White said “passive action” to distinguish it from grammatically passive, since the verbs are active verbs. But he is suggesting, in the context, they are both things that lack human volition.
I have a thought.
If actively listening to and learning from the Father is similar to "Seeking God".
And it's true that, according to Paul quoting the prophets in Romans 3, "No one is a seeker of God" while under sin
Then no one actively seeks God while under sin, before they come to the Son, therefore no one actively listens to and learns from the father while under sin.
If someone comes to the Son, they must have listened to and learned from the father, and since they didn't do it actively, then the listening and learning must have been passive.
Make of this logic what you will.
16:15 I’m not so sure being taught necessarily means that the one being taught has learned. I don’t think that’s a proper definition. I can be taught by a college professor, but that doesn’t mean I will learn (i.e., internalize, process, apply that information) what he/she taught me. That is also not necessarily a problem or fault of the quality/ability of the teacher or teaching, but rather the one who receives it.
Love your content Nate! I might be wrong on this, but wanted to share it in case I need to be corrected in that.
You're not wrong, you're exactly right. Being taught and learning are obviously not the same thing, this genuinely seems strange that Nate says it is. Being taught shows the faithfulness of the teacher. Learning shows the student was obedient to doing what was required of him/her. Paul "teaches" that Christ is the Son of God every where he went, first to the Jew then to the gentile. Did they all learn?
He knows he is wrong, as a teacher no less, but felt bad for james white so he is showing support by denying common sense and logic.
Remember his a teacher we are listening too, but at least half of us disagree with him, so we are not learning to deny truth as the other have been indoctrinated with tulip as a presupposition have learned.
In a general way sure… in light of the context in John 6 that’s not the case
“The Lord GOD has given Me The tongue of the learned, That I should know how to speak A word in season to him who is weary. He awakens Me morning by morning, He awakens My ear To hear as the learned. (Isaiah 50:4)
God opens the 'ears' for a person to learn. As Jesus says consistently “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Mark 4:9, Matt 11:15, Mark 4:23, Rev 2:7,11,17,29). Likewise 'Then He opens the ears of men, And seals their instruction.' (Job 33:16).
Both hearing and seeing are a metaphor for understanding/revelation. 'And He replied: "Go and tell this people, 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' (Isaiah 6:9)
It is God who gives understanding. 'And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures' (Luke 24:45)
He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.' (Luke 8:10)
Likewise God can choose to blind people. 'Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear.' (Deut 29:4)
'For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.' (Isaiah 29:10)
To close one eyes is to shut up a person's understanding. As Flowers said (17:45 timestamps in this video) he does not believe that God can open and close minds to understanding which is contrary to every scripture here quoted which clearly demonstrates that God can open and close minds and hearts.
Further 'And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deut 30:6)
'I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD. They will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with all their heart.' (Jeremiah 24:7)
'Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.'
If God can open and close hearts than Flowers is wrong. As these texts clearly show God can open and close hearts and minds.
@@JimmyGGGGG God enables learning and hearing in us all.
We are not on our own as Some Calvinist try to forcibly insist.
He has made the provision.
It is our responsibility to learn just like any student or child to actually listen and learn accept or we cannot be willing to learn, and reject even as he holds out his hands all day long to gather us to him.
This way Gods judgement is just and our learning and faith or refusing to learn is really and on us and our responsibility...not God and his judgement is therefore righteous and just.
And faith is not a salvation meriting work so we cannot boast.
And rejecting God is not predetermined before we are even born making Jesus the gospel prophets apostles creation holy spirit all of not effect whatsoever.
Basically demoting and replacing the cross and blood of jesus that saves with predestination which shed no blood and saved no one ever.
without the shedding of blood there is no redemntion of sin.
And there are no preselected respected persons of God.
And not passed over or prejudged and pre damned persons of God.
Jesus has made provision for all people who believe and follow him to have salvation by Gods grace through faith from the beginning to the end.
Not augustine not luther not john calvin not john macarthur nor John piper not james white not leighton flowers not your or I.
Having struggled with learning, I can promise being taught does not guarantee learning.
Amen!
Your teacher wasn't God.
"All your children shall be taught by the LORD,
and great shall be the peace of your children." (Isa 54:13)
Couldn't your objection be raised by the Israelites here in the same way?
@@joeh8130People reject God's teachings all the time. We can observe this in real time.
@@joeh8130White is rejecting God's Biblical teachings right in this debate.
Being taught is NOT the same as learning.
Teaching is done by the teacher
Learning is done by the learner.
15:58 How can teaching and learning be the same thing? One involves the sender, and the other, the receiver. I can be in a class where my teacher is actively teaching, but I have the option to either ignore him or reject what he's saying and therefore not learn anything. I don't see any issue here. Why does verse 45 say "everyone who..." if the act of teaching everyone necessarily means that everyone learned? It appears that Calvinists may have a misunderstanding with conditional clauses.
Exactly….It doesn’t further Whites position to claim a biblical text fails a simple check of coherency. Leighton’s continual appeals to reason about the logical and philosophical implications of James exegesis fall on deaf ears.
Jesus gave those verses in a certain order to build on and clarify what is being said before .Those God is teaching, are all those of verses 37 & 44.
“Isn’t being taught learning?”
Absolutely not. Any parent or person who teaches for a living can attest to the fact that their teaching does not always translate into learning by those being taught. It’s also signifies two separate but related actions.
Also, I think “learned” is closer to “believe” than “be taught” is to “learned”.
“The Lord GOD has given Me The tongue of the learned, That I should know how to speak A word in season to him who is weary. He awakens Me morning by morning, *He awakens My ear To hear as the learned.* (Isaiah 50:4)
God opens the 'ears' for a person to learn. As Jesus says consistently “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Mark 4:9, Matt 11:15, Mark 4:23, Rev 2:7,11,17,29). Likewise 'Then *He opens the ears of men,* And seals their instruction.' (Job 33:16).
