Leighton Flowers VS James White: The John
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2024
- James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and Leighton Flowers of Soteriology 101 will take a hyper-focused look at John's Gospel and exactly what it means when Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them." This was a formal, moderated debate.
Thank you to our host, @firstlutheranhouston6033
TIMESTAMPS:
(00:00): Introduction
(04:27): James White Opener
(24:45): Leighton Flowers Opener
(47:48): James White Rebuttal
(56:04): Leighton Flowers Rebuttal
(1:04:28): Brief Intermission
(1:09:28): James White Cross-Ex
(1:39:06): Leighton Flowers Cross-Ex
(1:50:00): James White Closing
(1:55:07): Leighton Flowers Closing
(2:00:34): Q&A
To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: soteriology101.com/support/
Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter
Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
DOWNLOAD OUR APP:
LINK FOR ANDROIDS: play.google.com/store/apps/de...
LINK FOR APPLE: apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...
Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!
To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: soteriology101.com/shop/
To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: soteriology101.com/home/
For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com
Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise,” can be found here: www.amazon.com/Potters-Promis...
Dr. Flowers’ book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...
To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: / 1806702. .
For updates and news, follow us at: www.facebook/Soteriology101
Or @soteriology101 on Twitter
Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!
To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: soteriology101.com/support/
#LeightonFlowers #JamesWhite #John6Debate #John644 #Calvinism #UnconditionalElection
It's funny and ironic that God would SOVEREIGNLY pick a guy named FLOWERS to challenge the high priests of TULIP! 😅
That’s deep
That is a good one 😂 😅😅
That is really funny! XD
😂😂😂
Flowers gives TULIP a fat lip?
I say this as someone coming into this debate who is a huge fan of Dr White debates and had never even heard of Flowers. White was whiney, rude, and completely reprehensible. For someone who interrupts the other so much, he sure freaks out when he is cut off. He wont answer questions. He wont even debate in good faith. This is not the same Dr White from the Great Debates of the 90s. That was an honest man of God. This... is a shell of the man in comparison
For almost a year and a half I couldn't settle the issue of Calvinism in my mind. I was believing it and no verse seemed to suggest otherwise until today. Thanks for Flowers for this debate. I thank God for watching this video
What verse? You have a time stamp? Honestly I'm 2 years since my Accepting of christ and I didn't even realize there was a different view of what White is saying. I understand what he is saying just from my own studying and then this week found these debates and definitions.
what part suggests otherwise? name it specifically
Read, chosen by God by RC Sproul. I think you need to dig a little deeper. This is very surfacing and very sentimental, but it isn't very biblical. I've studied Calvinism for 30 years and seed. It is the most biblical defensible position on salvation.😮
@@daveonezero6258 I was an impressionable new believer once too and my Calvinist pastor had me convinced.
@@askbrettmanning There is so much that is absolutely lacking in the Calvinist view. There is no harmony of faith and reason. I read RC Sproul and found his view of Penal substitution to be obnoxious. Bishop Robert Barron and Joe Heschmeyer speak on this
Finally a link to the debate that actually lets you comment on it.
No comments section really helps from Christians (the only ones watching) from tearing each other apart. Zero people are convinced of anything because they read it in the CSection. Not enough space to articulate.
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard *and* hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
It's amazing how James kept purposely ignoring that part, even when directly confronted with him ignoring that part.
He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God." (John 8:47, NASB)
@@WinkenSmile
Why are they not of God.
And they [the Jew] also, *if they abide not still in unbelief* shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in *again*
{Romans 11:23}
@@larrybedouin2921 Then why isn't Jesus evangelizing them? He is very blunt with them, in Matthew he spoke of them like this.
Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?" (Matthew 15:12, NASB)But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. (Matthew 15:13, NASB)
@@larrybedouin2921 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. (Romans 11:5, NASB)But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6, NASB)What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; (Romans 11:7, NASB)just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY." (Romans 11:8, NASB)
Fantastic presentation by Flowers. Great power point and easy to follow. Very consistent, no mental.gymastics or appeal to mystery, special pleading and or contradictions.
James White was just the one being very consistent, straight forward hermeneutics, no menta gymanstics, just pure scripture! :)
I can see why it is attractive but the substance isn't there.
@@daveonezero6258The substance is literally all over John, while white keeps pushing special pleas and appeals to mystery, Flowers just reads vs32 onwards. You must have not actually watched the debate, typical of james white simps.
WOW...while I was listening to James during his opening (for the 4th time) I finally HEARD the word "given" which is a word in PAST TENSE which is pretty darn enlightening!
There WERE two groups within the house of Israel at that time.
These two groups are the products formed by their forefather's teachings.
If we go way back to when a large group in Israel rebelled against God we will see a group among them who WALKED AWAY from God to idols who gave them worldly promises.
Then there was a small group in Israel who did not walk away and remained faithful to God.
Fast forward many generations and enters Jesus walking among THE CHILDREN of Isreal whose fathers either walked away from God to idols or remained faithful.
The fathers who remained faithful TAUGHT their children from the Father, therefore they were drawn to the Son because they had the same voice and the sheep followed the voice of their master.
The Fathers who walked away from God TAUGHT their children TRADITIONS of men, therefore they were not drawn to the Son because the voice of their god was not being heard by them.
I will spell this out very plainly for you to easily swallow.
The Father had GIVEN (past tense) the Son the children of Israel who were LEARNING from the Father by their fathers who remained faithful.
The children who were not given to the Son WOULD NOT COME and God made certain that they would not come by speaking to them in parables as a PUNISHMENT, but it was also for their own good because after Christ was RISEN they COULD COME. After all, the veil was torn down!!!
💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡💡
Now, we are living in the time I refer to as "BUT NOW".
Everything has changed for everyone everywhere (even those who would not come before Christ died on the cross) because God RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD, and He was seen by over 500 WITNESSES, and then PREACHED into the world so that the world may turn from idols unto the one true Holy God, the Father of us all through the persuasive testimony of Christ Jesus being preached!
God is so GOOD!😍
John 6:39
“And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”
P.S. In Greek, it actually says, "This NOW is the will of the Father..."
The Father gave Jesus all the people of that time who were already following the Father.
But listen:
Acts 17
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; BUT NOW commandeth ALL men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath GIVEN ASSURANCE unto ALL men, in that HE HATH RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD.”
John 6 is in the past explaining the circumstances of God dealing with the children of Israel AT THAT TIME...He was not letting Himself be heard by the children who did not believe Moses.
They are an example of what not to become.
💌
What an amazing revelation! Thank you so much for sharing this. This is an example of GOD giving someone revelation of HIS word. GOD bless you!
Thank you very much. Very helpful.
@@KISStheSON... I read through your comment and was really blessed. Especially your explanation of John 6. Thank you ma'am 🙏
@@timothymarcus4090 I hope you will feel equally blessed when you find out that I am a ma'am😊
@@KISStheSON... Forgive my mistake ma'am 🙏🙏
I deeply respect both of the contestants, but man, huge shout out to Flowers. I watched snippets of his previous debate with White and boy did he grow in ability to debate and engage the issue. Glory to the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, *He that believeth on me* hath everlasting life.”
