Fantastic presentation by Flowers. Great power point and easy to follow. Very consistent, no mental.gymastics or appeal to mystery, special pleading and or contradictions.
@@daveonezero6258The substance is literally all over John, while white keeps pushing special pleas and appeals to mystery, Flowers just reads vs32 onwards. You must have not actually watched the debate, typical of james white simps.
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.
I know that you said you wish you didn't get preachy during debates but I'm here for it! Your position entails preaching the Gospel. How could you not get so passionate?
The problem is that it's hard for a person who has a different view to follow someone else's argument. So talking slower helps us establish each proposal. The preachiness comes across as an aggressive attack. James White was simply trying to help him reach the other side of the room.
@@AFWorm I doubt he was 'helping him out'. Even later when Dr Flowers spoke slower JW can be seen eye rolling with certain facial expressions to the audience on anything he didn't agree with.
@@AFWorm That makes sense. But to be honest, I think everyone listens & learns differently. Personally, James White talking slowly and without much passion makes it harder for me be interested in and understand his arguments. I can do it. But it is more difficult. I do understand that people listen & learn differently though. So you do have a valid point. 👍
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, *He that heareth* my word, *and believeth on him that sent me* hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” {John 5:24}
Is "belief" something that we author within our own hearts, or something that God authors within the hearts of His people? It is written: "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set" (Hebrews 12:2.)
@@londonderrry Yes it is. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, *that the Gentiles by my mouth should HEAR the word of the gospel, and BELIEVE* And God, *which knoweth the hearts* bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. In whom ye also trusted, *after* that ye *heard the word of truth* the gospel of your salvation: in whom also *after that ye believed* ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
@@larrybedouin2921 "Be ye holy as I am holy." "“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart," "Be ye perfect as I am perfect."
Flowers opening statement made me cry! Pure Gospel! I feel like when I listen to any Calvinist debate they sound like Lawyers trying to sow confusion because that is the only play in bending the text.
The emotionalism is often pointed out for this reason. Who cares what scripture says or what is true or what we need to know about God, my feelings are so happy!
When the late-great theologian Norman Geisler wrote his excellent book ("Chosen But Free") refuting Five Point / Reformed beliefs about salvation, James White responded with his book, "The Potter's Freedom." And so in his SECOND Edition of "Chosen But Free" (copyright 1999 / 2001), Geisler devoted a chapter reviewing White's response to his book, titled "A Response to James White's The Potters Freedom." And in that chapter, Geisler documents a shockingly MASSIVE number of errors, misunderstandings of his (Geisler's) positions, wrongful attributions of the stances of others to Geisler (even ones Geisler had refuted himself), including logical fallacies, theologisms, ad hominems, name calling, poisoning the well, straw man, false disjunctives, non sequiturs, internal inconsistencies, misrepresentations, sidestepping the big issues, redefining terms that hide error, theological doublespeak, pride and exclusivism, improper exegesis, significant errors, etc. In all, Geisler lists over 11 PAGES of such problems and errors with White's book. White isn't anywhere near the caliber of theologian Geisler was, and "Potters Freedom" makes this crystal clear. But White IS a good lawyer, spinning words and cherrypicking verses that fit his TULIP, while simultaneously ignoring many relevant passages that directly contradict it. I'd advise one read that second edition of Geisler's book - you'll be amazed at how comprehensive and thorough it is in covering the issue and responding to Reformed contentions! Geisler's book has a terrific index of both issues and the relevant Scriptures and how Reformed theologians have wrongly used and distorted their plain meanings.
Thank you brother. I have had the book (revised version) for years and never made it to that chapter (pg. 177 “Responding to Critics”). Just wanted to thank you for sharing that so I can really understand each of those “wrongful attributions of the stances of others.” Thank you, Thank you. 👊❤️🙏🙂
Geisler ignores the context of his 3 "proof texts". "All men" in his second proof text refers to all kinds of men because the context directly mentions kings and all authorities. To quote White: “The same kind of usage (all kinds of men being in view) is found elsewhere in Paul, such as Titus 3:2: to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. This should be connected to the fact that in the very commissioning of Paul, this phrase is used in a way that cannot be made universal in scope: For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard (Acts 22:15).”
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.
I grew up in such a terribly abusive household. All types of abuse constantly so you can imagine how I felt about myself. Had I heard JW, I would have never gotten saved. I was saved and regenerated the day I surrendered my life to Christ and believe. I am a different person today, Jesus has healed the pain, and I am able to forgive. I made a choice begging the Lord to show me if he is real and I would surrender all!! I meant it. I met the Lord that day and still moved and started to cry when I remembered. It seems so much pride and ego shines in some but I pray the Lord open their eyes. You see humility in the genuine believe. That's a work of God!! Thank you, Jesus, for saving such a sinner like me!!
Nice testimony, and doesn't do anything whatsoever to harm JW positoin. If you listen closely to yourself you'll understand why JW's position is superior. You reject it because "look at me I chased after God to do this and that, I made my choices, I begged him, me me me." You think, very oddly, that somehow you would not have been saved if you thought God was sovereign over his own creation? That makes no sense at all. Your position shows pride in yourself and strips away God's right to do with his creation what he wills. You are saying, effectually, "I will decide my fate, it's not God's decision."
For almost a year and a half I couldn't settle the issue of Calvinism in my mind. I was believing it and no verse seemed to suggest otherwise until today. Thanks for Flowers for this debate. I thank God for watching this video
What verse? You have a time stamp? Honestly I'm 2 years since my Accepting of christ and I didn't even realize there was a different view of what White is saying. I understand what he is saying just from my own studying and then this week found these debates and definitions.
Read, chosen by God by RC Sproul. I think you need to dig a little deeper. This is very surfacing and very sentimental, but it isn't very biblical. I've studied Calvinism for 30 years and seed. It is the most biblical defensible position on salvation.😮
@@askbrettmanning There is so much that is absolutely lacking in the Calvinist view. There is no harmony of faith and reason. I read RC Sproul and found his view of Penal substitution to be obnoxious. Bishop Robert Barron and Joe Heschmeyer speak on this
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
@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.
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! 😇
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard *and* hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
@@WinkenSmile Why are they not of God. And they [the Jew] also, *if they abide not still in unbelief* shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in *again* {Romans 11:23}
@@larrybedouin2921 Then why isn't Jesus evangelizing them? He is very blunt with them, in Matthew he spoke of them like this. Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?" (Matthew 15:12, NASB)But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. (Matthew 15:13, NASB)
@@larrybedouin2921 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. (Romans 11:5, NASB)But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6, NASB)What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; (Romans 11:7, NASB)just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY." (Romans 11:8, NASB)
John 6:45 is clear in any language, but also by basic greek, it says. "... Every one that HEARD on the part of the Father and LEARNED, COMES to me" those verbs (in capital letters) are in the Actjve voice, which means that the subject makes the action of the those verbs, here the direct subject is "EVERY ONE that... " So: all are taught by the Father, but the Father doesn't drag them by force, because : "every one " MAKES the ACTION of those verbs. To be dragged by the Father, those verbs should be in the passive voice, which means that the subject only suffers passively the action of the verbs.
You hear and learn from the father when he draws you . Not physical hearing but spiritual. Your misunderstanding comes from the expectation that all can hear and see .
Dr Flowers presentation and arguments provide clear understanding of Scripture that point directly to the debate's topic. He's gifted by God with wisdom and ability to teach well. I am edified again. Glory to God! Thank you and God bless you more Dr Flowers😊
@aarontaylor6156 Yes, that is correct. The chapter they are debating says that and shows it, 6:59-66. "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. v.66 From that time, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him." John the Apostle understood clearly what Jesus meant, writing in his Epistle 1 John 2:19, saying "They went out from us but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." It's not me misunderstanding that's what the text says. 🙄 I won't pour my supposed ideas into the text and there is no break in 6:v.44 and 45. "Those who hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." And didn't he just say no man can unless the Father draw him ? 🤔 A.W Pink gave some great advice. I paraphrase. "The biblical helps all have there purpose in understanding God's word, the Greek especially, but we must put them aside at times and read the word alone begging the Holy Spirit to give us understanding." Which has been my practice ever since. I pass down that advice to you, sir. Another question: In our unconverted state, is our faith tainted or pure ?