Both hearing and seeing are a metaphor for understanding/revelation. 'And He replied: "Go and tell this people, 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' (Isaiah 6:9)
It is God who gives understanding. 'And *He opened their understanding,* that they might comprehend the Scriptures' (Luke 24:45)
He replied, *"The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you,* but to others I speak in parables, so that, *'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'* (Luke 8:10)
Likewise God can choose to blind people. 'Yet to this day *the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear.'* (Deut 29:4)
'For *the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes,* namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.' (Isaiah 29:10)
To close one eyes is to shut up a person's understanding. As Flowers said (17:45 timestamps in this video) he does not believe that God can open and close minds to understanding which is contrary to every scripture here quoted which clearly demonstrates that God can open and close minds and hearts.
Further 'And *the LORD your God will circumcise your heart* and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deut 30:6)
*'I will give them a heart to know Me,* that I am the LORD. They will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with all their heart.' (Jeremiah 24:7)
'Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. *The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.'*
If God can open and close hearts and minds then Flowers is wrong. As these texts clearly show God can open and close hearts and minds.
Leighton Flowers lost yet another debate with James White. Not surprised at all. James White knows the Bible too well. Flowers does not have sound doctrine.
@@JimmyGGGGG thanks fro bringing up Lydia. Lydia is really underrated in every debate about this topic.
And I like the passages you brought up to underline that being drawn is also being opened up to understand and accept.
My husband is high school teacher. He spends hours and hours every week teaching but do all the kids in his class listen and learn what is being taught? No! Not by any stretch.
17:51 the word BELIEVE is there. John 6:29. It is the main topic of the chapter. It is main condition (6:63-64). It is in the context
It also shows up in verse 47. It's clear there is an action you must take in order to accept the free gift.
25:34 I recall James White did state in a previous video that drawing is the same as regeneration. Shouldn’t he have acknowledged his position here? this is what confused me in the debate review. Is it a viable strategy to deny your stated position if it is mentioned outside the debate venue? Im not really good at debate strategies this is a real question regarding the debate.
Thank you Nate for sticking to the topic of debate and not the topic of the debate. This my brother, is refreshing.
For those who may have gotten lost in the debate, here’s the main crux of the debate, with JP's comments at the end.
Flowers’ argument
No one [whole] can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him [subset]; and I will raise him [same subset] up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all [whole] be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father [same subset], comes to Me.
White’s argument
No one [whole] can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him [subset]; and I will raise him [same subset] up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all [still the same subset] be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father[still the same subset], comes to Me.
The arguments boiled down to who is the “they…all” that shall be taught of God.
Is it only the ones drawn who are taught, listened, and learned?
White: Yes
Flowers: No
Is it all Israel taught, and the ones who listened and learned are drawn (and come)?
Flowers: Yes
White: No
Is there any change in the “who” and “how” Jesus will draw in John 12:32?
Flowers: Yes
White: ???? No maybe??? Not clear
That’s pretty much the debate on how each side reads and argues from these verses.
JP comments:
Since Flowers believes that Jesus was only gathering a subset before the cross/exaltation anyway, he could actually affirm or grant White’s entire interpretation above (even if he thinks it’s wrong) and Unconditional Election still does not follow from it.
Even White admits some in the crowd could believe later (assuming by UC or whatever, but that doesn’t matter).
The only thing that does follow is temporary rejection (of each other) by both Jesus AND by the audience.
Temporary rejection ≠ Unconditional Election
Now, Unconditional Election may be true on other grounds, but Unconditional Election is not proven even on White’s reading of the text of John 6. He can presuppose it on those other grounds, but that’s irrelevant and question begging. He had to prove it from this text. He didn’t.
New viewer here. I really like how you focused on the skill of the debate. you put into words the way this debate made me feel. No matter what side you fall on, it's important to be able to state you view clearly and stay on topic. I think you comments will help me when having discussions in the future.
Ive been waiting for your review of this debate, are you gonna review the other 3 debates Dr. White recently completed?
If Nate says even one nice thing about Flowers... lol just kidding. I thought Flowers did well in White's first cross, even if I disagree with Flowers.
I thought the same thing. I thought Dr. Flowers had good answers but bad questions. His only sticking point was towards the end of Dr. White’s second cross examination when he didn’t understand Dr. White was saying the “all”s in 45 should be grammatically understood to be the same people. He later accepted correction by Dr. Korytko on this point since he realized it doesn’t prove Calvinism in itself.
teach
verb
past tense: taught; past participle: taught
show or explain to (someone) how to do something.
Doesn’t mean the person learned
Who’s doing the teaching?
@@ShepherdMinistrydid everyone who was taught by Jesus learn what he was teaching?
@@ChristinaBiasca That is different. Jesus says you must be taught and draw by the Father. That is a spiritual change that is occurring.
@@ShepherdMinistrythis is an unfounded assumption
@@ryanwall5760 John 8:47 (NASB95): 47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
We read that those who hear are of God. Flowers states those who hear are not always of God as they must learn.
Excellent teaching video, and I appreciate this discussion. And having watched several other videos prior to this one, I subscribed.
Jesus never once said that we need to be theologians to be saved. Growing and maturing in Christ doesn’t mean picking apart every word and creating a church based on a word or concept. We need to be more unified than this.
Dr. White made no contentions in the opening statement. He just read the text and assumed his positions😂😂
Yep it's the biblical position
Yep it's the biblical position
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 that’s why he lost the debate, he made no arguments
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689
Assuming a position is not what the debate was about.
The title of the debate was not "can we just assume that the text says what James White thinks it says"...
James White even asked that as a question, and thought he had won when Dr Flowers said "yes"...
JW:If the text means what I think it means, would I be correct?
LF: Yes, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
JW: You see! I won!! He agreed with me. Wow, this debating thing is easy...
All flippancy aside, we all have our lenses, our bias, our assumptions when we come to the text. The aim is to try and lay those down, but it is hard because many of the times we are not even truly aware of them. They come from our upbringing, our education, that throw-away remark that Grandma said on Christmas Day in 1985...
It can all affect our reading of the text.