Descriptive not prescriptive
@@Vae07
All of God's bidding are our enablings.
John3:20-21
20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.
@@DaysofElijah317
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
@@Vae07 Prescriptive.
Thanks Flowers for standing up for the true Gospel which is the provision for all. To God be the glory
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
Exactly. For all of us who must cling to our natural desire to preserve self worth he is saving the day.
@@maxstrange7606
🧑⚖️ James White's interpretation of John chapter 6 destroys the attributes of God which are shown consistently throughout the Scriptures. Thus, his interpretation is wrong.
@@maxstrange7606 Calvin did not have the opinion that humanity is both totally depraved and accountable. He explicitly wrote about double predestination which is the foundation of Calvinism. In DP, God creates some to go to Heaven and the rest to Hell. A person cannot be held accountable in his fatalistic/deterministic DP hypothesis.
It would be like saying:
1. You were born prewired to sin.
2. You were born already preselected for salvation.
3. You are therefore accountable for your actions unto salvation.
It’s logically impossible to be held accountable for preselected actions. If I program software to do certain tasks, then whatever PC/machine I load that software on, it will perform those tasks no matter what.
I have read Calvin extensively. Calvin made it very clear what he believed and people died who opposed him. He clearly didn’t intend for anyone to challenge his beliefs. On the other hand, Jesus died and rose again to validate His beliefs and teachings. Huge difference in the two when seeking the truth.
@@jasonlewis5350yeah, most Calvinists don't hold to the views of John Calvin. To use their fancy terms: infralapsarian vs hyperlapsarian
Most Calvinists are the former.
I've attended OPCs & Dutch Reformed churches and read more classic Calvinistic works than anyone would believe if I told them. Im glad most Calvinists are generally nice people (and not murderers like their namesake)
"Why don't they travel just three verses down... 6:47?
"...Verily, verily I say to you that WHOSOEVER believeth in ME hath EVERLASTING LIFE."
which begs the biblical definition using "verse references" NOT Webster's dict...question: who is meant by "WHOSOEVER"??
Then there are the words "EVERLASTING" LIFE. Is EVERSLASTING like the biblical word "ETERNITY?" Eternity means withOUT beginning or ending, there is NO "start up" with eternity or everlasting.
Wow! I’m so used to Leighton’s quiet demeanor in his other videos, but to see this fire and passion issue forth was amazing to see and hear! Well done, Leighton! 😇
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, *He that heareth* my word, *and believeth on him that sent me* hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
{John 5:24}
Amen, our wills have to be involved by surrendering to Him and all who come to Him he will not turn away
Is "belief" something that we author within our own hearts, or something that God authors within the hearts of His people? It is written: "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set" (Hebrews 12:2.)
@@londonderrry
Yes it is.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, *that the Gentiles by my mouth should HEAR the word of the gospel, and BELIEVE*
And God, *which knoweth the hearts* bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
In whom ye also trusted, *after* that ye *heard the word of truth* the gospel of your salvation: in whom also *after that ye believed* ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
@@londonderrry
All of God's biddings are our enablings.
God does not ask man to do what is impossible for us to do. That is irrational thinking.
@@larrybedouin2921 "Be ye holy as I am holy." "“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart," "Be ye perfect as I am perfect."
Dr. Flowers performed even better than I expected. I also love his modesty. May God bless him!
When did this debate take place? Thanks
@@marteld2108 Thursday 3/7
@@Jeremyburroughs777 …thanks
@@Jeremyburroughs777 For the folks in the future, 2024.
He started out modestly, but got hype towards the end. And I understand, both are very passionate about this issue. Dr. White was frustrated because Dr. Flowers didn't stick with John 6. He kept going all over to argue against total depravity and that's not what the debate was about. But I'll also say Dr. White can be very difficult to have these conversations with- he has a tendency to get impatient. It's kinda sad, he's more gracious to Muslims he debates than fellow brothers in christ.
I grew up in such a terribly abusive household. All types of abuse constantly so you can imagine how I felt about myself. Had I heard JW, I would have never gotten saved. I was saved and regenerated the day I surrendered my life to Christ and believe. I am a different person today, Jesus has healed the pain, and I am able to forgive. I made a choice begging the Lord to show me if he is real and I would surrender all!! I meant it. I met the Lord that day and still moved and started to cry when I remembered. It seems so much pride and ego shines in some but I pray the Lord open their eyes. You see humility in the genuine believe. That's a work of God!! Thank you, Jesus, for saving such a sinner like me!!
Thank you for sharing and God bless you 🥰
Nice testimony, and doesn't do anything whatsoever to harm JW positoin. If you listen closely to yourself you'll understand why JW's position is superior. You reject it because "look at me I chased after God to do this and that, I made my choices, I begged him, me me me." You think, very oddly, that somehow you would not have been saved if you thought God was sovereign over his own creation? That makes no sense at all. Your position shows pride in yourself and strips away God's right to do with his creation what he wills.
You are saying, effectually, "I will decide my fate, it's not God's decision."
At what point in time did God start working in you to be saved? I can assure you it was before you started thinking of him.
That is amazing, but could it not be said that, that was God's Devineand fully sovereign plan for you and his Glory?
@@vigilantezackJames' position is absolutely hurt by his reputation of arrogance and pithiness.
Having a family member who is reformed and hearing John MacArthur say that free will is heretical I felt I needed to find out what I feel is the truth. I went to the early Christian teaching, Clement, and clearly the followers of Christ were given a choice to accept or deny Christ for personal salvation. Clement walked with John and heard from him directly not thru Augustine 350 years later. Augustine has lead so many astray -Luther etc. he may have had good teaching but his teaching on election was not what the early fathers said.
Next time try scripture. Start with Romans.
@jerryspidell2331
Roman's is clear. The problem is Calvanists do not start with foreknowledge, which is where predestination starts.
I have followed J.McA for many years. Never heard him say this. Not in his writings either.
Let's not assume predestination and free will are somehow separate and not compatible with the Sovereignty of God. Remember that many of these theological terms / truths are still not completely revealed to mankind and are still partially "mysteries." But, that is why there is a "tension" when we delve into the mind of God. Hopefully we never get so proud that we are never uncomfortable or have questions when reading Scripture.
What is this “last day” Jesus is referring to?
I reckon those who get led astray by Augustine are certainly misinterpreting him and they undoubtedly have their own hands on their own leashes.
I know that you said you wish you didn't get preachy during debates but I'm here for it! Your position entails preaching the Gospel. How could you not get so passionate?
I completely agree!
Yeah indeed! What's with the personal attack on Dr Flowers on how (supposedly) quickly he spoke in his opening statement 😖 I understood him fine.
The problem is that it's hard for a person who has a different view to follow someone else's argument. So talking slower helps us establish each proposal. The preachiness comes across as an aggressive attack. James White was simply trying to help him reach the other side of the room.