I really think people who accept predestination are little bit broken somewhere inside, or at least broken hearted following God who is not so good. Can you imagine good the Father who willingly chooses to predestine half of his children (or more) to eternal punishments, and give them no grace to be able to believe, and use another half to make their lives beautiful.. forever And he is almighty and his house has many many apartments, not broken like our earthly fathers
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@@EDCREVIEWSit blows my mind how many people think Leighton won this debate. He couldn’t even answer the one main question white asked him that was on topic and about the text at hand…leighton just threw out emotionally charged, philosophical questions and scenarios and kept skidding away from the text.
Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.
If the Father chooses most to go to Hell by His choice isn't it possible that you're actually called to burn? Where's the assurance in that? Right, there's no assurance in that. Flowers should've used scripture to prove his case but he still won. Romans 2:11 there's no partiality with the Father and not willing that any perish and desires that all would come to knowledge of forgiveness 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9. Scripture never contradicts Scripture. Truth is white will burn if there's no repentance. Telling people that the Father is responsible for people going to Hell when it's really satan and the person's choice it's blasphemy by switching the credit to the wrong party that's why when the pharisees said Jesus was doing miracles through satan when it really was God they blasphemed the Holy Spirit
@@TylerRayHamblinjust shows his presuppositions. That he uses reformed theology. That is what is telling. Since the reformation is changing the topic. If you are reformed of course James view is correct. However the topic is Does Jn 6:44 teach unconditional election from the bible not since the reformation.
I say this as someone coming into this debate who is a huge fan of Dr White debates and had never even heard of Flowers. White was whiney, rude, and completely reprehensible. For someone who interrupts the other so much, he sure freaks out when he is cut off. He wont answer questions. He wont even debate in good faith. This is not the same Dr White from the Great Debates of the 90s. That was an honest man of God. This... is a shell of the man in comparison
I imagine it must be tiring to have to deal year after year after year for more than 30 years with people who have not been up to Dr. White's standards when it comes to debates. Besides, As the opponent stated in his initial presentation, Dr. White agreed to debate him despite not feeling well.
I wish it could be attributed to his illness. This is typical behavior from Dr. White in many of his debates I have watched. He is often ornery, rude, and condescending to his brethren.
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.
I am actually a big fan of a lot of James White's stuff, and regularly do listen to most episodes of his show, enjoy a lot of his books, and think he is a pretty smart and good guy, etc, however, I think the calvinism thing is a total blindspot for him. He doesn't seem to be able to understand even the other side [Leighton's] view accurately.
Good guys don't debate dishonestly like James White does. Stop calling evil good. He is straight up deceitful no matter whatever else he may do that seems good. There's a reason we are warned about wolves in sheep's clothing and false teachers.
I used to like him. I watched over twenty of his debates with Catholics from the 90s and learned a great deal. But, man, he has sure changed in the past decade. I can’t stand him anymore.
I didn’t really understand Calvinism and had listened to stuff from both White and Durban. It is definitely a blind spot. He has debated it so much that he has become hardened.
@@toktik8715 I think he was meaning "I" was calling good evil when I complimented James White even though I stated how I felt he had a blind spot on Calvinism but found him good in other areas.
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.
Having a family member who is reformed and hearing John MacArthur say that free will is heretical I felt I needed to find out what I feel is the truth. I went to the early Christian teaching, Clement, and clearly the followers of Christ were given a choice to accept or deny Christ for personal salvation. Clement walked with John and heard from him directly not thru Augustine 350 years later. Augustine has lead so many astray -Luther etc. he may have had good teaching but his teaching on election was not what the early fathers said.
I have followed J.McA for many years. Never heard him say this. Not in his writings either. Let's not assume predestination and free will are somehow separate and not compatible with the Sovereignty of God. Remember that many of these theological terms / truths are still not completely revealed to mankind and are still partially "mysteries." But, that is why there is a "tension" when we delve into the mind of God. Hopefully we never get so proud that we are never uncomfortable or have questions when reading Scripture.
I’ve been a Calvinist for years. But then Flowers came into my life. The Bible says we will be known by our love. I was split down the middle on what was the correct view. I see no love from White. No kindness. No patience. I see that in many Calvinist’s. Flowers is an example of a true believer. White reminds me of a jerky teenager. Unbelievable
Sometimes Love is harsh. And telling the truth is hard. 2 Cor 2 v4 For out of much [a]affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you.
@@daveonezero6258 And sometimes....... people like James White are just JERKS, because they know they got beat by common sense and clear easy Bible reading.
@@MSOkraMan that makes zero sense. I find those who have nothing to add to the conversation typicaly pull the "not christlike" card. So clue in to the discussion or walk away.
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.
Great job by Dr. Flowers giving a powerful presentation of the true gospel during this debate. No doubt many people are going to leave Calvinism because of it. I see hard heartedness, condescension and smugness coming from Dr. White.
No, what you see is an individual who understands God’s Sovereignty (White) and someone that doesn’t (Flowers). Apparently you don’t understand God’s Sovereignty either.
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
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. 💌
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.
Don't you think that was more so because Dr. Flowers did not want to talk about the text? It seems like Dr. Flowers was here to debate "Calvinism." You can see that in the questions he is asking, It's not about the text. Which would be fine, except the debate is about John 6:44;45. You can go into rabbit holes for hours about the supposed implications of the belief, but it seems more productive to be intentional and surgical and discuss only specific ideas within an organized debate. It seems like Dr. White was there to compare exegetes of John 6:44;45 not Dr. Flowers.
@@Stv4711 Only if I thought throwing out logic and biblical interpreting consistency, was the correct hermeneutic to form theology by exegeting scripture from a presupposed Calvinistic systematic lens. Then I would agree with you.
@@Stv4711 nope. pretty sure, james white was trying to deflect away from the actual implications and bog down in details of the texts to redirect away from what flowers was trying to show as the implications.
I was never a Calvinist, but I was basically an apologist for them. “No, they don’t really believe that. It’s just a different way of saying the same thing.” Then I realized what they really believe, and I am in a completely different place. Over the last three years, I have learned what they believe. I can now see the importance of pushing back on this false doctrine.
@@elkellenhabla I'm not the guy you asked, but Limited Atonement is just wrong. I accept T, U, probably I and don't have a problem with P. L is just wrong and Calvinists are guilty of elevating their own theological system / their own reason above scripture regarding this. The most egregious case being when they push the blatantly, *obviously* wrong line that 'world' means the elect in John. Have they read John? The word 'world' is negative 2 times out of 3!
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.
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
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.
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
Seriously, why doesn’t Dr. White actually deal with the whole text? He spends many minutes talking about Pos and Pontes but does not want to continue reading to deal with “learning.” I’m honestly stupified.
@Rhyno2183 no he didn’t he equated being taught by God to being raised which is a Calvinistic presupposition. He kept harping on hearing while ignoring the fact that the ones coming to Jesus were listening to and learning from God. These are not passive actions, no one learns passively, no one listens passively.
@@RLWatson_Authordid you not listen to LF? We walked through each verse right up to that verse. And included many others for clear co text. How can you make that claim?
He does this all the time. Red Herrings and goes into all high theology straw men. I've been listening to him for years because of his other material. I appreciate his other teachings and books. I Have never heard him explain how God can be mad a a sinner who is never called to be elect. NEVER talks about that.