How many times have you read a verse, made a note about it in your journal, and a few years later you go back to it and find something else speaks to you from the text?
We should not assume...
Or if we do, we should take our assumptions from the bible.
God bless you,
D
White literally proved nothing from the text. He just assumed it true while not providing anything necessitates his view. Quite sad really.
You’re assuming that Flowers came to debate the topic. That’s not what he came to do. He came to attack Calvinism and promote his own ministries, sadly.
like he always does
Attacking Total Inability and Irresistible Grace goes s long way towards attacking Unconditional Election, which is the contention here.
@@JamesS805 yeah he didn’t come to debate the topic. He never does
Why are Calvinists now always debating? Evangelism is more productive. Imagine if they directed their energy and attention like Whitefield or Brainerd.
@@jasonholbrook8498 super ironic 🤣
Is the point of the debate to engage the audience or engage your opponent? Ed would argue in a professional debate. It would be the latter but In public debate, it’s the first
I appreciate what you said about raising the level of discourse, and I think this debate shows one way. White seems to be intentionally obfuscating his previous stated views on the text. Anyone familiar with White’s comments on this passage knows he believes the drawing is in reference to or includes regeneration. Even in this debate he says that shows irresistible grace, and he has often equated IG and regeneration in his published work and recent DL shows. It’s clearly a tactic to derail Flowers’s line of questioning at the start, wasting all of his CX time since he’s not an experienced debater. To me this shows White is more interested in winning a debate than displaying truth, which I think goes against the purpose of your channel.
Thanks for sharing the content and the commentary, Nate.
Nate, I respectfully disagree with you that being taught is the same as learning. I was a Professor for 31 years and I can tell you for a fact that not every student I taught learned what I was teaching. So while someone who has been taught would have heard, they may not have necessarily learned. Students can listen to a lesson and not learn what is being taught, no matter how carefully they listen or think. That is the point Dr. Flowers is trying to make, i.e., some of Israel are closing their eyes and ears. Thus, they may hear Jesus but do not learn or believe.
Also, John 6:45 has two conditions that must be met in order to come to Jesus. ESV translation states, “Everyone WHO has heard AND learned from the Father comes to me.” Both conditions must be met…hearing AND learning. Dr. Flowers point is while “they will all be taught by God” and thus hear, that does not mean that they all have learned. It also seems Dr. White is interpreting this passage by dropping the “who”…and reading the passage as, “Everyone has heard and learned from the Father and will come to me.”
Also, note how Dr. White keeps misquoting what John 6:45 actually says. He keeps dropping the second condition and misquotes it as: “Everyone hearing from the Father comes to me”. Flowers keeps correcting him that it is “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me,” but the White goes right back to misstating the passage again. (Kind of ironic that Dr. White is hearing but clearly not learning or understanding Dr. Flowers point.) Every translation I looked at except KJV had the “who” in the passage (ESV, NASB, NLT, NIV, NET) The KJV read, “Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh to me.” I think the two conditions are more clearly stated here as “hath heard and hath learned” in order to come to Jesus.
If you teach someone something they learned
If someone failed you would say
I tried to teach them but they failed to learn
Just my opinion
@@Inverted_big_toeno! How on earth? Some must be taught more than once before they learn? If someone gave you 1 lesson on how to drive an F1 car or how to fly a commercial aeroplane do you have the confidence to go do it? No! You heard some stuff and youll ask repeatedly to be taught. Only thing yiuv learnt is that youv learnt nothing. You must be taught continuously
@@Charlene-y9i if your boss told you to teach someone to run a piece of equipment for one day and tomorrow they will run it on there own. The next day the boss gets there and wants the person to run it on their own but they didn’t learn how , what would you say? I tried to teach them , if they can’t that means they didn’t learn . No man seeks God , not one.
@@Charlene-y9i look at all your comment history! 😂😂 your just stirring up arguments
I think White dropping the "and learned" really hurt his position. It was obvious to anyone who was looking at the text that he was dropping it and that made it seem like he didn't wan to deal with it. He needed to make a case as to why learning is unconditional. For this passage to support unconditional election, there needs to be unconditional learning that is equivalent to prevenient grace. Not only did White fail to do that, I don't think he even realized that he needed to do that.
Is it wrong to think it's okay for Flowers to attack James on unconditional election when the debate was on does John 6 44 teach unconditional election? If they exhaust John 6 44 and its a stale mate just reiterating the text does nothing for anyone. So why wouldnt flowers attack the other point in contention that being unconditional election
In my honest opinion if you can prove unconditional election isn't biblical outside of John 6 44 then it proves John 6 44 can't be teaching unconditional election
@@Cadeath The only problem with that strategy is that the other person could claim that since John 6:44 DOES teach unconditional election, that proves your interpretation of the other passage must be wrong. You'd be at a stalemate at that point until you actually started grappling with John 6:44 directly.
@@introvertedchristian5219I mean just claiming isn't enough they would have to prove it right? And if they could do that while staying within John 6 44 that's awesome. But I don't see any issue if they were to bring up other texts to help support their reading of John 6 44 or helped support the idea of unconditional election. From what I saw in the debate they both believed their view of John 6 44 was correct so to just keep stating their positions wouldn't have helped at all it would be better to supplement the positions. Or for Flowers who isn't in the affirmative to attack unconditional election. And James could have gone to other texts to support unconditional election.
@@Cadeathbut that would be ice agent the text and reading one passage into another for it to mean the same thing, which would require a bigger burden of proof depending on who does the referencing. Hence why that would be off topic
If they had exhausted points which centered on the text, then perhaps you would have a point. But Flowers needs to be strongly reprimanded for leaving the topic when he had in-text and exegetical grounds to continue on the matters directly related to the interpretation of John 6:44. He threw the debate in order to attack Calvinism and I just don't understand why people who take his side refuse to see that.
White simply does not want to hear what flowers is saying.
Which is nothing but straw manning in a nasty, unchristian tone. Flowers is a joke.