@@AFWorm I doubt he was 'helping him out'. Even later when Dr Flowers spoke slower JW can be seen eye rolling with certain facial expressions to the audience on anything he didn't agree with.
@@AFWorm That makes sense. But to be honest, I think everyone listens & learns differently. Personally, James White talking slowly and without much passion makes it harder for me be interested in and understand his arguments. I can do it. But it is more difficult. I do understand that people listen & learn differently though. So you do have a valid point. 👍
4th time watching the debate! It gets better every time!
Shall we watch the debate seven times?
@@trebmaster haha I may. I want to make sure I'm actively listening and learning. 😊
Flowers opening statement made me cry! Pure Gospel! I feel like when I listen to any Calvinist debate they sound like Lawyers trying to sow confusion because that is the only play in bending the text.
You’re just a cry baby
Yeah you arminians are female in how emotional y’all are.. that’s how you interpret the text, to fit your feelings 😢 😂😂
The emotionalism is often pointed out for this reason. Who cares what scripture says or what is true or what we need to know about God, my feelings are so happy!
Always about emotion .. 😅
Seriously, why doesn’t Dr. White actually deal with the whole text? He spends many minutes talking about Pos and Pontes but does not want to continue reading to deal with “learning.” I’m honestly stupified.
White is the only one who walked through the text
@Rhyno2183 no he didn’t he equated being taught by God to being raised which is a Calvinistic presupposition. He kept harping on hearing while ignoring the fact that the ones coming to Jesus were listening to and learning from God. These are not passive actions, no one learns passively, no one listens passively.
@@RLWatson_Authordid you not listen to LF? We walked through each verse right up to that verse. And included many others for clear co text. How can you make that claim?
He does this all the time. Red Herrings and goes into all high theology straw men. I've been listening to him for years because of his other material. I appreciate his other teachings and books. I Have never heard him explain how God can be mad a a sinner who is never called to be elect. NEVER talks about that.
Arrogance and condescension aren’t attributes I ever want to display whether sharing the gospel or debating my presuppositions with another believer. I admit I don’t have a PHD, I don’t read or speak Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, and at best I’m a lay person. But all that said if I take a step back and look at the totality of the text and my takeaway of God’s nature, Leighton’s perspective breaks down the cult of Augustine.
Well said, I love theology and I also am no academic Savant. I am adamantly opposed to calvinism. And I am on flowers side ! However their is a big danger common in the reformed mind I call an "elect complex" their is no dispute that james is one of the best debaters in the 21st century. Unfortunately the 180+ debates in the belt of Dr white has gone to his head. And their are so many calvinist people who look like cult leader types. And McArthurism is pretty cultish, sadly many calvinists teach the gospel of calvin and not the gospel of christ. And many who defend white become white apologists and have the presupposition that if you are not in their camp (a calvinist) it's explained that we are not elect infact we are spiritually blind to this gnostic understanding of a hidden knowledge of God. Which is a terrible framework to hold up a theology. A more obvious cult like scientology or the jehovahs witnesses all have this understanding of some sort of elected class of people. This is comparable to a Hindu and Eastern higherarchy of classes. And the elect are above all others who where eternally decreed for hell fire, also called eternally reprobate. And alot of calvinists love to project if you disagree with the gospel of calvin your "man centered" and just love freewill. Infact the man centered doctrine we know as T.U.LI.P. and opposing calvinism is good, as anyone painting God almighty as the author of all evil ever, is miss characterizing God and his very nature, as christ is the greatest gift to humankind, an easy second best gift to mankind is freewill also freewill is more complexity to separate people from other creations.
And where in scripture does God say , one has to have gone to seminary etc to be able to discuss or understand God’s word
John 14:25-26-25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
This is where calvanism runs so rampant. The teaching that God is not mighty enough to share His Word. It is only through man teaching you that you can understand. If you don't agree you just aren't smart enough or you have went to seminary. People follow and worship them over the Word of God because they have man's education. We live in a country where education has been so idolized it gives man value over God. God gives man value not education
Amen
I have looked at the Greek text and i still didn't understand what the point of what James white was getting out
The opening statement that James White saying 'since the reformation' is telling.
Sure is!
If the Father chooses most to go to Hell by His choice isn't it possible that you're actually called to burn? Where's the assurance in that? Right, there's no assurance in that. Flowers should've used scripture to prove his case but he still won. Romans 2:11 there's no partiality with the Father and not willing that any perish and desires that all would come to knowledge of forgiveness 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9. Scripture never contradicts Scripture. Truth is white will burn if there's no repentance. Telling people that the Father is responsible for people going to Hell when it's really satan and the person's choice it's blasphemy by switching the credit to the wrong party that's why when the pharisees said Jesus was doing miracles through satan when it really was God they blasphemed the Holy Spirit
THIS!!! 👆🏽👆🏽👆🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽
What is it telling? That the reformers saw what had been taught since biblical times?
@@TylerRayHamblinjust shows his presuppositions. That he uses reformed theology. That is what is telling.
Since the reformation is changing the topic.
If you are reformed of course James view is correct. However the topic is Does Jn 6:44 teach unconditional election from the bible not since the reformation.
Listening to White cross- examine is maddening. He is completely ignoring the clear answers he is given and asking the same question again and again. He's simply proving the point - you can hear without hearing 😂
I'm trying to follow along in my Bible and I'm wondering what version each of these men are using. I can't seem to find a version that matches how the verses are quoted.
If I have it right. White: Legacy Standard. Flowers: NASB 95
So satisfying. Leighton was on fire from start to finish. We all know it’s not just about “winning,” but it sure is helpful to win and have truth on your side. Well done sir, well done.
A debate isn't about fiery preaching, it is about good arguments and persuasion that focuses on the debate question. Leighton has next to no debating skills, just emotional appeals and making big speeches.
@@RLWatson_Author totally agree! :D
Excellent from Dr White.
If free will is right, all people who have died without hearing the gospel can't be condemned because they have no opportunity to believe the gospel.
@@berniegonzalez5186 How do you back that up with scripture?
YEAH! Homerun super strong opening...way to go Leighton!
Got demolished entirely during the rebuttal, though.
Not really...He was not as strong, but that was because James pretebds to be exhausted, and doesn't want Leighton to use scripture to interpret scripture, James wants to ask leading questions through STULIP and want Leighton to stay ONLY in the chosen verse which as he pointed out if he accepted STULIP as the lens to read the text THEN White would be correct but since he doesn't hold to that presupposition then he argues differently, James is incapable of seeing it differently.
So not really being destroyed just he was not going to play James game of Presupposed STULIP as the lens to read a specific text.
Now granted Leighton lost points when he got angered amd overtly emotional. You have to remain displaced from your emotions largley in a debate forum.
10 years ago, listening to James White convinced me that I could not become a Calvinist. Thank you Dr. White.