I used to respect James White but after watching his post debate review and how he lied and deceitfully edited the debate to make himself look favorable I now see him as a deceitful snake Leighton flowers did an excellent job in this debate
Go back and watch other debates he does or just his regular show, being deceitful and disingenuous are the only ways he knows how to advance his position. Oh, and randomly saying the original Greek word for the translated English word when it brings absolutely no distinction or clarity. E.g. ... John 6:60 “This is a difficult saying; who can listen to it?” Dr. White, "sklēros....difficult." And...? You added absolutely nothing Dr. White by referring to the Greek as opposed to just saying "difficult" or "hard" in the common tongue of everyone in that room, English. He tried to baffle us with Greek BS on John 3:16 "whosoever" as well and it's unfortunate that Leighton wasn't ready for it. Dr. White pretends the meaning of whosoever in the Greek necessarily means only those who believe yet whosoever means just that. The believes that follows it also stands alone. One could argue either way that the whosoever does indeed apply to believers because that's who is saved (presumed to be regenerated prior to the verse) or that whosoever applies to everyone and the condition that they choose to believe is what brings salvation. There seems to be a better argument by the rest of biblical context that it's by freewill choice so Dr. White must play games with the Greek knowing most people struggle with English alone. I have yet to see Dr. White meaningfully translate a Greek word to show nuance in the original that is either lost or not apparent in English. He could easily take a word or phrase and cite the case (genitive, accusative, dative, etc.), the tense (past, present, etc.), gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), or whether something like the word you is singular or plural. Not once. He's a sham artist.
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?
@1:25:51 JW lost John 6:44 and the topic of the debate when he said drawing isn't regeneration with his dodging he ended up agreeing with Leighton point of view of drawing message/listen/learn The Gospel of Jesus! John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Sounded to me like JW didn't want John 6:45 to be there JW in his closing claimed victory on a "if" lol Great job Leighton you did very impressive!
@h2s142Why does God graft branches in? ”You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.“ Romans 11:19-23
John 15:5-6 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. It is dependent upon the individual abiding.
I don't understand where scripture gives Layton Flowers the Grace to continue debating a well-known heretic false teacher. Calvinism is heresy. John Calvin was a heretic. The only reason his of false doctrine had any foothold was because of his attachment to the Catholic church and people still didn't understand or know or read the Bible so they believed him but that man tormented the Jewish people and true believers it's a well-known fact of history that John Calvin hated the Jewish people. James White is a heretic and flowers does not have a biblical right to continue engaging with a heretic. I believe flowers has the biblical right to expose the LIE of Calvinism as much and as often as he chooses that I don't believe he's supposed to put himself in a position to have a back and forth with a heretic. The Bible gives clear direction on how to handle a heretic. If Flowers believes that his position is Right which I personally agree with him wholeheartedly then by virtue of his biblical position he needs to also apply the grace given by God on hell to handle a heretic and I believe the Bible says go to them two or three times and if they still don't hear you then treat them as a heretic.
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..
The debate is about whether Jesus preached Calvinism or not. If Jesus preached Calvinism He'd be unjust, a sadist, and equal to Satan (a baby torturer); White is fully aware of this and that's why he avoids the subject at all costs; instead of simply discarding the demonic belief of Calvinism he feigns offense, deflects, or even "flounders" to avoid the core of his belief.@@JRey-re9rl
It may be difficult for some, but for others, we're able to "read between the lines" per-se, and understand the implications of subject matters instead of only taking things purely as face-value. The scripture is the primary subject of the debate, but the core argument being had is Calvinism vs Free-will, which has even deeper nuances; some of which I addressed as "ad hominem" attacks. It would only be an ad hominem attack if I made a personal attack that was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which if you re-read what I said, I was sure to emphasize what makes Calvinism demonic: the torture of billions of babies ordained by God. There are only two different beings to worship/which can called gods: Jesus and Satan; only one would torture babies, the other would never do such a "demonic" thing, such as Calvin's god (little g).@@JRey-re9rl
@@audan2006 Argument by emotion. Basic, useless, dismissable. The emotional argument can be twisted right back on Flowers in the same way to the same effect. People need to stop thinking with their feelings and start trying to learn what is true.
I'll try it now to see how "emotional" the argument is; what happens to still-borns, babies aborted, SIDS victims, accidental death for children, etc?@@vigilantezack
@@audan2006 Are you interested in truth or pacifying your personal feelings? Any quality debater is going to dismiss rhetorical game playing, illogical arguments, especially something as silly as argument from emotion. The gospel is not unclear about life and death and sin and judgement. There is one mediator between God and man, and one savior Jesus Christ in whom is found redemption and salvation. Babies and unborn do not have a separate different gospel and alternate rules and alternate saving graces. None that we see in scripture. What scripture does tell us, is that God is sovereign, and it is appointed once for us to die and after that is the judgement. We don't live one day shorter or longer than is God's will. Does scripture say we should put authority and trust in our feelings to tell us what is true? On the contrary, man's heart is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." But sure, despite the human condition shown to us in Romans 1-3, we should take that to mean if we have strong feelings about things, that makes it true. I have strong feelings about the question too. Who wouldn't? The only difference is I don't elevate my personal wishes and feelings as the arbiter of truth of a matter that isn't told to us explicitly. Did you know there are parents who have murdered their children because they believe it guarantees them heaven and that eternity is far better than the chance they might become an unbeliever? The logic isn't wrong, if you only follow your feelings. In Flowers' view, these parents have a point, their child might make that free will choice that keeps them out of heaven, but the parent can guarantee heaven with one sin of their own. However, I don't have to answer this question, it doesn't need answering any more than the question 'how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?' It requires no answer because it's not taught explicitly, and has no theological bearing on my life. But the lack of answer on that issue could be helpful in preventing crazy parents from murdering their children to gaurantee them heaven. I can guess you will probably ask me for my opinion anyway, and I have the same feelings as any other human would. I would never declare any baby or unborn is in hell, that would be way outside my ability to know in the first place and stuipd to ever suggest; but in the second place, we don't see any examples (that I know about) of babies or infants or even children being in hell. I can only say theologically that humans are born in iniquity, fallen, imperfect, unworthy, etc. No getting around that. So I would personally believe that in God's sovereignty, provision is made. Do I have chapter and verse? No, and that's the point, I don't get to declare absolute facts and truths because it gives me the right feel feels to think it so. By using an emotional litmus test against scripture, Flowers is practicing a very dangerous epistemology, where he rates the truthfulness of claims based on how it makes him feel about other things. And even worse, twist, distort, or invert scripture to make it say what feels best.
I love and highly appreciate James White for specifically and honestly telling the truth about 'humanistic philosophical gospel of calvinism' , since in calvinistic philosophy we dont know who God really loves and hates James White said that "we proclaim the gospel because we are commanded to do so" and NOT because of loving the people since again how can we love the people that have the chance of being hated by God since the beginning of the world ? in other word it's is a 'merciless loveless gospel' not to mention Gospel motivated by LAW and NOT love because it's not out of compassion but COMMAND .
That's the heart of the issue. Calvinism is a cult that makes God unloving and arbitrary and my disappoint is Leighton's unwillingness to call out the cult for what it is. He has no problem doing it with Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses but since he was formally a Calvinist, he refuses to defend the love of God and call it out as a cult. I wonder if Leighton is too prideful to admit having fallen for a cult. Whatever the reason, he does a great job defending God in other ways, he just needs to step up and call out Calvinism as a cult instead of embracing its followers as believers. He could be encouraging them straight into damnation.
I think he is trying to stick to the argument amongst people he considers brothers,but he’s certainly not afraid to go to the core of the issue which is why infant damnation was brought up.
The cognitive dissonance of someone to say something like that is almost laughable. It’s as if they never thought to ask themselves “Why does God tell me to do this if it will do literally no good anyway?”
@@DaysofElijah317 I have no problem calling a lay, unstudied Calvinist, a brother in Christ. I do take issue calling a studied, and moreso a "scholar" like White, a brother because they should understand the text well enough (through study and supposedly guidance by the Holy Spirit) to not make a caricature of the basic nature of God. Additionally, when one of these studied men, or scholars, engages on the topic, I see the same dishonest and disingenuous tactics over and over again when defending Calvinism. The thing that often makes one want to embrace them as brothers is their good works, (e.g. Durbin's anti-abortion efforts, White's defenses against other cults, etc.). But should those works blind us to what their core beliefs are. I have met some amazing Mormons but their core beliefs are damning. Same goes for Jehovah Witnesses. But again, their core beliefs are damning. Why would we need to be warned about teaching of other gospels or wolves in sheep's clothing if we could ignore core beliefs and simply look to good works? It's the core beliefs (faith in God and His nature) that save, not works, no matter how good.