Maybe people don't get this, but Flowers has made a living off of responding to and "debunking" anything James White says. White could BREATHE in his direction, and there'd be a 2 hour video response to it. This has been years and years of this, and James White doesn't go nearly as far as Flowers does in this regard. Lots of Whites videos are about way different topics than Flowers.
@@freedomslunch "Flowers is a joke"? Very christ like.
@@jacobchesney1558 Flowers is not attacking white. He is defending his postions from whites attacks of his position. We really need to be more charitable to our brothers in christ.
@@freedomslunchthat’s pretty rich considering James white
Hosea 4:6 there is a price to ignorance. We are responsible to listen and learn.
For all the rabbit trails in the debate, I enjoyed and learned much. Thank you.
He’s talking about unconditional election.
Where does this "unconditional" come from? The Bible? Calvinists invent words to prove their doctrine of Election. There is no such thing as 'Doctrine of Election'.
This is the one i was waiting for
Flowers started off with accusing White of ‘revamping’ ‘whosoever.’
He has a question prepared based off that assertion.
White clears up Leightons misrepresentation and yet he still asks the question he had prepared based off the misrepresentation.
Just reading the list off one by one, no matter what the answer is.
He did, he tried to use greek to say whosoever should not be in john 3.16.
He failed as many greek scholars, some even reformed, way more accomplished then him, put that scheme in the trash bin where it belongs, immediately, and said whosoever is the best english translated word for john 3.16..
What other human or entity do you know, that wants whosoever removed from John 3.16?
James white knows that whosoever all etc., conflicts with his stulip and hyper calvinist teachings and divine determinism presumptions, so he needs whosoever gone from the john 3.16 verse.
Not going to happen, even reformed leaders are against that.
I don't have whites link on his show about john 3.16 or Leighton pointing out the rebuke he got from other scholars for suggesting it, but it should still be on youtube.
Leighton, knowing White was going to play the I know greek better than you card, therefore my interpretation is right and yours is wrong card, like he does whenever debating some one less knowledgeable about greek than him, was setting this up for his point " if you start with a bad presumption in english or even greek, you will end up with a bad conclusion in english or even greek"
He was also setting up defenses against whites he is not doing proper exegesis, a routine debate tactic and claim that his fans love and eat up and repeat for him.
And he's running away from the text, all over the place, while he does the same thing, but to a slightly lesser degree.
His fans instantly repeat this but don't see White's doing the same things at all.
.he knew white would complain about and refuse to answer certain questions to Waste time and not answer, while demanding his repeating the dame questions over and over be answered over and over to avoid the real points of contention and debate subject,
does John 6.44 teach unconditional election. which was his burden of proof, that was never established
.white often talks about his other debates ministries accomplishments and things his opponents actually agrees with him on, to avoid what they differ on and waste time while strawmanning gaslighting and throwing in multiple insults and rudeness, that's how he "wins" debates instead of seeking the truth, he's three only to win by any means necessary its his $$ profession.
It did not work this time because leighton wanted to preach the gospe, and his presumptions that contradict unconditional election and that is actually John 6.44 6.45 3.16 by any means the holy spirit would use.
Even James attempted scheme to conflate teaching and learning with greek failed miserably because they have different meanings as all teachers and students inherently know, and this pissed off James White as without that he could not establish unconditional election so he unfortunately claimed victory based on a hypothetical question HE ASKED Leighton, were Leighton agreed if his presumptions were correct his view was also correct, forgetting somehow that Leighton made clear he thinks his pre assumptions are false.
Once James realized his mistake he was even more rude angry pissed even Livid, just checkout his after debate damage integrity control review where he has conspiracies theories that cults were all ganged up against him and somehow were feeding Leighton information and questions throughout the debate.
When everyone already knows james white believe adults and infants are either elected for salvation and the majority are passed over for hell. By divine decree that's what the U in tulip represents doomed from the womb, but he was too ashamed to own what he believes and preaches.
Thus is common knowledge he believes that.
John.macarthur and John Piper and other Calvinist leaders disagree with that and call infants innocent not guilty of Adams sin and go to be with the Lord or add and age of accountability doctrine etc.
He should man up either you believe it or you don't.
Since he could not establish john 6.44 teaches unconditional election regardless of Leighton or anything else he lost the debate because it was his burden of proof to establish.
what made it worse was he claimed victory falsely forgetting maybe because of sickness that Leighton did not agree with his preassumptions at all.
He merely said If If If they are true you are right but they are not true.
16:43 because they obviously might have heard, but that doesn't mean that they have been taught, or learned
An interesting thing that happens in this debate that we just barely touch here is James’s interpretation of the Greek. Leighton maybe wasn’t prepared for this exact point of contention and it’s fair to dock him for that. But James corners him here and points out that if Leighton can’t exegete this ANY other way, then he must concede. He arrogantly declares himself the winner here because Leighton himself offers no other exegesis, however Leighton does point out there are many experts who do not hold the same position as White. Leighton does not himself claim to be an expert on Greek. The real eye opening happens post debate, where the Greek experts do come forth to defend Leighton and completely dismantle Whites Greek interpretation. This really unravels the Calvinist position on John 6:44 in the end.
Hi Nate, you are repeating the error of suggesting that everyone that is taught has listened and learned. This simply isn't biblical. Check out the following reference...
Jer 32:33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: THOUGH I TAUGHT THEM, rising up early and teaching them, YET THEY HAVE NOT HEARKENED to receive instruction.
Mar 11:17 And HE TAUGHT, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Mar 11:18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
God teaching does not mean that the hearers will all learn.
Your Jeremiah passage is not in the same context as what John 6:45 is referencing. John 6:45 is a description of the drawing in verse 44. Nate isn’t wrong.