When the late-great theologian Norman Geisler wrote his excellent book ("Chosen But Free") refuting Five Point / Reformed beliefs about salvation, James White responded with his book, "The Potter's Freedom." And so in his SECOND Edition of "Chosen But Free" (copyright 1999 / 2001), Geisler devoted a chapter reviewing White's response to his book, titled "A Response to James White's The Potters Freedom." And in that chapter, Geisler documents a shockingly MASSIVE number of errors, misunderstandings of his (Geisler's) positions, wrongful attributions of the stances of others to Geisler (even ones Geisler had refuted himself), including logical fallacies, theologisms, ad hominems, name calling, poisoning the well, straw man, false disjunctives, non sequiturs, internal inconsistencies, misrepresentations, sidestepping the big issues, redefining terms that hide error, theological doublespeak, pride and exclusivism, improper exegesis, significant errors, etc. In all, Geisler lists over 11 PAGES of such problems and errors with White's book. White isn't anywhere near the caliber of theologian Geisler was, and "Potters Freedom" makes this crystal clear. But White IS a good lawyer, spinning words and cherrypicking verses that fit his TULIP, while simultaneously ignoring many relevant passages that directly contradict it. I'd advise one read that second edition of Geisler's book - you'll be amazed at how comprehensive and thorough it is in covering the issue and responding to Reformed contentions! Geisler's book has a terrific index of both issues and the relevant Scriptures and how Reformed theologians have wrongly used and distorted their plain meanings.
Thank you brother. I have had the book (revised version) for years and never made it to that chapter (pg. 177 “Responding to Critics”).
Just wanted to thank you for sharing that so I can really understand each of those “wrongful attributions of the stances of others.”
Thank you, Thank you.
👊❤️🙏🙂
Thanks for sharing that. I just ordered the book (second edition). Appreciate the mini review.
Geisler ignores the context of his 3 "proof texts". "All men" in his second proof text refers to all kinds of men because the context directly mentions kings and all authorities. To quote White:
“The same kind of usage (all kinds of men being in view) is found elsewhere in Paul, such as Titus 3:2:
to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.
This should be connected to the fact that in the very commissioning of Paul, this phrase is used in a way that cannot be made universal in scope:
For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard (Acts 22:15).”
John 6:45 is clear in any language, but also by basic greek, it says. "... Every one that HEARD on the part of the Father and LEARNED, COMES to me" those verbs (in capital letters) are in the Actjve voice, which means that the subject makes the action of the those verbs, here the direct subject is "EVERY ONE that... " So: all are taught by the Father, but the Father doesn't drag them by force, because : "every one " MAKES the ACTION of those verbs. To be dragged by the Father, those verbs should be in the passive voice, which means that the subject only suffers passively the action of the verbs.
I found it funny White left out LEARNED twice, Flowers had to add it...
I found it devastatingly telling.
You hear and learn from the father when he draws you . Not physical hearing but spiritual. Your misunderstanding comes from the expectation that all can hear and see .
Leighton, you’re a blessing to the kingdom.
kingdom of darkness
Ok. 👌🏾
@bloodbought251 kingdom of darkness? I fall in the calvinistic camp and I would never say that about another brother. Do you know this man? To say something like that you better be ready to answer God if you're wrong.
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
@@maxstrange7606
Calvinism is dumb. Man is not totally depraved. And they get salvation backwards. Even if he did straw man Calvinism(which he didn’t), who cares. It’s a false Christian doctrine.
It's really annoying that James eats up his opponents rebuttal time by either refusing to answer, or getting upset that his answers are getting interrupted for clarity.
News flash James, IT'S LEIGHTON'S TIME. HE IS ALLOWED TO INTERRUPT. Particularly when you're going off topic. The same courtesy is given to you when it's your time. He did this with Trent too, it's irritating.
I'm really surpirsed how off course white is. White did not listen carefully.
Dr. White's arguments were biblically and skillfully dismantled by a clear presentation of truth.
*Flowers
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 No, White.
@@Xenosaurian Haha how did Flowers win the debate?
If the Father chooses to make people for destruction on purpose isn't it possible that you're actually called to burn? Where's the assurance in that? Right there is none. Romans 2:11 there's no partiality with God. It's the Father's desire that ALL would come to knowledge of forgiveness and not willing that any should perish 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9. Telling people that the Father is responsible for people going to Hell when it's really satan and the person's choice it's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit switching the credit to the wrong party that's why when the pharisees said Jesus was doing miracles through satan when it really was God they blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Tulip great flower but heretical doctrine that'll send millions to Hell
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 He spoke common sense and was biblically consistent and generally honest, whereas White avoided the subjects, mocked his opponens, and behaved in an obnoxious and deceptive manner.
Leighton, when and where will your new book be available for purchase??
Glad i discovered Dr. Flowers through this debate. ❤ from India
I have struggled with Calvenism for awhile. My bestfriends are Calvinists but two of us are dubious. Leighton lays it down in a way so biblically clear. Thank you very much Leighton.
Listen closely to Leighton’s comments about the bread coming down out heaven He says something similar to this bread is for you I don’t see “for you” in John 6 Jesus says “if anyone eats” That is a lot different! He appeals to emotions with a slight twist
Blessed to find out about you ! My daughter and son in law know Steve Gregg and I’ve listened to both and feel your preaching style is more convincing love you brother!
There's only one thing that they both need to do in their preaching, they need to stop calling calvinists their brothers and sisters. A system of theology that makes God the author of sin and evil, no different than Satan, is blasphemous, and saying people will be saved by election and not faith is a different gospel. PERIOD.
Steve Gregg is a wonderful teacher. I'd love to watch/hear him debate Leighton Flowers on Once Saved Always Saved. Steve also has a really long teaching on Calvinism where he argues from both sides and he also debated James White on Calvinism years ago.
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
White has selective hearing...lol
Which, of course is active, not passive.
Is it ??? I thought the active was passive or was it the other way around-was the selecting of his hearing something that was being done to him?
White is using the Critical Text. It omits "Learns" apparently!
@2:18:18 - does anyone know where to find the MacAurther sermon referenced here?
Search RUclips for the below title:
*Hardening of the Heart: John MacArthur vs Calvinism | Soteriology 101 | Dr. Leighton Flowers*
JW is saying we can't come until we're given faith, yet in Romans, it's said God gives us all a measure of faith. Faith is not a work.
Bravo! Leighton Flowers.
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
I am actually a big fan of a lot of James White's stuff, and regularly do listen to most episodes of his show, enjoy a lot of his books, and think he is a pretty smart and good guy, etc, however, I think the calvinism thing is a total blindspot for him. He doesn't seem to be able to understand even the other side [Leighton's] view accurately.
Good guys don't debate dishonestly like James White does. Stop calling evil good. He is straight up deceitful no matter whatever else he may do that seems good. There's a reason we are warned about wolves in sheep's clothing and false teachers.
I used to like him. I watched over twenty of his debates with Catholics from the 90s and learned a great deal. But, man, he has sure changed in the past decade. I can’t stand him anymore.
I didn’t really understand Calvinism and had listened to stuff from both White and Durban. It is definitely a blind spot. He has debated it so much that he has become hardened.