That’s a red herring. Jesus tells us to love our enemies, love our neighbor which boils down to love everyone. “How do we love the people God has hated since the beginning of the world?” First of all, love your enemies… that doctrine sort of covers everything. Secondly, as it was clearly stated by James White, we don’t know who God’s elect are but we preach according to the hope that God’s sheep will hear his voice. Proclaiming, repenting and believing the gospel are commands. Thats just a fact, not sure what your problem with it is other than to act as if it’s a gotcha moment like “aha! he said he only preaches the gospel because it’s a command, im so much more loving and pious than him!” But in reality that was only one of the reasons he gave and it was specifically to refute the common objection provisionalists make that “what’s the point of preaching the gospel if God’s elect will be saved no matter what?” And he explained that God is a God of the ends as well as the means. It’s as absurd as asking “if God predetermined that I would eat lunch today, then why should I eat?” Well sure, God predetermined that you would be full by means of eating food and likewise that you’d be saved by his servant preaching the gospel. It’s a bad argument, and the fact that you look at this as a sort of “aha” moment shows you don’t understand the point that was made or you’re being blatantly disingenuous. You: “Not to mention gospel motivated by LAW not LOVE because it’s not out of compassion but command” Jesus: “if you love me obey my commandments” Wow, so as we see, Jesus’ own words don’t jive with whatever it is you’re saying. Love is the motivation to obey commands. Law can be the motivation, that is, if you think you’ll be justified by doing good and obeying God’s commands. Ironically, that’s exactly how folks like you present the gospel, teaching that it’s up to me and you to live good lives otherwise we’re going to hell. As far as damned babies go. Scripture clearly tells us we’re evil from birth, “the wicked are estranged from the womb they go astray telling lies even from birth.” David tells us he formed in iniquity from his mother’s womb. Does an infant who dies go to hell? Well the scripture doesn’t say, but rest assured God is perfectly just and full of mercy, I’m sure he’ll be able to sort em out. JW didn’t really address that point because he doesn’t need to. Babies going to hell is not a reformed talking point, some more fringe branches of reformed thought might hold to that but you have the fringe people in everything. It’s irrelevant. Calvinists hold that man is sinful and depraved from birth, a doctrine clearly taught in scripture as I quoted above from two psalms for a couple examples.
Wow Leighton wasn't playing around with this one. Leighton clearly won this argument and while I agree with him JW clearly has a superior beard. Do with that information what you will but we all know it's factual.
White's beard and dark attire is either a conscious or unconscious attempt to emulate the appearance of his teacher John Calvin. I have seen other "Reformed" teachers following the same trend. In this regard we must remember what Paul said about being a disciple of a disciple rather than a disciple of Jesus. …11 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?… (1 Corinthians 1:11-12)
Leighton just shouted nonsensical questions that were off topic and he couldn’t answer the one clear question on the actual topic at hand that White asked him multiple times. Leigh didn’t even come close to showing up for the debate properly.
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.
Are Calvinists aware of Acts 10:34 which says that God is no respecter of persons, meaning God shows no favoritism? That alone debunks the doctrine of unconditional election.
@@TylerRayHamblinRomans 9 is about the election of the nation of Israel, not the unconditional election of individuals. That's why you see in Romans 7 up until Romans 11, the audience that Paul is speaking to is "those who know the law", namely the Jews. In Romans 11:28, Paul says that the Jews by election are praised by the patriarchs, but by the gospel they are enemies. Paul is saying that the election of the nation of Israel is not part of the saving gospel. Romans 9 is about Israel's past, Romans 10 is about Israel's present, and Romans 11 is about Israel's future. So when it talks about God can save whomever he wants to save, it's in response to the Jews, who objected to the fact that God was extending his hand to gentiles in addition to the Jews. The old covenant was that God was to start the nation of Israel through his chosen people, and disseminate his word to them first. The New covenant said that now the Gospel of Jesus Christ is extended to everyone, not just the Jews. Paul's reputation in Romans 9:11 is that the Jews are mistaken that just because they are elected it doesn't mean that they're saved. Paul is intentionally bifurcating election with the gospel. The election of the nation of Israel is not the same type of election in which God chooses his people. The body of Christ is constantly called "a chosen people" (1 Peter 2:9). So the election that saves, is corporate election, not election of individuals.
They are, I’m a provisionist myself, but they take it that God chose people without favoritism. Now I don’t understand how that works, and neither do they, they appeal to great mystery.
There could not have been a more unappealing presentation of the Gospel than that which Dr. White presented in this debate. He simply defeated himself.
Then (W)ho is worthy or decides who goes to heaven? John 1: 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
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.
Listening to White cross- examine is maddening. He is completely ignoring the clear answers he is given and asking the same question again and again. He's simply proving the point - you can hear without hearing 😂
He ignores to answer the question because Mr. Flowers didn't allow him to complete the answer. Mr. Flowers has an agenda contrary from the text before them.
@bobbystanny8323 It's pretty silly how White clearly knows that proper exegesis requires reading the whole of the scriptures to be communicating a coherent, consistent message, but then loses his mind when Flowers interprets John 6 to be consistent with other Scriptures. "Is that in John 6?" The better question is which view requires deviation from the plain meaning of the text of the scriptures, taken as a whole, more often. Seems to me that Calvinism makes nonsense of most of the Bible, but the Calvinist always comes armed with an encyclopedia of post hoc "*actually* that passage doesn't mean what you think it means" explanations. Flowers is absolutely right that White brings a theology to the text rather than getting his theology from the text.
I have been associated with Calvinism for many years. I studied at a bible school in Adelaide Australia years ago. I got and still are so discouraged by the Calvinistic teachings of this but also perserverance, Lordship salvation etc, so I do my self a favour and keep my distance Church, the bible and the angry unfair God it seems to potrays. . I believed it but ultimately I took it to its logical conclusion that I could never live up and I might not be elect so I stopped going to church. I didn't think anyone could truelly challenge Calvinism from the scriptures as I interpreted it through that lenses and it became a depressing, terrible crushing weight I couldn't bear it!!! I often feel that there is just no way I could ever be one of the elect because I still struggle with sin. Like many others I am sensitive due to having a father on earth who often treated me, my siblings and my mother with violence and anger. I honestly just question too much and keep taking ideas to their logical conclusion. I don't know why but I have spent the last few days listening to bible teachers again and I came across Dr flower's. I can or am beginning to see it now, that there is an alternative. Thanks.
My brother we all were sinners saved by grace.. when the elect are spoken of it means not only those who believe but much more like enduring in the word and in Christ it means gathering together with those of like mind until we have matured in our faith to the point where we can use the gifts God has blessed us with to help and lead others to him.. God from the beginning desires for all to be saved.. but we humans decide if we want that or not. God will draw us to Christ but he allows us to choose and if we decide to walk away and turn back to willful sin meaning habitual, intentional sin. The wrong we know is wrong and the wrong our inner man and conscience knows is wrong.. then we inwardly seek the same separation from God Lucifer did and therefore he will not force us into paradise with him and by this those who chose sin over Christ choose speration from him.. The point is our God is true love and just we chose to except the drawing and the call, we choose to follow and do God's will not ours, and we choose to turn away therefore we determine where we end up by our choices so it's not God who puts us in hell it's us.. and if we seek paradise Jesus is the way and the shepherd to follow. We may have been sinners and we may still slip along the way but if we truly follow Christ as laid out by him and by many other examples in the word and do all we can to not intentionally sin and avoid by our choice any situation or confront it as wrong that which we know would and is wrong.. we while hear are surrounded by sin but we do not have to take part or allow it we make free will choices and we will be held accountable for them as we should be... God bless you brother.. if you have questions or I missed something please feel free to reply..