@@enfire2146 I'm not saying it is... I understand the reference is of Isaiah 54:13. James arguments for saying that it is an effectual teaching is based on more or less three reasons, none of which have any validity. The first is a greek grammar argument which greek scholars have already refuted. The second is that it is because God is teaching, that it is somehow effectual. Jeremiah 32:33 shows that God teaching does not mean it is effecual. The third reason is because he says it is a new covenant promise, which again is really quite circular reasoning. However, Jeremiah chapter 31 and 32 both deal with the new covenant (see Jeremiah 31:31 and 32:40). So yes, even with regards to the transition from Old Covenant to New Covenant the teaching of God is not said to be effectual, but rather that many would reject it. Even Ezekiel spoke of repentance as necessary before getting a new heart.
Eze 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
@@Jeremyb2023 wrote: "God teaching does not mean that the hearers will all learn."
In the New Covenant it *does* mean just that.
_“And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”_ (Hebrews 8:11)
_“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,”_ (Jeremiah 31:31)
_“And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”_ (Jeremiah 31:34)
What does it mean to have "heard and learned" (John 6:45)? Jeremiah explains prophetically:
_“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”_ (Jeremiah 31:33)
Hence, the teaching is effectual.
By the way, not all of Jeremiah 32 is about the New Covenant, including v33. Most of the chapter is historical narritive. Not until v40 do we see prophetic text regarding the New Covenant. And, in Mark 11:17-18, Jesus is teaching under the Old Covenant from Isa. 56:7.
Remember, the New Covenant is unlike the Old:
_“not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.”_ (Jeremiah 31:32)
@@electronicMI Hi, I understand where you're coming from, but I would encourage you to take a step back from the traditional calvinist interpretation of these things and try to approach it with a bit of a blank slate. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but just hear me out. To be clear, the way that the New Covenant was presented to the Old Covenant people of Israel is not as clear cut as we would like it to be. We know that God's covenant people in the Old Covenant was the nation of Israel. They were under a covenant of works. They failed in big ways. When God promised that the new covenant would be different, it did not mean that all of the people of Israel would be participants in the new covenant. Many of the texts in the Old Testament which speak of the new covenant are speaking of the fulness of the new covenant and not the covenental transition. The earthly ministry of Jesus was that covenantal transition. Much of Israel tripped and fell (Romans 9-11). This was both prophesied in the Old Testament and also for the purpose of bringing about fulfillment of prophecy in the crucifixion of Christ. I am getting a little bit distracted....
Back to the point, much of the OT texts on the New Covenant explain the new covenant as different from the Old and obviously more powerful. What was not said as that not all of the people of Israel would be partakers of the new covenant... many would be excluded as the broken branches of the good olive tree explained in Romans 11. They were broken off for their unbelief. As Paul said in Romans, not all Israelites are of Israel. Also, what was not revealed in the Old Testament, at least not clearly, was the inclusion of the gentiles by faith. The gentiles would be the grafted in by faith. As Paul said to the galatians, we are made children of Abraham by faith.
Much of the verses speaking in the Old Testament about the New Covenant explained the fulness of the New Covenant. We are not yet in that fulness. The phrase that many Calvinists like is "already and also not yet." This is the case with the verses you shared...
“And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” (Hebrews 8:11)
“And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34)
We presently live in a time when we do teach one another. Jesus said, "go ye into all the world and TEACH all nations." The church constantly teaches and preaches the Gospel. Many are still entering into the new covenant by faith. The promise of regeneration is an "already" aspect of the new covenant. However, it is a benefit OF the new covenant. It is not the means by which we are enabled to become partakers of the new covenant. Do you understand what I'm saying? God doesn't give us new life so that we may become partakers... rather He teaches us so that we may come by faith and become partakers of Christ by faith.
@@Jeremyb2023 wrote: "...but I would encourage you to take a step back from the traditional calvinist interpretation of these things and try to approach it with a bit of a blank slate."
Please kindly explain how I used a, "traditional calvinist interpretation"-whatever that is-in my response to you.
- You wrote: "We presently live in a time when we do teach one another. Jesus said, "go ye into all the world and TEACH all nations."
Do we put His law within them, and write it on their hearts? When we teach and preach the Gospel, who accomplishes the following?:
_“And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”_ (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26)
_“And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”_ (Ezekiel 36:27)
This is the work of God:
_“Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”_ (John 6:28-29)
30:34 Flowers just asked a question about unconditional election and your asking why he doesn't stick to the debate topic? It's appropriately about the debate topic to show problems with other scripture being consistent with what John 6 supposedly teaches. If the idea of unconditional election is clearly refuted by other scripture then John 6 cannot be teaching it.
Yeah, that's not at all how that works.
@@SharpeningIronPodcast Instead of gaslighting like it was a bad point, IDK maybe try addressing what he said.
The debate topic is on John 6:44. You don't attack the system you reject by going to other verses with different contexts and proving that system wrong to say another verse doesn't mean what it says in its context. You would never do that with any other theological systems.
And yet Open Theism does this a lot. They infer God isn't omniscient by taking outside verses and making verses that indicate God is omniscient say something different. And since Flowers is friendly to open theists, it's not surprising he has similar ways to interpret scripture.
@@2timothy23 I men, in this timestamped part is was James White who pulled from Ephesians chapter 1. Just pointing out how big a hypocrite Calvinists tend to be on things like this. BTW -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with going to other scriptures even with other context to get how a phrase of figure of speech is used, or how an idea is communicated. After all, White argues the non-backable idea that Total Depravity wasn't a new doctrine at the time, even though no Jewish sect has ever held to that.
@@briancross9571 Not when you're cramming the context of another verse to derive the context you're looking for in the verse in question. You read John 6:37-45 in its context and grammar first then go to supporting texts that have the same context.
And don't make a blanket statement about all Calvinists because they're Calvinists. Just show from the text how they're wrong; attacking the character of fellow believers isn't right no matter which side of a theological argument they're on.
White made no contentions in his opening what are you talking about 😂😂😂
do you know what exegesis is?
@@dustinnyblom7835 yes it’s reading the text in context and *explaining how it supports your view*
That last part White never did
James White is focused on the scripture in agreement with scripture. And I'm not a Calvinist BTW.
Flowers is presupposing his belief onto the texts
Agreed
You did an amazing job with this review. I appreciated the convincibly unbiased apologetic analysis. Good job sir!