@@silverbackhayabusawhat good did he call evil?
Please provide a timestamp or reference of the deceit.
Thanks mate.
@@toktik8715 I think he was meaning "I" was calling good evil when I complimented James White even though I stated how I felt he had a blind spot on Calvinism but found him good in other areas.
WOW - Leighton EXCELLENT opening remarks!
Now that I’ve watched the debate in its entirety, I must say that-as an enthusiastic respector of James White for a number of years-I am absolutely appalled by his behavior and unwillingness to engage. He talked past Leighton whenever he could, refused to answer specific questions about the specific verse centering the debate, and then outright built a wall of derisive refusal *to the point where the moderator had to pause the debate*. And then would do the very thing he hubristically criticized Leighton for doing (focus on this verse, focus on this verse; followed by, no, I’m going to go to another chapter instead of discussing the chapters you bring up in Jeremiah).
I am floored with astonishment. Shame on James White. His internal sense of superiority has clouded his judgments, if not his teachings. Wow.
Well done Leighton!
🤦♂️
@ShooterReview
If you are a calvinist, according to calvinism, God made me type that response. If you disagree with my post then you are fighting God. Calvinism is selfrefuting nonsense. It is a satanic doctrine that makes God the author of sin.
@@ShooterReviewit blows my mind how many people think Leighton won this debate. He couldn’t even answer the one main question white asked him that was on topic and about the text at hand…leighton just threw out emotionally charged, philosophical questions and scenarios and kept skidding away from the text.
@@TylerRayHamblin AMEN! You absolutely nailed it
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
Dr Flowers presentation and arguments provide clear understanding of Scripture that point directly to the debate's topic. He's gifted by God with wisdom and ability to teach well. I am edified again. Glory to God! Thank you and God bless you more Dr Flowers😊
Edified...exactly on point 🎯
And many walked away from Christ, because like Christ said they were not drawn. You missued all that didn't you...
And if they walked away its because they were not drawn according to your misunderstood beliefs about predestination. How obtuse @alonzomccloud4530
@aarontaylor6156 Yes, that is correct. The chapter they are debating says that and shows it, 6:59-66. "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. v.66 From that time, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him."
John the Apostle understood clearly what Jesus meant, writing in his Epistle 1 John 2:19, saying "They went out from us but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." It's not me misunderstanding that's what the text says. 🙄
I won't pour my supposed ideas into the text and there is no break in 6:v.44 and 45.
"Those who hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." And didn't he just say no man can unless the Father draw him ? 🤔
A.W Pink gave some great advice. I paraphrase. "The biblical helps all have there purpose in understanding God's word, the Greek especially, but we must put them aside at times and read the word alone begging the Holy Spirit to give us understanding." Which has been my practice ever since. I pass down that advice to you, sir.
Another question: In our unconverted state, is our faith tainted or pure ?
False gospel on salvation. Sadly !
Hi there. Genuine question with no preconceived notions - what do non-Calvinists say about the passages in Hebrews? Can you walk in disobedience for a period of time to where you can’t come back?
As a Catholic, Brother Leighton clearly won the debate
🤦♂️
He is close to crossing the Tiber. Very, very close.
Yeah that’s def a good sign 😂
@@BMB125 You said it
Grammatically, you're saying that Leighton is a Catholic. He's not.
Maybe what you mean is what is suggested by the following:
"As a Catholic, I think that Leighton..."
Dr. James White seemed deliberately dense so as not to concede any point of contention. He acts like he is handling scripture properly when he is only looking at one verse and then demanding a proper exegesis when that is exactly what Leighton brought the other scripture that would be applicable to the subject. How can we understand John 6:44 without understanding the rest of the chapter, book, or the previous revelation and quoted passages that apply to the subject at hand?
That part
Most of my life I was in a church with very similar teach to dr Flowers. I stated to see the things in scripture that dr white is talking about. However I had no idea what any of that was about nor did I learn it from a person. The more I studied the Bible and looked up the Greek words for myself the more convinced I became. It was honestly a terrible place to be for a time. How do you interpret or understand Matthew 13:10-16?
Dr White clearly went through the text in question which was the point of the debate. Thanks Dr White!
@@jennyalvis4568So did DR. Flowers just not to Dr. White’s liking, the debate was not on what the verse said but on how it was understood. Dr. White didn’t support his position.
@@Gettindirty187what I would say after looking at the passage is that we do not know how the ‘one who has’, possesses any and without further study it could support either reading of the text. Still it seems more logical that those who are continually coming to God with a proper attitude and desire to learn are the ones who will be given more.
I used to respect James White but after watching his post debate review and how he lied and deceitfully edited the debate to make himself look favorable I now see him as a deceitful snake
Leighton flowers did an excellent job in this debate
I see james white took off his comment section.
Strong words. Proof?
@@danielletracyannAs far as I know he’s always had comments turned off. Like many Calvinist channels they can’t have their claims challenged.
Go back and watch other debates he does or just his regular show, being deceitful and disingenuous are the only ways he knows how to advance his position. Oh, and randomly saying the original Greek word for the translated English word when it brings absolutely no distinction or clarity. E.g. ...
John 6:60 “This is a difficult saying; who can listen to it?” Dr. White, "sklēros....difficult." And...? You added absolutely nothing Dr. White by referring to the Greek as opposed to just saying "difficult" or "hard" in the common tongue of everyone in that room, English.
He tried to baffle us with Greek BS on John 3:16 "whosoever" as well and it's unfortunate that Leighton wasn't ready for it. Dr. White pretends the meaning of whosoever in the Greek necessarily means only those who believe yet whosoever means just that. The believes that follows it also stands alone. One could argue either way that the whosoever does indeed apply to believers because that's who is saved (presumed to be regenerated prior to the verse) or that whosoever applies to everyone and the condition that they choose to believe is what brings salvation. There seems to be a better argument by the rest of biblical context that it's by freewill choice so Dr. White must play games with the Greek knowing most people struggle with English alone.
I have yet to see Dr. White meaningfully translate a Greek word to show nuance in the original that is either lost or not apparent in English. He could easily take a word or phrase and cite the case (genitive, accusative, dative, etc.), the tense (past, present, etc.), gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), or whether something like the word you is singular or plural. Not once. He's a sham artist.
I have watched Dr White for years.
Your claims are false.
Thank you Pops Leighton and James attending unto our OWN! And thy visitation to ministered to comfort the COMFORTER. Love you too! Without shame but with boldness! What is fulfillment will say?
White loves to subtly accuse Flowers of not dealing with the questions or not dealing with the text. White needs to stop calling the kettle black.
I’m not going to go through and mark the time stamps. White gave his opinion of John 6. Flowers tried to use other verses to bring context to the passage and White was having none of it. He did not want the logical conclusions of Calvinism exposed, like infant damnation.