Beautiful. Was born anew. And then was immediately brought to r.c Sproul. Same deal for me somewhat. Within a year I stepped out of Calvinism It all started with a deep study on limited atonement. After that fell. They all fell. Thank GOD
Complete opposite story for me. I can NOT lie, I am a horrible person, even after being born again. The more you read the BIBLE and see how the stories are all the same. NO ONE deserves God's salvation. If you can choose it, you can lose it. My name is written in the Lamb's book of Life. It can NOT be removed!!!
The sum total of what scriptures teach on any subject determines the TRUTH on that subject. Any other method fails to adequately provide truthful conclusions.
I 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.
Dr. James White seemed deliberately dense so as not to concede any point of contention. He acts like he is handling scripture properly when he is only looking at one verse and then demanding a proper exegesis when that is exactly what Leighton brought the other scripture that would be applicable to the subject. How can we understand John 6:44 without understanding the rest of the chapter, book, or the previous revelation and quoted passages that apply to the subject at hand?
Most of my life I was in a church with very similar teach to dr Flowers. I stated to see the things in scripture that dr white is talking about. However I had no idea what any of that was about nor did I learn it from a person. The more I studied the Bible and looked up the Greek words for myself the more convinced I became. It was honestly a terrible place to be for a time. How do you interpret or understand Matthew 13:10-16?
@@jennyalvis4568So did DR. Flowers just not to Dr. White’s liking, the debate was not on what the verse said but on how it was understood. Dr. White didn’t support his position.
@@Gettindirty187what I would say after looking at the passage is that we do not know how the ‘one who has’, possesses any and without further study it could support either reading of the text. Still it seems more logical that those who are continually coming to God with a proper attitude and desire to learn are the ones who will be given more.
I don't attack personalities, or style of debate. I try and stick with the facts. But I would like to see a debate that is on 2 Peter 3:9, or a 'proof text' of Provisionism. The demands that James White makes the Dr Flowers stick with John 6, which is a proof text for Calvinism is unfair. Dr Flowers must give context for John 6:44 by reading before, after, and what the bible says throughout. I would like to see James White debate 2 Peter 3:9 with the same demands of 'I thought we were debating 2 Peter 3:9'. Of course James White would have to give context and pull verses throughout the bible to show his perspective. But it seems that all these debates are on Calvinist 'proof texts'.
@jourdancarter5912 I agree it's perfectly fine. So why does Leighton get told he is not sticking to the text and pulling passages out of context, when he is showing they are speaking about the same things?
@jourdancarter5912Never mind. I see you were talking to someone else that I guess pulled their comments. I got confused when you said 'your Lord Calvin'. Then I realized you were replying to someone else. Lol!
Thank you Leighton for your continuous work against this cult None will be able to stand against you, God has raised you up to expose this cult. God bless you Mr Flowers.
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..."
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you *life and death* blessing and cursing: therefore *choose life* that both thou and thy seed may live: {Deuteronomy 30:19} God has given man a choice.
The fall has systemically affected the faculties of man. It has not robbed them of these faculties, but has given them a sinful bias. A choice that is certain does not nullify its freedom. Calvinism doesn’t deny a choice is made from the faculties of man and that the entirety of these faculties are employed in the process, but rather the outcome without divine intervention is certain. 2nd Chronicles 30:10-12
If you think evangelism contradicts predestination, I have good news for you. You dont understand what we mean when we say "predestination". Its good news because now you get to go back to studying the topic you are trying to voice an opinion on and understand it better. You're welcome.
Dr White doesn't really believe what he's teaching. He's too smart to hold to an Elementary teacher named John Calvin who was young and a baby in his faith when he defined his doctrine. Flowers demolished White and White just repeated his talking points like a politician
@@Roger-il8iw My only holdback from the debate was Dr FLOWERS inability to balance the fact that God can and does do as He pleases when He pleases, and this does not make Him unloving even if one was born reprobate. Who are we to say He couldnt make a pawn for His purpose just to annihilate that same pawn later. In many ways Job was willing to accept that God was good though He couldn't understand why his whole family had to die, etc... Many of these things can't just be explained by the ability of man to hear, understand, and accept the gospel. Sometimes you just have to step back and realize that God's got everything under control.
@@eternalinvestments3422 I’m not entirely sure I follow your point. But I do agree that non-Calvinists (which are the vast majority of Christians) have a more powerful and more sovereign view of god. I believe god can absolutely do whatever he wants. He does not have to control everything as Calvinists say, but he absolutely could if he wanted to. In other words I actually believe god is god.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 You're welcome. I don't go around correcting everyone. I just love the word "spiel" and like to see it used (so I'm glad you edited it) 😅👍🙏
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
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.
There were mistakes on both sides. Dr. Flowers irritatingly went off-topic, which, I believe, was a huge mistake. He should have pressed Dr. White more on John 6:45. Dr. White, oddly, insisted that Dr. Flowers not interrupt him during the cross-examination, which Dr. White has repeatedly said in the past is the time when the asker gets to interrupt the answerer, cut them off, talk over them, etc. Either way, I think they both talked past each other. The lynch pin was John 6:45. Dr. White kept quoting it as, "Everyone having heard from the Father comes to me-" and Dr. Flowers kept pointing out that the verse says, "Everyone having heard from the Father _and having learned_ comes to me-". Dr. White says "having learned" is passive, Dr. Flowers says it is active. The Greek says it is an Aorist Participle Active verb. It is an Active verb, but Dr. White says that since it is a Participle, it means the learner is being acted upon, in this case, by God, making the learner passive in the learning. However, being a Participle simply means that it refers to another verb, in this case "comes" is immediately after "having learned". So, "Everyone _having heard_ from the Father and _having learned_ _comes_ to me-" If I'm wrong about this, please let me know. 🍻
@@larrybedouin2921 Not sure if you're serious or mocking me... I will say that, to be fair, when you're under pressure, it can be hard to focus on what's immediately relevant. Versus someone like me who can relax while I watch and pause, rewind, replay, etc. Nevertheless, what's important is what is true and it seems clear that it is true that John 6:44 does not teach Unconditional Election.
It's really annoying that James eats up his opponents rebuttal time by either refusing to answer, or getting upset that his answers are getting interrupted for clarity. News flash James, IT'S LEIGHTON'S TIME. HE IS ALLOWED TO INTERRUPT. Particularly when you're going off topic. The same courtesy is given to you when it's your time. He did this with Trent too, it's irritating.
Are you being serious!? Dr Flowers is clearly misquoting Dr White in his cross examination and he’s asking leading questions!! Dr White is clear in his argument and the topic being debated while Flowers really is all over the place. Please understand how debates are supposed to work.
Leighton was the one who went off topic. He was doing a clear straw-man of Calvinism and James was refusing to participate in the misrepresentation. At 1:39:20, Leighton uses the analogy of Rob the Reprobate to ask about the salvation of infants. This has nothing to do with the debate and to force James to respond to a complex unrelated question in a cross examination is absurd. It would force him to give a short answer that can then be manipulated. The topic was John 6, not the salvation of infants or who is responsible for the fall/salvation.
Dr. Leighton was actually the one doing most of the interrupting. You can see it at 1:27:20. If interruptions are allowed whenever someone disagrees with their opponent, what’s the point of having rules? Additionally, many of Dr. Leighton's interruptions were used to misquote or misrepresent Dr. James's positions, and then steer the discussion onto a different topic. If you're not going to stick to the main topic, then you shouldn't agree to participate in the debate because it just leads to chaos.
Salvation is to all whom believe! If we were predestined, what would be the point of the Gospel, church, praying? We're all supposedly predestined why tell others the good news? You would either be telling it to the , already saved, or to the dammed. A calvinist may say, because we don't know who are the ones saved or not...we'll it wouldn't matter because your destination has already been picked for you. That would diminish the whole purpose of the Gospel.
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?
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.
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.
What are you talking about?
What did you listen to
James White stays in the text
Leighton Flowers… anything but the text
Glad i discovered Dr. Flowers through this debate. ❤ from India
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. 👍
“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."
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 .. 😅
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).”
“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.
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.
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
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
What are you talking about?
What did you listen to
James White stays in the text
Leighton Flowers… anything but the text
@@justwannaridemabike let's just say we agree to disagree..