No, being taught does not mean learning. I was taught things in school which I did not "hear" because I was not actively engaged in learning. I was doodling. This was never true of you?
Weird out their presupposition leads them to believing being taught and learning are the same thing right? 😂
Im surprised flowers didnt bring up 47 which is the conclusion of the passage: Truly, truly I say to you, whoever believes has external life. Also if he is quoting Isaiah, Isiah begins with a lament at how they hear but dont listen. Which would have been understood by the audience
The other thing that would have been understood by the audience is that listening and learning from the Father is done by means of his word. In fact, that's what was said all the way back at the founding of their nation. Moses told the people to gather and read the law every 7 years so that the people could listen and learn to fear the Lord.
Those who listened and learned were those who paid attention to the message that was already given to them through the scriptures.
Im convinced that Nate is a calvinist 😅
He's really not, unless we hold him to be a liar or I am misremembering terrible, because during the krufuffle that arose after his debate review of the Romans 9 interaction between Flowers and White, he affirmed that he was not Reformed.
Really ??? Dang @@reimannsum9077
@@reimannsum9077He said nothing of the kind. He took great pains to say that he wasn't taking sides. Flowers interpreted Sala's criticism as being Calvinistic, and it seems you've done the opposite.
He's made some remarks in other presentations that lead me to believe he's not Reformed, but he's never explicitly stated one way or the other.
I don't know if he is a Calvinist, but I'm convinced that he doesn't understand the position that Flowers holds.
He understands Flower's utter departure from anything remotely resembling Christian orthodoxy as much as any man needs to. @@TimothyFish
Thanks, Nate! I thought you addressed this debate accurately and fairly except for one point. "Taught" does not mean "having learned." As a homeschooling parent, I have this specific conversation with my 10 yo often. Taught is the past perfect tense of what I have done. She could have either "learned" or "ignored" or "played" or "checked out" or various other things. She was taught by me(passive), but it does not mean nor even imply that she learned what I taught her.
#1. I believe that James White is terrible to debate one verse. He has been hammering this verse for years, believing that it's his nail in the "provisionist's" coffin. Every wise Christian knows that we never take one verse alone! Flowers laid out a fantastic opening argument that was pretty much ignored. He was addressing the issue (though X was not good) but couldn't "stay on topic" because the topic was too confining.
#2. While I agree with L. Flowers theology, I think he's very unwise to continue to engage White in this argument over and over again. He should stop debating, stop making anti-calvinism videos, and just focus on teaching the Bible.
#3. Why do we think so greatly of ourselves to believe that the emphasis in this verse is on man. How about we read it, "No one can come to ME unless the Father draws him. And I WILL raise him up on the last day." They should have defined what "draw" means and why God has to draw in the first place and TO WHOM the Father is drawing. This drawing is an attracting. Isaiah told us that the Messiah would be someone lightly esteemed. Unless the Father attracts people to HIM, no one would pay attention. Plus, the Father will NOT draw people to someone who is NOT his Anointed One. (This can be likened to a man and a woman. The man is attracted to a woman, and so he tries to draw her to himself; attract her to him. But it matters not how much drawing he does - if she wants nothing to do with him, she'll reject him. If he forces himself upon her, it's considered NONCONSENSUAL.) So the one that is drawn to Jesus by the Father - because they respond to the drawing, the attraction - Jesus will raise that one up.
#4. (which should probably be #1) White and Flowers should pay attention to the first thing that Jesus commanded directly before vs 44 - "Do not grumble among yourselves." Titus 3 is another good place to go when deciding whether we should engage in these fruitless arguments.
Point #1. Why do the debate then if you aren't willing to work within the confines? It is a formal debate on a specific thing. If that is "unfair" to go off topic the agreed on topic needs to be broader. But if that happens then nothing is debated.
#2 is why Flowers sounds bad in these. He is trying to do a sermon and instead missing the point and honestly making White come off as more convincing.
#4 as I said it seems like Flowers has the bone to pick and thinks the grumbling is warranted. He is warning of the other position. Which he straw mans through both debates.
Nate, not everyone who has been taught learns from the teaching. For example, I have taught my class how to paint but not everyone will be able to absorb the teaching therefore cannot apply the teaching internally; they just heard the teaching but not learned it.
Hey Nate. When you said “Flowers is way out in the weeds”, was pun intended?
I don't think so but quite ironic 😆
16:15 bias commentary.. they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard AND LEARNED from the father comes to me.. some heard the gospel but they dont accept that is why hearing and learning is important.. taught doesnt mean learned unless he is willing to accept your teaching...
Taught & hear doesn't equal 'obey.'
Flowers was unprepared and his animosity with Calvinism is a distraction even to himself.
It's really hard to hear someone debate from the position of emotional basis, and proof texting. That said, I really appreciate Nate's commentary, I learned a lot about proper debating, and how to analyze a debate! Thanks Nate!
As someone who regularly teaches Sunday school, I can say that just because I taught something, it doesn’t mean my students learned what I was teaching.
And it is not in our nature as Spurgeon said to want to be drawn to God. If it was we would all beleive in Jesus. How that drawing happens is the questions and really not relevant to my understanding of how God works. He can do what he wants when he wants.
@daveonezero6258 we have both the spiritual nature and carnal in us. Having ears to hear is what draws us to Him. If our heart isn't willing to listen it is of our own doing not God's. He wants us to believe but not all will.
Being taught (16:25) is not the same as learning. Someone can teach you and you do not learn. You must listen and learn. Both. When you listen to a teacher you are being taught, but that in no way implies you will learn that teaching.
I think his point was “Were you really taught if you didn’t learn?” If I said, “He taught me how to read Greek,” but I didn’t understand any Greek, would the statement still be valid? Wouldn’t it have to be reworded, “He tried to teach me how to read Greek, but I didn’t really learn anything”?
Notice the words "teach". I can teach you but you may not understand, you may not listen, you may not be paying attention or whatever the reason may be. Therefore you fail to learn anything but I'm still teaching. You can be taught yet not learn anything because of various reasons.