Yes, it’s his go to method to undercut anyone he sees as a threat. It’s narcissistic behaviour at a minimum. Regardless, it always amazes me when people who have listened to him for years don’t seem to recognize this pattern, I figure it’s probably because it fits their bias so it’s warmly regarded as “calling someone out for not rightly dividing the word”. 🙄🤷🏻♂️
@@brianhill3219 White comes off like a Muslim debating the Trinity. Take a few verses, smuggle your own theological errors into the text and claim that the other guy isn't doing the work.
There’s nothing subtle about it. He’s saying that flowers didn’t deal with the question or the text, and he didn’t. Or, he did what White said he would do, which was read the text out of order so as to read his desired position back into the text.
It was, in short, nonsense, given that you would NEVER do that to discuss any other issue.
@@spacemanspliff7844 JW has never dealt with the text, he just assumes Calvinism and accuses his opponent of being a Pelagian. Flowers was not only right on the text, he was prepared for JW's despicable debate tactics. JW has been routed.
You can’t have Calvinistic John 6 without owning the implications. Shutting your Bible speaks volumes.
Who shut their bible?
@@recoveringknowitall1534 Dr. White
Don't you think that was more so because Dr. Flowers did not want to talk about the text? It seems like Dr. Flowers was here to debate "Calvinism." You can see that in the questions he is asking, It's not about the text. Which would be fine, except the debate is about John 6:44;45. You can go into rabbit holes for hours about the supposed implications of the belief, but it seems more productive to be intentional and surgical and discuss only specific ideas within an organized debate. It seems like Dr. White was there to compare exegetes of John 6:44;45 not Dr. Flowers.
@@Stv4711
Only if I thought throwing out logic and biblical interpreting consistency, was the correct hermeneutic to form theology by exegeting scripture from a presupposed Calvinistic systematic lens. Then I would agree with you.
@@Stv4711 nope. pretty sure, james white was trying to deflect away from the actual implications and bog down in details of the texts to redirect away from what flowers was trying to show as the implications.
Great job by Flowers
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
I was never a Calvinist, but I was basically an apologist for them. “No, they don’t really believe that. It’s just a different way of saying the same thing.”
Then I realized what they really believe, and I am in a completely different place. Over the last three years, I have learned what they believe. I can now see the importance of pushing back on this false doctrine.
Exactly
What doctrine in particular do you find most appalling?
@@elkellenhabla I'm not the guy you asked, but Limited Atonement is just wrong. I accept T, U, probably I and don't have a problem with P. L is just wrong and Calvinists are guilty of elevating their own theological system / their own reason above scripture regarding this. The most egregious case being when they push the blatantly, *obviously* wrong line that 'world' means the elect in John. Have they read John? The word 'world' is negative 2 times out of 3!
@@SeanusAureliusso you think Jesus died for the non-elect? What sense does that make?
@@elkellenhabla So the non-elect are they crash dummies, props or maybe a Netflix special for the elect?
God bless you and keep you Dr. Flowers. You helped me escape the false teachings of Calvinism. I thank God for you. Sincerely.
1:38:50
2 WILLS OF THE TEACHER
I think actually when the teacher says “I want you to HEAR AND LEARN AND LISTEN,
I really want you to HEAR AND LEARN AND LISTEN
And when I hold up my hands to you all day long
He actually want them to come, that is what I believe”
CLEAR ENOUGH???
YESSSSSS
Is the manuscript available to print and read the debate?
White floundering when Flowers brought up infant damnation was slightly telling.
The debate is about whether Jesus preached Calvinism or not. If Jesus preached Calvinism He'd be unjust, a sadist, and equal to Satan (a baby torturer); White is fully aware of this and that's why he avoids the subject at all costs; instead of simply discarding the demonic belief of Calvinism he feigns offense, deflects, or even "flounders" to avoid the core of his belief.@@JRey-re9rl
It may be difficult for some, but for others, we're able to "read between the lines" per-se, and understand the implications of subject matters instead of only taking things purely as face-value. The scripture is the primary subject of the debate, but the core argument being had is Calvinism vs Free-will, which has even deeper nuances; some of which I addressed as "ad hominem" attacks.
It would only be an ad hominem attack if I made a personal attack that was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which if you re-read what I said, I was sure to emphasize what makes Calvinism demonic: the torture of billions of babies ordained by God. There are only two different beings to worship/which can called gods: Jesus and Satan; only one would torture babies, the other would never do such a "demonic" thing, such as Calvin's god (little g).@@JRey-re9rl
@@audan2006 Unbaptized infants do not go to heaven.
@@audan2006 Argument by emotion. Basic, useless, dismissable. The emotional argument can be twisted right back on Flowers in the same way to the same effect. People need to stop thinking with their feelings and start trying to learn what is true.
I'll try it now to see how "emotional" the argument is; what happens to still-borns, babies aborted, SIDS victims, accidental death for children, etc?@@vigilantezack
Listener from MN 👍👍
...all the way to Finland ! 😂
There are 2 kinds of people that read the Bible: those who read it to substantiate their position and those that read it to chase the truth. JW needs more humility, less pride. You can tell who is losing any debate by the first person to begin personal ad hominem attacks and that was clearly by JW
James White simply doesn’t know how to not be snarky.
He's ALWAYS the first to show ugly character, in every debate he's in.
It's possible to be strong and also to show grace to your brethren.
@@BPond7 would be interesting to see his snark go up against Dillahunty's snark, lol.
Leighton got heated and nearly lost it, James is a bit snarky but he can handle himself well
@@danielwarton5343 "nearly"🙄
Great job Dr. Flowers!
does anyone have a link to that serman that mcarther did in 1981?
flowers mentions it in the questions and answers rebuttle
Great job by Dr. Flowers giving a powerful presentation of the true gospel during this debate. No doubt many people are going to leave Calvinism because of it. I see hard heartedness, condescension and smugness coming from Dr. White.
I saw all three as well, as well as deflection, disingenuousness, and talking in circles.
You actually must have those qualities to become a card carrying Calvinist.
No, what you see is an individual who understands God’s Sovereignty (White) and someone that doesn’t (Flowers). Apparently you don’t understand God’s Sovereignty either.
@@jeromeburcham4145 Spoken like a true Calvinist.
@@jeromeburcham4145 not a contentious question, but rather clarifying: What is it about God’s sovereignty that Flowers doesn’t understand?
There could not have been a more unappealing presentation of the Gospel than that which Dr. White presented in this debate. He simply defeated himself.
It's because it isn't the gospel - it's a doctrine of devils. Hellish. it impugns God's character and is built on false humility - pride.
Then (W)ho is worthy or decides who goes to heaven?
John 1: 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
This was a great debate from both this two brothers ,because it has also left me with a desire to look at God's word more carefully.
That was a really passionate opening statement by Dr. Flowers. God bless you.
maybe some greekies can correct me here but dr white kept saying “genitive ablative.” aren’t those just 2 different noun cases? maybe he means to say “genitive absolute.” and to my knowledge, Greek doesn’t have an ablative case, Latin does. if I’m wrong please correct me!
according to wikipedia the ablative in greek "fell into disuse during the classical period" so it definitely wouldnt be present in the koine greek of the hellenistic-era NT
No I think you’re correct
JW learned on the 8 case system.