@@elijahsammy4393
No,
In that debate there was one individual who stayed with the text and exegeted the meaning consistently and one who did not.
@@justwannaridemabike No? You guys are really understanding 🤔
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.
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. 😊
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! 😇
Outstanding job Dr. Flowers! Your patience is admirable.
“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)
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 .
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 !
I really think people who accept predestination are little bit broken somewhere inside, or at least broken hearted following God who is not so good.
Can you imagine good the Father who willingly chooses to predestine half of his children (or more) to eternal punishments, and give them no grace to be able to believe, and use another half to make their lives beautiful.. forever
And he is almighty and his house has many many apartments, not broken like our earthly fathers
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.
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.
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.
God bless you and keep you Dr. Flowers. You helped me escape the false teachings of Calvinism. I thank God for you. Sincerely.
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.
@@EDCREVIEWSit 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.
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.
I say this as someone coming into this debate who is a huge fan of Dr White debates and had never even heard of Flowers. White was whiney, rude, and completely reprehensible. For someone who interrupts the other so much, he sure freaks out when he is cut off. He wont answer questions. He wont even debate in good faith. This is not the same Dr White from the Great Debates of the 90s. That was an honest man of God. This... is a shell of the man in comparison
I imagine it must be tiring to have to deal year after year after year for more than 30 years with people who have not been up to Dr. White's standards when it comes to debates. Besides, As the opponent stated in his initial presentation, Dr. White agreed to debate him despite not feeling well.
@@Cristian-vg6iq don't justify bad behavior. That's reprehensible
I wish it could be attributed to his illness. This is typical behavior from Dr. White in many of his debates I have watched. He is often ornery, rude, and condescending to his brethren.
It's his ego. He feels he is to smart and only see it his way.
@@Cristian-vg6iqhonestly he’s been just teaching them in all his debates
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.
Liar
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.
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.
L.F. is entirely wrong.
He is looking at salvation from man's perspective and not from God's.
@@ryleighloughty3307
Go fish!
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’ve been a Calvinist for years. But then Flowers came into my life. The Bible says we will be known by our love. I was split down the middle on what was the correct view. I see no love from White. No kindness. No patience. I see that in many Calvinist’s. Flowers is an example of a true believer. White reminds me of a jerky teenager. Unbelievable
Sometimes Love is harsh. And telling the truth is hard.
2 Cor 2 v4 For out of much [a]affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you.
@@daveonezero6258
And sometimes....... people like James White are just JERKS, because they know they got beat by common sense and clear easy Bible reading.
So you want your mommy is what your asking for.
@mikhailyaremkiv The condescending attitude you portray isn't Christ like.
@@MSOkraMan that makes zero sense. I find those who have nothing to add to the conversation typicaly pull the "not christlike" card. So clue in to the discussion or walk away.
WOW - Leighton EXCELLENT opening remarks!
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.
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?
As a Former Calvinist now Orthodox Christian I appreciate your work
Calvinism views salvation as something entirely within God's control, which is biblical and logical.
Flowers is wrong.
Good job Leighton !
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.
@@Pondimus_Maximus 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"🙄
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 🙏🙏
Wow! Amen Dr. James White! Thank you for showing us the Doctrines of Grace.
🧑⚖️Do you find Calvinism logical and scriptural?
@@calebjushua9252 Hi, without the scriptures it is illogical.
@@angj5609
🙋 You are correct. That's why Calvinism is a false teaching because it contradicts the Scriptures.
@@angj5609
🙋 Nowhere in the Scriptures can we find that God doomed a person for a sin which he was preprogrammed to do.
Nowhere in the Scriptures can we find that God doomed a person for a sin which he was preprogrammed to do.
Thanks for speaking truth (Gods word).
Great job Dr. Flowers!
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.
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.
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.
That was a really passionate opening statement by Dr. Flowers. God bless you.
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?
"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.
@@BAM-jc7uy Thats a bad argument. That word doesn't literally mean what it says is terrible for an argument.
I'm really surpirsed how off course white is. White did not listen carefully.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Listener from MN 👍👍
...all the way to Finland ! 😂
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?
@1:25:51 JW lost John 6:44 and the topic of the debate when he said drawing isn't regeneration with his dodging he ended up agreeing with Leighton point of view of drawing message/listen/learn The Gospel of Jesus!
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Sounded to me like JW didn't want John 6:45 to be there
JW in his closing claimed victory on a "if" lol
Great job Leighton you did very impressive!
@h2s142Why does God graft branches in?
”You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.“
Romans 11:19-23
John 15:5-6
5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
It is dependent upon the individual abiding.
And to think, this is their BEST verse!! Lol. I'd like to see them defend a Provisionist proof text.
That’s what I was thinking. They can’t even defend their five proof texts let alone any other scripture…….
That is such a great point. We rarely if ever see these debates going the other way. It’s like the Calvinist is always playing on their home turf.
I wanna see that
Watch the video that "wise disciple" did to review this debate. What he says is hard for both sides to hear, but the guy was a debate teacher.
I don't understand where scripture gives Layton Flowers the Grace to continue debating a well-known heretic false teacher. Calvinism is heresy. John Calvin was a heretic. The only reason his of false doctrine had any foothold was because of his attachment to the Catholic church and people still didn't understand or know or read the Bible so they believed him but that man tormented the Jewish people and true believers it's a well-known fact of history that John Calvin hated the Jewish people. James White is a heretic and flowers does not have a biblical right to continue engaging with a heretic. I believe flowers has the biblical right to expose the LIE of Calvinism as much and as often as he chooses that I don't believe he's supposed to put himself in a position to have a back and forth with a heretic. The Bible gives clear direction on how to handle a heretic. If Flowers believes that his position is Right which I personally agree with him wholeheartedly then by virtue of his biblical position he needs to also apply the grace given by God on hell to handle a heretic and I believe the Bible says go to them two or three times and if they still don't hear you then treat them as a heretic.
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
Very great presentation Dr. Flowers. Thank you for this debate. Very clear and accurate.
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 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
@@audan2006 Are you interested in truth or pacifying your personal feelings?
Any quality debater is going to dismiss rhetorical game playing, illogical arguments, especially something as silly as argument from emotion. The gospel is not unclear about life and death and sin and judgement. There is one mediator between God and man, and one savior Jesus Christ in whom is found redemption and salvation. Babies and unborn do not have a separate different gospel and alternate rules and alternate saving graces. None that we see in scripture. What scripture does tell us, is that God is sovereign, and it is appointed once for us to die and after that is the judgement. We don't live one day shorter or longer than is God's will.
Does scripture say we should put authority and trust in our feelings to tell us what is true? On the contrary, man's heart is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." But sure, despite the human condition shown to us in Romans 1-3, we should take that to mean if we have strong feelings about things, that makes it true. I have strong feelings about the question too. Who wouldn't? The only difference is I don't elevate my personal wishes and feelings as the arbiter of truth of a matter that isn't told to us explicitly.
Did you know there are parents who have murdered their children because they believe it guarantees them heaven and that eternity is far better than the chance they might become an unbeliever? The logic isn't wrong, if you only follow your feelings.
In Flowers' view, these parents have a point, their child might make that free will choice that keeps them out of heaven, but the parent can guarantee heaven with one sin of their own.
However, I don't have to answer this question, it doesn't need answering any more than the question 'how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?' It requires no answer because it's not taught explicitly, and has no theological bearing on my life. But the lack of answer on that issue could be helpful in preventing crazy parents from murdering their children to gaurantee them heaven.
I can guess you will probably ask me for my opinion anyway, and I have the same feelings as any other human would. I would never declare any baby or unborn is in hell, that would be way outside my ability to know in the first place and stuipd to ever suggest; but in the second place, we don't see any examples (that I know about) of babies or infants or even children being in hell. I can only say theologically that humans are born in iniquity, fallen, imperfect, unworthy, etc. No getting around that. So I would personally believe that in God's sovereignty, provision is made. Do I have chapter and verse? No, and that's the point, I don't get to declare absolute facts and truths because it gives me the right feel feels to think it so.