That's correct, but when your presupposition is that Calvinism is true, it is impossible to for God to teach without people learning.
@@TimothyFish
Nate isn’t a Calvinist.
@@levifox2818 do you know this for sure?
I teach people all the time, and they dont learn. I dont think Jesus is referencing anything about election here. Hes trying to tell them the Father has been teaching you guys and you obviously haven't learned from Him because you don't come to and believe. If they can't learn from the Father because they are chosen then why even make the statement at all it would seem Jesus is throwing words into the air with no one to perceive
Highly intelligent breakdown. Appreciated the unbiased approach to the subject. Have always wanted to hear analysis like this before because I wanted confirmation from an expert in debating that could better explain & breakdown what I was sensing but couldn’t articulate before, so thank you!!!
Unbiased? Are you kidding?
Thank you for the hour of entertainment.
To be fair White's believe in Calvinism colors is interpretation of every verse so I believe it actually is quite relevant to his understanding of John 6
someone might be taught in Harvard university could still be a bad lawyer in his practice. Being taught does not mean one will definitely learn everything. the Jews who came to listen to Jesus was drew by God to follow Jesus but they did not believe in what Jesus said.
It seems like James White said this is what I believe about the verse and you should believe it too without giving any actual explanation as to why he believes what he believes about the verse.
I mean... A lot of us disagree with that conclusion. He exegeted the text, asked flowers to explain certain aspects of the texts that seem to disagree with his own conclusions.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with White
@@henrylopez7721 I'm sorry I just don't see it. In his opener he read the text and then gave his opinion of what the text says I did not see any exegesis whatsoever.
@@henrylopez7721His exegesis was later dismantled by a REAL Greek expert from Oxford both on a neutral take video and Leighton’s channel. I suggest you watch those and you will understand why White is just plain wrong. He is a better debater than Flowers, that is certain, we already know that. “Winning” the debate sometimes comes much later when all the dust settles.
@@-justin-4077Respectfully, that scholar was not neutral or unbiased and woefully misrepresented White. White responded to him recently on his dividing line program and did a good job of answering him. Whether or not you or I agree with White or not is not my issue here. My issue is that that Greek scholar did not handle things well with regards to White.
@@CT-316 I respectfully disagree. I think white handled the Greek scholar very poorly actually. He was very disrespectful and dismissive of his work and status as a legitimate expert. The ad homenin is what you’d expect if you don’t have any actual rebuttal.
White was clear that he was letting the text speak for itself...and made every effort to keep the debate on track... he is a seasoned vet unequaled in the number of moderated debates he's done.
I appreciate his consistancy and he didn't try to sell his points with emotionalism or attack.. he defended admirably and clearly in his exegesis.. it really made me see as has been claimed..
" Provisionism is merely semi-pelagianism repackaged "
Been waiting for this!! 🎉
Taught and learn are not the same things. Not all who are taught, learn what was taught. This is in response to what is said around 16:35
Debate teacher reacts.. 12:30 in. Commentary on questions, nice. No reaction to body language. Cool. No reaction to a clear zinger answer.. Cool,cool. No reaction to answers at all.. cool. cool cool. Alright.. that's it for me. I kinda thought I was gonna get some kind of idea of how to score the question and answers. Accomplishing task? Good/bad strategy? rhetorically effective? Was the "stay on topic" line good form or bad form? Not sure why I am watching. No insult intended. Watching the watch parties was more fun.
Flowers did horrible, like you said, not because of faults in his view, but because he was trying to hit White with whatever blunt object was available instead of focusing on what White actually said in the opening statement.
I'm so glad Nate reacted so happily when Flowers asked the good question at 52:20. I audibly said "FINALLY A GREAT QUESTION!" right when I heard it.
All three are up for debate. The U cascades from the T then I cascades to the U. Therefore all three are in line with the debate of John 6.
Any debate review BETWEEN Dale Tuggy amd James White? Would appreciate seeing your view...
Great analysis. As good as the analysis of the Romans 9 debate. 👍🏿
Not everyone taught in class or school, actually learns.
You arent God
you cant handle the truth. To say God is like a incompetent teacher is blaspehmous@@Spartanthermopylae
who’s doing the teaching here?
@@Spartanthermopylae The Father did not teach Judas. Are you saying God can fail at teaching someone?
@@ShepherdMinistry "The Father did not teach Judas." Which verse supports your response?
"Are you saying God can fail at teaching someone?" Trying to deliberately misunderstand or manipulate what I didn't say? Did God "teach" Lucifer, before he rebelled? You, obviously, don't understand the point being made in John 6:44-47, and the process involved.
At around the 28:00 mark, Flowers is grilling White on inconsistency. James White has this strategy where when he is cornered on something he will take the strategy of "I don't believe that" or "that's just absolutely rediculous..." instead of actually engaging, and then go on to restate the same thing in a more palatable way. I think James White did a really good job on the cross examination, but Leighton Flowers did a better job on the opening statement.
Edit: as I am thinking further about this, I'm not so sure Flowers did so bad in cross examination. His questions are not particularly great phrasings to ask in debate, but I think he did a pretty good job of cornering him and left White stalling and dodging to avoid contradicting himself. Flowers definitely appeared to have a better grasp of the areas of contention than White, and was more prepared as well. You can only do so much to nail Jello to the wall, and James White did a really good job of being Jello.
I dont agree with your assessment that only the U of TULIP is relevant to this debate. Every single letter of tulip is represented in James White's interpretation of the passage. Leighton was simply going after the calvinistic presuppositions white holds.