Dr Flowers has the unfair advantage of having the truth on his side. Never debate the one string banjo guy!
❤😂
This debate was a great show of skill. Good job.
This video is a GOLDMINE for content. Flowers, you could break this up into over a dozen 10 minute videos that cover different topics. I saw some shorts, a great opportunity to post more of those. Great great video here
According to new doctrine of Unconditional Winning, LF has won this debate.
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
@@maxstrange7606 LF is well aware that Calvinists believe in TD and that man is held accountable. He did not misrepresent Calvinists beliefs, what he did was question the justice of such a system.
We (non-Calvinists) are aware of how Calvinists interpret the scriptures, we interpret them differently. Both sides believe the Bible but interpret It differently. It is perfectly okay for a debater to point out how an interpretation of scripture, seems unjust. Again we are aware that Calvinists don’t think God is unjust but you can’t just say God is still just if your beliefs are true, in a debate, you have to defend your ideas.
Recap:
1. We don’t believe the Bible teaches it.
2. We don’t believe that would be a just way for God to interact with humanity.
It is not a strawman question the justice of the Calvinist doctrine.
@@maxstrange7606 Calvinism is a bag of contradictions. The immutable characteristic of Calvinism is that God must meet their preconception of 'all-powerful'. God's word is an intimate glimpse of his being. Because something strikes a person as incompatible with their perception of what would constitute God is materially idolatrous. The scripture explains this when it says that God chose the foolishness (I believe genius) of preaching to save those who believe. God does in fact put a fork in the road of man's existential disposition. That fork may lead in many directions but only one of those many directions leads to God.
@@maxstrange7606No one can be unable to make a choice AND be responsible, if you cannot respond by definition you are not responsible.
It's literally baked into our language.
LF Lost so badly it’s embarrassing
The sum total of what scriptures teach on any subject determines the TRUTH on that subject. Any other method fails to adequately provide truthful conclusions.
Not if Dr. White has anything to say about it
Greetings from colombia Dr flowers I have always thought that calvinism is not biblical..
And Now I'm completely sure about it ..
Thanks a lot Dr flowers
Would you be willing to debate the Trinity vs a Unitarian (me)?
Thanks for speaking truth (Gods word).
Iron sharpens iron. Well done Leighton. James White did not show how John 6:44 teaches unconditional election but, in fact, did everything possible to avoid the question.
That is ridiculous. Flowers continually goes off topic, leaning on emotional and philosophical question to try to disprove him. James white was the one trying to stay on topic.
@@ChristmySavior3OK, calvinsts can't explain why the almighty creator would weep for an unbelieving creation when he created them that way. Calvinists are not Christian and I'm not afraid to say it. They aren't. Provisionism undermines his sovereignty so we obviously can't worship the same God.
@@ericgray1312 yeah I worship the God in scripture and you worship the god in your mind. God had two wills. That is how I would explain that. Makes perfect sense
@@ericgray1312 to give you an example, an earthly king has two will as well.. if his friend betrayed the kingdom, the king would do what’s best for his kingdom in punishing his friend, but it would be difficult emotionally. It would be for his kingdom (one will) but hard because he desires for his friend to be saved (two wills).
@@ChristmySavior3I think the difference your example would be if the King randomly caused his friend to betray the kingdom for the kings own glory then claimed it was still his will not to punish his friend.
The U in TULIP means God has unconditionally elected people to damnation whilst telling us it’s His will to save those people who for His own glory He chose to burn in hell.
At this point I don’t even know why I put the capital He we aren’t describing the same God.
You know Leighton is in The Truth when he actually can wrap the fullness of the Gospel and not just isolate on particular verse. It actually brings joy to my spirit listening to the BEAUTY of The Biblical Gospel! Thank you Jesus for making a way 🙂
Please explain. I'm not a Calvinist, just here to learn. God bless!
@@83mliz
Mainly all of the verses all throughout the Bible that speaks about God wanting people to be saved yet they have a choice to repent and receive the gospel. Nowhere in the Bible is this idea of total inability to receive the gospel when it’s presented and Leighton makes a good case on that.
Gods blinding and hardening also shows that we can’t be totally dead in our response to truth or else God is just being redundant as if blinding a dead corpse. The consistent view is that God would harden those and give them up to a reprobate mind based on a their personal desires not arbitrarily because some are predetermined to.
I wish I could pull up all the verses from the top of my head but if you watch Leighton’s other videos you can take note of each verse he references and see for yourself so you can be equipped to speak to a Calvinist brother.
Wow Leighton, that was awesome!
And that from a child thou hast known 👉the holy scriptures, *which are able to make thee wise unto salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
The gig is up Calvanist...lol you guys pull one section of scripture expect people to read it through your lens STULIP and then place each individual verse misinterpreted back into its place and then say look here is what it says.
Leighton points to a mariad of scripture to make a case against the position and for his and White says no stay in this verse only and dont use scripture to interpret scripture and feign incrudility when STULIP is not used to read scripture.
That about sums it up
Indeed! Dr Flowers consistent use of 'scripture interprets scripture' is on point the entire time. Dr White's inconsistent man-made use of STULIP rather than actual scripture is hard to watch frankly... May he come to acknowledge scripture above all
Amen!
Very great presentation Dr. Flowers. Thank you for this debate. Very clear and accurate.
Oh goodness....I actually forgot about this but I will watch the whole thing in just a moment.
Are Calvinists aware of Acts 10:34 which says that God is no respecter of persons, meaning God shows no favoritism? That alone debunks the doctrine of unconditional election.
Go back to Romans 9
Yes. Boettner has an entire chapter on it in his book on the Reformed Doctrine of Presdestination.
@@TylerRayHamblinRomans 9 is about the election of the nation of Israel, not the unconditional election of individuals. That's why you see in Romans 7 up until Romans 11, the audience that Paul is speaking to is "those who know the law", namely the Jews. In Romans 11:28, Paul says that the Jews by election are praised by the patriarchs, but by the gospel they are enemies. Paul is saying that the election of the nation of Israel is not part of the saving gospel. Romans 9 is about Israel's past, Romans 10 is about Israel's present, and Romans 11 is about Israel's future.
So when it talks about God can save whomever he wants to save, it's in response to the Jews, who objected to the fact that God was extending his hand to gentiles in addition to the Jews. The old covenant was that God was to start the nation of Israel through his chosen people, and disseminate his word to them first. The New covenant said that now the Gospel of Jesus Christ is extended to everyone, not just the Jews. Paul's reputation in Romans 9:11 is that the Jews are mistaken that just because they are elected it doesn't mean that they're saved. Paul is intentionally bifurcating election with the gospel. The election of the nation of Israel is not the same type of election in which God chooses his people. The body of Christ is constantly called "a chosen people" (1 Peter 2:9). So the election that saves, is corporate election, not election of individuals.