By using an emotional litmus test against scripture, Flowers is practicing a very dangerous epistemology, where he rates the truthfulness of claims based on how it makes him feel about other things. And even worse, twist, distort, or invert scripture to make it say what feels best.
I love and highly appreciate James White for specifically and honestly telling the truth about 'humanistic philosophical gospel of calvinism' , since in calvinistic philosophy we dont know who God really loves and hates James White said that "we proclaim the gospel because we are commanded to do so" and NOT because of loving the people since again how can we love the people that have the chance of being hated by God since the beginning of the world ? in other word it's is a 'merciless loveless gospel' not to mention Gospel motivated by LAW and NOT love because it's not out of compassion but COMMAND .
That's the heart of the issue. Calvinism is a cult that makes God unloving and arbitrary and my disappoint is Leighton's unwillingness to call out the cult for what it is. He has no problem doing it with Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses but since he was formally a Calvinist, he refuses to defend the love of God and call it out as a cult. I wonder if Leighton is too prideful to admit having fallen for a cult. Whatever the reason, he does a great job defending God in other ways, he just needs to step up and call out Calvinism as a cult instead of embracing its followers as believers. He could be encouraging them straight into damnation.
I think he is trying to stick to the argument amongst people he considers brothers,but he’s certainly not afraid to go to the core of the issue which is why infant damnation was brought up.
The cognitive dissonance of someone to say something like that is almost laughable. It’s as if they never thought to ask themselves “Why does God tell me to do this if it will do literally no good anyway?”
@@DaysofElijah317 I have no problem calling a lay, unstudied Calvinist, a brother in Christ. I do take issue calling a studied, and moreso a "scholar" like White, a brother because they should understand the text well enough (through study and supposedly guidance by the Holy Spirit) to not make a caricature of the basic nature of God.
Additionally, when one of these studied men, or scholars, engages on the topic, I see the same dishonest and disingenuous tactics over and over again when defending Calvinism.
The thing that often makes one want to embrace them as brothers is their good works, (e.g. Durbin's anti-abortion efforts, White's defenses against other cults, etc.).
But should those works blind us to what their core beliefs are. I have met some amazing Mormons but their core beliefs are damning. Same goes for Jehovah Witnesses. But again, their core beliefs are damning.
Why would we need to be warned about teaching of other gospels or wolves in sheep's clothing if we could ignore core beliefs and simply look to good works?
It's the core beliefs (faith in God and His nature) that save, not works, no matter how good.
That’s a red herring. Jesus tells us to love our enemies, love our neighbor which boils down to love everyone. “How do we love the people God has hated since the beginning of the world?”
First of all, love your enemies… that doctrine sort of covers everything.
Secondly, as it was clearly stated by James White, we don’t know who God’s elect are but we preach according to the hope that God’s sheep will hear his voice.
Proclaiming, repenting and believing the gospel are commands. Thats just a fact, not sure what your problem with it is other than to act as if it’s a gotcha moment like “aha! he said he only preaches the gospel because it’s a command, im so much more loving and pious than him!”
But in reality that was only one of the reasons he gave and it was specifically to refute the common objection provisionalists make that “what’s the point of preaching the gospel if God’s elect will be saved no matter what?” And he explained that God is a God of the ends as well as the means. It’s as absurd as asking “if God predetermined that I would eat lunch today, then why should I eat?” Well sure, God predetermined that you would be full by means of eating food and likewise
that you’d be saved by his servant preaching the gospel. It’s a bad argument, and the fact that you look at this as a sort of “aha” moment shows you don’t understand the point that was made or you’re being blatantly disingenuous.
You: “Not to mention gospel motivated by LAW not LOVE because it’s not out of compassion but command”
Jesus: “if you love me obey my commandments”
Wow, so as we see, Jesus’ own words don’t jive with whatever it is you’re saying. Love is the motivation to obey commands. Law can be the motivation, that is, if you think you’ll be justified by doing good and obeying God’s commands. Ironically, that’s exactly how folks like you present the gospel, teaching that it’s up to me and you to live good lives otherwise we’re going to hell.
As far as damned babies go. Scripture clearly tells us we’re evil from birth, “the wicked are estranged from the womb they go astray telling lies even from birth.”
David tells us he formed in iniquity from his mother’s womb. Does an infant who dies go to hell? Well the scripture doesn’t say, but rest assured God is perfectly just and full of mercy, I’m sure he’ll be able to sort em out. JW didn’t really address that point because he doesn’t need to. Babies going to hell is not a reformed talking point, some more fringe branches of reformed thought might hold to that but you have the fringe people in everything. It’s irrelevant. Calvinists hold that man is sinful and depraved from birth, a doctrine clearly taught in scripture as I quoted above from two psalms for a couple examples.
Wow Leighton wasn't playing around with this one. Leighton clearly won this argument and while I agree with him JW clearly has a superior beard. Do with that information what you will but we all know it's factual.
lol!
How do you win an argument without ever addressing the topic of it?
White's beard and dark attire is either a conscious or unconscious attempt to emulate the appearance of his teacher John Calvin. I have seen other "Reformed" teachers following the same trend. In this regard we must remember what Paul said about being a disciple of a disciple rather than a disciple of Jesus.
…11 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?…
(1 Corinthians 1:11-12)
Lol it’s like when a Muslim debates a Christian and all the muslims come in drop a comment without watching the debate like a cult
Leighton just shouted nonsensical questions that were off topic and he couldn’t answer the one clear question on the actual topic at hand that White asked him multiple times. Leigh didn’t even come close to showing up for the debate properly.
10 years ago, listening to James White convinced me that I could not become a Calvinist. Thank you Dr. White.
Not only is Calvinism biblical, but it is logical.
@@ryleighloughty3307 wrong -Donald trump
@@peytonpruett9416
What about Donald Trump.
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.
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.
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.
Does it matter most if a presentation of the gospel is appealing or if it is biblically accurate/True?
Great job, Leighton.
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?
Flowers, for the win!!!
What are you talking about?
What did you listen to
James White stays in the text
Leighton Flowers… anything but the text
Wow Leighton, that was awesome!
Listening to White cross- examine is maddening. He is completely ignoring the clear answers he is given and asking the same question again and again. He's simply proving the point - you can hear without hearing 😂
He ignores to answer the question because Mr. Flowers didn't allow him to complete the answer. Mr. Flowers has an agenda contrary from the text before them.
@bobbystanny8323 It's pretty silly how White clearly knows that proper exegesis requires reading the whole of the scriptures to be communicating a coherent, consistent message, but then loses his mind when Flowers interprets John 6 to be consistent with other Scriptures. "Is that in John 6?" The better question is which view requires deviation from the plain meaning of the text of the scriptures, taken as a whole, more often. Seems to me that Calvinism makes nonsense of most of the Bible, but the Calvinist always comes armed with an encyclopedia of post hoc "*actually* that passage doesn't mean what you think it means" explanations.
Flowers is absolutely right that White brings a theology to the text rather than getting his theology from the text.
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!
Here’s James white in a nutshell , a man convinced against his will is of the same option still ! Wonderful job Dr Flowers
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.
I have been associated with Calvinism for many years. I studied at a bible school in Adelaide Australia years ago. I got and still are so discouraged by the Calvinistic teachings of this but also perserverance, Lordship salvation etc, so I do my self a favour and keep my distance Church, the bible and the angry unfair God it seems to potrays. . I believed it but ultimately I took it to its logical conclusion that I could never live up and I might not be elect so I stopped going to church. I didn't think anyone could truelly challenge Calvinism from the scriptures as I interpreted it through that lenses and it became a depressing, terrible crushing weight I couldn't bear it!!! I often feel that there is just no way I could ever be one of the elect because I still struggle with sin. Like many others I am sensitive due to having a father on earth who often treated me, my siblings and my mother with violence and anger. I honestly just question too much and keep taking ideas to their logical conclusion.
I don't know why but I have spent the last few days listening to bible teachers again and I came across Dr flower's. I can or am beginning to see it now, that there is an alternative. Thanks.