Total inability- "no man can come"
Limited atonement - Jesus is telling the crowd some can't come
Irresistable grace - "the Father draws him"
Perseverance of the saints- "raise him up on the last day"
There have been many comments in the comment section about John 6:45, which says, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God. Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." The comments that defend Dr. Flowers' position are saying that being taught is not the same as learning. In other words, God is teaching, but it is up to the free will of man to accept the teaching or reject it. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the text that indicates this; this is something that has to be inferred based on a presupposition of free will Dr. Flowers is injecting in the text. And there are also contextual and logical problems with this as well:
First, verse 45 is referencing two Old Testament verses; Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:34 (and even alluding to Micah 4:2). Isaiah 54:13 is part of a promise to those that God would deliver; read verses 5-17 and you see clearly the promise. There's no dynamic that being taught would be rejected. In Jeremiah 31:34 it says all shall know the Lord for He will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. This is right after Jeremiah 31:33, where it says God will put His law in their minds and write it on their hearts because He will be their God and they will be His people. Notice the teaching of the Lord here is not something that will be rejected because God puts it in their minds and hearts. Even part of Micah 4:2 says, "...He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in his paths..." Verse 45 is taking from the Prophets the spiritual truth that God will teach those who will listen and learn; this is the way God is drawing them (John 6:44) so that He gives them to the Son (6:37 and 6:39). There's nowhere in any of the contexts of the verses referenced or John 6:45 itself where you see someone being taught and rejecting it.
Second, the Greek word for the phrase "has heard" is akouo, which has differing meanings depending on the context. When I looked this up, here is what is described as "akouo" in John 6:45: "to perceive in the soul the inward communication of God:." This isn't an outward listening where you're not paying attention or discarding it; this is a person understanding what God is teaching. They heard, then they learned. Again, based on the context, there's nothing in the verse that even remotely indicates the ones listening and learning make a free will decision to reject it.
Finally, John 6:39 says the will of the Father is that all He gives the Son, the Son will lose nothing. John 6:40 says the will of the Father is that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life and will be raised up on the last day. The will of the Father is to give to the Son who will come and they will believe. Nowhere from verses 37 to 45 in John 6 is the will of the Father to give the Son who will come dependent on man's will. Again nowhere in John 6:37-45 is the giving, coming, and believing based on man's decision outside of God doing a work in them. Dr. Flowers has to insert this "a person can choose to not listen and learn" dynamic in the text when it isn't there at all. (In John 8:26, the same word akouo appears when Jesus says He was to speak those things which He heard from the Father. And in this context the word akouo means "to be taught by God's inward communication." So did Jesus have the ability to hear from the Father and reject it?)
14:21 James White: "But it specifically states, 'Everyone hearing from the Father comes to Me.'"
No Dr. White, it specifically states, "Everyone having heard from the Father *_AND HAVING LEARNED,_* comes to Me." Not all who hear, learn. As it is written, there are those who are "ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven."
If you have to CHANGE the Word of God, or ignore specific sections to make your theology work, then you're wrong. Leighton even corrects him, and then White immediately ignores him and reads it again leaving out "and having learned" a second time, even when corrected. He is hearing, but he is refusing to learn.
The real kicker was Jer 32:33 - "They have turned their back to Me and not their face; though I taught them, teaching again and again, they would not listen to accept discipline." It shows that White's argument for v45 is purely question begging based upon his presuppositions.
Hearing and having learned is the exact same group of people in the text. That is the point. There is no difference between the people who have heard and who have learned.
@@christopherneedham9584 yes, because Jesus is referring to those who come to the Him. They are the ones who hear, and learn. We all agree on this point. However, to try and get from that, that everyone everywhere whoever hears, learns, is simply not the teaching of Scripture. Indeed, the testimony of Scripture is that most people, when they hear, harden their hearts and refuse to listen and learn.
@@beowulf.reborn sorry, I wasn’t clear. In the context of the passage, there is no distinction between the one who is drawn and the one who hears and learns.
The people who hear and don’t learn are the ones who are not drawn.
Explain judas
Let's all be nice to eachother in the comments. Some videos I see some truly hate filled people saying calvinists are satanic or they worship the devil. Andit always disgusts me.
I agree people shouldn't say that. But I also strongly believe that its blasphemy to say God decreed murders and rape. God is the objective morals. God holds people accountable to not be stumbling block. The moral God of the bible says he temps no one. So, if God was to decree evil he's breaking his own moral system and is an accomplish to the sin. The Holy Spirit was not yet given and that means Calvinism is wrong because the Holy Spirit didn't regenerate them to believe. Easy enough.
Did God decree the murder of Christ?
@@amichiganblackman3200Was it a murder or one giving his life willing or both????
@@amichiganblackman3200depends on what you mean by decree.
@@faithfulservantofchrist9876we must also carefully define what we mean by "decree." There are some definitions that would be genuinely blasphemous, as you put it. But there are other articulations that are NOT blasphemous in any way. And not all Calvinists agree on this either. Someone like Chris Date and James White, while both determinists, do NOT articulate determinism the same way, and that matters. So, while I hear what you're saying, I'd encourage some digging into the different definitions of decree, as not only will this clear things up, but this is not just a problem for Calvinists but for all Christians.
The problem I had was Whites opening had few if any points of contention and he didn't present a good case to the affirmative that the passage teaches unconditional election. So when it comes to cross examination Leighton has to fish for points of contention before he can address it.
White has a tendency to read texts WITH EMPHASIS, as if how he emphasizes the text is an argument for his position.
EXACTLY !!
White just presupposed his view.
@@stephenduris8291he exegeted the text and if his exegesis is correct, UE is correct.
@@Postmillhighlights if he exegeted the text, then he needs to show how. A person could say Flowers exegeted the text. The point of the debate is to show whose biblical interpretation makes sense with good hermeneutics. Reading the text like White did and then assuming his view on it, only looks like he presupposed UE.
For everyone saying Flowers was off topic, remember the subject was does J6:44 teach unconditional election…..that means any other part of scripture can be used to show unconditional election is unbiblical thereby proving J6:44 does not teach unconditional election unless one wishes to argue the Bible contradicts itself. Nate should have know that.
I personally find Flowers to be unfair in the his understanding of Calvinism (not surprising) and very inconsistent in his teaching, however its because he keeps bouncing around
Great review Nate!
Are you and AK going to review the next part of the crossX?
@@anomaly918 you never know!