They are, I’m a provisionist myself, but they take it that God chose people without favoritism. Now I don’t understand how that works, and neither do they, they appeal to great mystery.
They see that verse as proof of the “unconditional” part of election.
How could any rational person think that White proved "unconditional election" from John 6 in this debate? He did not and he can not. It's not there. It's clear to me that that Jesus is speaking this "drawing" specifically to contemporary Jews that had "looked upon the Son" - actually saw Him face to face - the only generation in human history to do so. And they had not learned from the Father through the prophets (the word of God) and therefore could not come to Christ until after the resurrection. Even the Old Testament alone can enable salvation through faith in Christ.
LOOK:
2 Timothy 3: 14 -15
But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Thank you leighton. I’ve been listening to Calvinist for a few years now and you really make a lot more sense. When you put that subject up side by side your right..
i seen it the exact opposite way. I guess people see different things watching the same things lol
White continues to highlight the need to "Consistently go through the text" and for him this clearly means, treating the text according to his interpretation.
When in reality, consistency, also begs cross-referencing to other texts and using other subjects to prove the subject at hand now that in 2024 we have the full text at hand.
This is him evading to be honest and true to the text.
You lost in term of formality in the debate on how to debate and articulate. Preaching the message louder and being passionate about it makes you look like an amature, but ultimately God’s message gets across, and the truth is exalted. Don't change, this debate may get into your head because you really got Dr. White this time. I believe it's just a matter of time before he quit Calvinism and He'll owe it to you for getting in his nerve everytime.
Good thing this isn't a placement contest in proper debate articulation, eh?
I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, JW no longer debates anything having to do with Calvinism. In the past, he has only accepted debates on the texts that are the most Calvinism friendly. He has been ducking debates on Total Depravity for almost a decade. In this debate, he chose to defend one solitary verse as supporting one letter of the TULIP and failed to make the case. What's next? "Resolved: The second letter of the third word of the fifth sentence in the ninth chapter of Romans can be pronounced in a Calvinist manner?"
How does one claim that parts of God’s word to be Calvinist friendly?
"He has been ducking debates..." how convenient....😂😂😂 Can you cite anyone who got more debates than James White?
Do you really think every fool has to be answered?
He's ducking because he got slaughtered. We all saw him get upset before by his own mouth contradicts himself. Flowers shouldn't pointed out with scripture that there's no partiality with God Romans 2:11. And willing that any should perish and desires that all would come to knowledge of forgiveness 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9.
God bless you Leighton 🙏 amazing debate
IMO when someone says "stop interrupting me", they have lost the argument. Having said that, I appreciate these sort of debates, and greatly appreciate both men in this debate.
How can you bring up presuppositions and then ignore it when your own presupposition is used to ask a question about the text? That’s disingenuousness on White’s part.
It seemed as though Dr. White believed Leighton didn’t have the right to speak about Calvinism much less debate it since he left it.
1:23:16 “PLEASE STOP INTERRUPTING ME”
1:23:20
“I was just summarizing to be fast”
“I was just summarizing to be fast”
AMAZING
It’s like he forgot it was his turn to be questioned
We experienced this moment differently.
@@DaysofElijah317 He was being sarcastic
Jame White's opening "calvanism is true because it's obviously the truth." But how, sir? "Well. Let me tell you how, because it's obvious truth"
I have been associated with Calvinism for many years. I studied at a bible school in Adelaide Australia years ago. I got and still are so discouraged by the Calvinistic teachings of this but also perserverance, Lordship salvation etc, so I do my self a favour and keep my distance Church, the bible and the angry unfair God it seems to potrays. . I believed it but ultimately I took it to its logical conclusion that I could never live up and I might not be elect so I stopped going to church. I didn't think anyone could truelly challenge Calvinism from the scriptures as I interpreted it through that lenses and it became a depressing, terrible crushing weight I couldn't bear it!!! I often feel that there is just no way I could ever be one of the elect because I still struggle with sin. Like many others I am sensitive due to having a father on earth who often treated me, my siblings and my mother with violence and anger. I honestly just question too much and keep taking ideas to their logical conclusion.
I don't know why but I have spent the last few days listening to bible teachers again and I came across Dr flower's. I can or am beginning to see it now, that there is an alternative. Thanks.
I really wish Dr White wasn't so condescending. At least, that is the impression on me.
He's not condescending. He is frustrated with Dr Flowers' continual misrepresentations. They have history outside of this debate.
I also noted that attitude. Obviously in a debate you must be persuasive. But you do not help your argument by mocking how the other person speaks or what points they have brought up. Just argue the points persuasively.
@@benanderson4118 I would agree that it doesn't help you in a debate which is why I wondered at Dr White debating in the first place. I can't stand Dr Flowers' tactics. They are misrepresentative of Holy Scripture.
@@rita8091 No. He is consistently condescending. Many of his interactions with detractors online display this as an unfortunate character flaw of White's.
Thought the same thing. The arrogance is off-putting.
Good job Leighton !
I don't attack personalities, or style of debate. I try and stick with the facts.
But I would like to see a debate that is on 2 Peter 3:9, or a 'proof text' of Provisionism. The demands that James White makes the Dr Flowers stick with John 6, which is a proof text for Calvinism is unfair. Dr Flowers must give context for John 6:44 by reading before, after, and what the bible says throughout. I would like to see James White debate 2 Peter 3:9 with the same demands of 'I thought we were debating 2 Peter 3:9'. Of course James White would have to give context and pull verses throughout the bible to show his perspective.
But it seems that all these debates are on Calvinist 'proof texts'.
@jourdancarter5912 I agree it's perfectly fine. So why does Leighton get told he is not sticking to the text and pulling passages out of context, when he is showing they are speaking about the same things?
The church fathers didn't teach Calvinist doctrine. It wasn't until Augustine.
When have I taken scripture out of context? What are you referring to?
@jourdancarter5912Never mind. I see you were talking to someone else that I guess pulled their comments. I got confused when you said 'your Lord Calvin'. Then I realized you were replying to someone else. Lol!
Once you understand that a “gospel” is a type of writing, that really unlocks everything.
A Gospel is a type of writing that announces to a people that there is essentially new ruler/king: I.e. Jesus is King.
The reason a gospel was given to a people, was to inform them that there is this new ruler and they should get on board.
The Gospel of Christ is that Christ is King and the people should respond accordingly. This really shatters Calvinism.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you *life and death* blessing and cursing: therefore *choose life* that both thou and thy seed may live:
{Deuteronomy 30:19}
God has given man a choice.
The fall has systemically affected the faculties of man. It has not robbed them of these faculties, but has given them a sinful bias. A choice that is certain does not nullify its freedom. Calvinism doesn’t deny a choice is made from the faculties of man and that the entirety of these faculties are employed in the process, but rather the outcome without divine intervention is certain. 2nd Chronicles 30:10-12
@@joecuster6926
We are not born again before we believe.
Your theology starts with man so of course you read that way
@@user-bc4sg7cn9n
That is God speaking 🔊 Have you ears to hear?