My brother we all were sinners saved by grace.. when the elect are spoken of it means not only those who believe but much more like enduring in the word and in Christ it means gathering together with those of like mind until we have matured in our faith to the point where we can use the gifts God has blessed us with to help and lead others to him.. God from the beginning desires for all to be saved.. but we humans decide if we want that or not. God will draw us to Christ but he allows us to choose and if we decide to walk away and turn back to willful sin meaning habitual, intentional sin. The wrong we know is wrong and the wrong our inner man and conscience knows is wrong.. then we inwardly seek the same separation from God Lucifer did and therefore he will not force us into paradise with him and by this those who chose sin over Christ choose speration from him..
The point is our God is true love and just we chose to except the drawing and the call, we choose to follow and do God's will not ours, and we choose to turn away therefore we determine where we end up by our choices so it's not God who puts us in hell it's us.. and if we seek paradise Jesus is the way and the shepherd to follow. We may have been sinners and we may still slip along the way but if we truly follow Christ as laid out by him and by many other examples in the word and do all we can to not intentionally sin and avoid by our choice any situation or confront it as wrong that which we know would and is wrong.. we while hear are surrounded by sin but we do not have to take part or allow it we make free will choices and we will be held accountable for them as we should be... God bless you brother.. if you have questions or I missed something please feel free to reply..
Beautiful. Was born anew. And then was immediately brought to r.c Sproul. Same deal for me somewhat. Within a year I stepped out of Calvinism It all started with a deep study on limited atonement. After that fell. They all fell. Thank GOD
Complete opposite story for me. I can NOT lie, I am a horrible person, even after being born again. The more you read the BIBLE and see how the stories are all the same. NO ONE deserves God's salvation. If you can choose it, you can lose it.
My name is written in the Lamb's book of Life. It can NOT be removed!!!
@@MatthewBrooks-z3m What do you mean by "if you can choose it, you can lose it" where does Christ teach that?
@@Jujbbyigs8766
Is your name written in the lamb's book of life?
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
Loved your 3 Biblical presuppositions
Yes!!!
Leighton, when and where will your new book be available for purchase??
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.
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.
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 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!
Thank you Leighton for your continuous work against this cult
None will be able to stand against you, God has raised you up to expose this cult. God bless you Mr Flowers.
The cult is the golden idol of "free" will.
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..."
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
@@Lance-o8k
That is God speaking 🔊 Have you ears to hear?
If you think evangelism contradicts predestination, I have good news for you. You dont understand what we mean when we say "predestination". Its good news because now you get to go back to studying the topic you are trying to voice an opinion on and understand it better. You're welcome.
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"
Love these men! Learned a lot...grew up around a lot of Calvinists..still not convinced after this debate. God bless Dr White and Dr Flowers!
Dr White doesn't really believe what he's teaching. He's too smart to hold to an Elementary teacher named John Calvin who was young and a baby in his faith when he defined his doctrine. Flowers demolished White and White just repeated his talking points like a politician
Even Calvin rejected Calvinism before he died
@@Roger-il8iw My only holdback from the debate was Dr FLOWERS inability to balance the fact that God can and does do as He pleases when He pleases, and this does not make Him unloving even if one was born reprobate. Who are we to say He couldnt make a pawn for His purpose just to annihilate that same pawn later. In many ways Job was willing to accept that God was good though He couldn't understand why his whole family had to die, etc... Many of these things can't just be explained by the ability of man to hear, understand, and accept the gospel. Sometimes you just have to step back and realize that God's got everything under control.
@@eternalinvestments3422 I’m not entirely sure I follow your point. But I do agree that non-Calvinists (which are the vast majority of Christians) have a more powerful and more sovereign view of god. I believe god can absolutely do whatever he wants. He does not have to control everything as Calvinists say, but he absolutely could if he wanted to. In other words I actually believe god is god.
Luther, Tyndale and many others affirm what you guys call, 'Calvinism'.
No point in listening to White’s opening. Same regurgitated spiel. No change.
*spiel
Agreed.
@@leenieledejo6849 thank you sir 😂
Don’t fix what ain’t broke
@@GrantFontenot-gd6lc too late. He’s already a broken record.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 You're welcome. I don't go around correcting everyone. I just love the word "spiel" and like to see it used (so I'm glad you edited it) 😅👍🙏
Dr Flowers has the unfair advantage of having the truth on his side. Never debate the one string banjo guy!
❤😂
Except that he is entirely wrong.
No, it's James White who's wrong.
Calvinism is demonic, and you'd do well to stay away from Ligonier Ministries, which is also demonic.
Thank you Mr Flowers.
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.
So beautifully and masterfully done Dr. Flowers! God bless you! :)
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.
Leighton, absolutely excellent!! A heartfelt defence of the Gospel and the truth of how sinners are saved, they listen, believe and are regenerated!!
There were mistakes on both sides. Dr. Flowers irritatingly went off-topic, which, I believe, was a huge mistake. He should have pressed Dr. White more on John 6:45.
Dr. White, oddly, insisted that Dr. Flowers not interrupt him during the cross-examination, which Dr. White has repeatedly said in the past is the time when the asker gets to interrupt the answerer, cut them off, talk over them, etc.
Either way, I think they both talked past each other. The lynch pin was John 6:45. Dr. White kept quoting it as, "Everyone having heard from the Father comes to me-" and Dr. Flowers kept pointing out that the verse says, "Everyone having heard from the Father _and having learned_ comes to me-".
Dr. White says "having learned" is passive, Dr. Flowers says it is active. The Greek says it is an Aorist Participle Active verb. It is an Active verb, but Dr. White says that since it is a Participle, it means the learner is being acted upon, in this case, by God, making the learner passive in the learning.
However, being a Participle simply means that it refers to another verb, in this case "comes" is immediately after "having learned". So, "Everyone _having heard_ from the Father and _having learned_ _comes_ to me-"
If I'm wrong about this, please let me know. 🍻
How about you debate them both.
@@larrybedouin2921 Not sure if you're serious or mocking me...
I will say that, to be fair, when you're under pressure, it can be hard to focus on what's immediately relevant. Versus someone like me who can relax while I watch and pause, rewind, replay, etc.
Nevertheless, what's important is what is true and it seems clear that it is true that John 6:44 does not teach Unconditional Election.
It's really annoying that James eats up his opponents rebuttal time by either refusing to answer, or getting upset that his answers are getting interrupted for clarity.
News flash James, IT'S LEIGHTON'S TIME. HE IS ALLOWED TO INTERRUPT. Particularly when you're going off topic. The same courtesy is given to you when it's your time. He did this with Trent too, it's irritating.
Are you being serious!? Dr Flowers is clearly misquoting Dr White in his cross examination and he’s asking leading questions!! Dr White is clear in his argument and the topic being debated while Flowers really is all over the place. Please understand how debates are supposed to work.
Leighton was the one who went off topic. He was doing a clear straw-man of Calvinism and James was refusing to participate in the misrepresentation.
At 1:39:20, Leighton uses the analogy of Rob the Reprobate to ask about the salvation of infants. This has nothing to do with the debate and to force James to respond to a complex unrelated question in a cross examination is absurd. It would force him to give a short answer that can then be manipulated. The topic was John 6, not the salvation of infants or who is responsible for the fall/salvation.
Dr. Leighton was actually the one doing most of the interrupting. You can see it at 1:27:20. If interruptions are allowed whenever someone disagrees with their opponent, what’s the point of having rules? Additionally, many of Dr. Leighton's interruptions were used to misquote or misrepresent Dr. James's positions, and then steer the discussion onto a different topic. If you're not going to stick to the main topic, then you shouldn't agree to participate in the debate because it just leads to chaos.
This debate taught me,
Leighton Flowers does not listen to sound Biblical hermeneutics
Salvation is to all whom believe! If we were predestined, what would be the point of the Gospel, church, praying? We're all supposedly predestined why tell others the good news? You would either be telling it to the , already saved, or to the dammed. A calvinist may say, because we don't know who are the ones saved or not...we'll it wouldn't matter because your destination has already been picked for you. That would diminish the whole purpose of the Gospel.