White Flowers Debate - A Few Thoughts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2024
- Here's my brief response to the debate between James White & Leighton Flowers on John 6:44, March 7, 2024.
#bible #debate #calvinism
Full Debate (Original Video)
www.youtube.co...
Bible Gateway
www.biblegatew...
For viewers wondering why I said Leighton should not have brought up infant damnation, let's look at what James has said recently:
On January 25th, 2024, on the Alpha & Omega Ministries' video titled, "Lots of Short Topics, Andrew Fuller and the Reality of Death, then Back to Carl Trueman" James White said, around 48 minutes,
"I have worked as a hospital chaplain, I've published in the field. Most people don't know that if you don't watch the program and hear the few programs, where I've mentioned it, but I've been there and you don't make [infant damnation] a subject of debate.
"If a, if a family in Apologia Church wants to sit down with me and some of the other pastors and talk about biblically what the Bible teaches about God's sovereignty and salvation and the death of infants, then we'll do it. We'll be happy to do it and we'll be happy to open the scriptures, and we'll be happy to consider the broad spectrum of things, and we'll look at the various sides. You can find long lists of, of and, and, and it is the majority view, even amongst reformed people, that every child that dies in infancy is of the elect. In fact that's what the Westminster Confession says; it uses the phrase 'elect infants'.
"Okay how do you defend that biblically? What are elect infants? Well, obviously we're dealing here with speculative theology. We're going well in light of this, and this, and this. I put it together this way; we are not given anything in scripture about this; we're given, we're given, uh, David and and the child that dies, uh, being in the realm, realm of dead the dead. Uh, that doesn't really tell you much.
"And so the very idea of debating it is just disgusting and vile. Anybody who comes up with that should just crawl under a rock and never come back out. You would actually want to use that as a debating subject? You're disgusting. You're shameful. You need to grow up or or get born again or something because you got a problem."
Later, at about 51 minutes, he said,
"I've always said God has just as much freedom to be gracious in the matter of those who die in infancy as those who are adults. Let the judge of all the Earth do right. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there's a Bible passage that answers all these questions so you can just be dogmatic about it, because there isn't. There just isn't so the very idea of debating [infant damnation]? Wow!"
In light of this strong aversion to using "infant damnation" as a debate topic, perhaps it would have been gracious, kind, and gentlemanly, and an example of Christian brotherly love for Leighton to have avoided it.
ua-cam.com/video/JxWOuAD_-1E/v-deo.htmlsi=w2w8yEMNDXjEMFva&t=2869
Dr. White knows a lot about God. He just doesn’t know God well enough to know that infants are not damned.
I believe the point Leighton Flowers wanted to make is that infant damnation is consistent with Calvinism. Because there is no difference between an adult who is unable to believe the gospel and an infant.
Why should "infant damnation" be avoided as an intellectual topic of discussion? And why would any Calvinist care that there is a strong aversion to their any of their doctrines? It's as if Calvinist cannot face up to the implications of their own doctrines.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 Sorry but whose Calvinism? You ever read John Owen? Educate yourself please.
@dionsanchez2775 It's a name of a theological view. Named after John Calvin. I am being sarcastic because I am sure you know what it is.
I don't claim to be an expert on Leighton Flowers or Provisionism, but my impression is that is that he cannot admit the truth of Total Depravity, because that would mean that he would have to concede the principle of Unconditional Election. How else could one explain why some believe and others do not?
But I am deeply troubled by his Provisionist theology. He practically eliminates the active work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. We will never experience a true revival with theology like that.
yeah, his theology is devoid of the Spirit
ua-cam.com/video/zWlkS-xaKnI/v-deo.html&ab_channel=CCShorts
this video is what really showed how bad his heresy is.... Leighton basically says "God gives the Spirit to those who He foreknows will endure in the faith their whole life APART from the Spirit" it's obsurd
unconditional election denies the biblical view of salvation by faith. faith is a condition of salvation. unconditional means no condition.
@@scottibreiding you don't understand how grace works... if grace was conditional, it is no longer grace...
regeneration enables faith and that regeneration is unconditional
unless you're a pelagian and think regeneration doesn't precede faith...
@@jalapeno.tabasco my man. without faith there is no grace. what does Ephesians tell us? By grace, through what? unconditional election? no. by faith. faith is THE condition of receiving salvation. Whosoever is elected? no. whosoever believes. unconditional election is just that - unconditional.
nowhere in the Bible does regeneration precede faith. it’s the opposite, actually. repent so as to have life. you can attack me personally all you want - that i don’t understand grace. the fact is, there is no Jesus in TULIP.
@@jalapeno.tabasco idc about pelagian. red herring anyway. scripture says:
Ezekiel 18:30-32
“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!”
Acts 11:18
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”
John 20:31
“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Acts 15:9
“He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.”
Ephesians 1:13
“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit…”
Galatians 3:2, 5
“I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?… So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?”
salvation is by - belief - not election. belief is a condition. calvinism says salvation is unconditional- that is the meaning of unconditional election. calvinists believe election is to salvation. but is not.
I have plenty more verses just like this, and as you can see, regeneration always comes after faith. it would be unfair for me to challenge you to find me ONE verse that says the opposite because it does not exist. no example of regeneration preceding faith exists in any of scripture.
the idea of regeneration preceding faith comes from augustine’s former gnosticism. and augustine heavily influenced calvin.
call me a pelagian if you want. attack me personally all you want to. your issue is not with me but scripture
Flowers got trounced again. Couldn’t offer any explanation of 6:44….he tried to act angry, talk loud, bring up non topical stuff. But, he needed White so that he can make money from his 3 hour videos, where he doesn’t say anything.
Terrible huh? And then accused White of doing that...
You're just cheerleading if you think that. Even some Clavinist polls gave Flowers the win. You know White lost when he had to claim he was winning during the debate. You know White lost when he had to run to the moderator to be saved from having to respond to Flowers on a topic.
@@LawlessNate Naw bruh. Flowers is scripted, and when he couldn’t just give a simple answer to the most basic explanation of the verse, he dodges, dips, ducks, dives, and dodges the question. And to divert the attention, he diverts from the actual topic of the debate. If the moderator had thought infant death was a worthy line, he would have allowed it. Flowers, like most Arminians are militant, and they huff and puff at the thought of questioning their precious coveted free will.
@@glennashcraft3977 You interpret giving a detailed answer that challenges your presuppositions as "dodging the question" because, as you're trying to project onto Leighton, you're scripted. You've been taught "This is what Romans 9 means. This is what John 6:44 means." etc. Anyone who doesn't agree with what you've been taught must automatically be wrong. Anyone who provides a different interpretation is automatically incorrect and therefore dodging the question.
James White dodged a lot of questions. He even went to the moderator to avoid infant damnation, a logically necessary consequence of the topic of unconditional election which was part of the topic of the debate. Jame's continued tactic throughout the entire debate was to simply scoff of Leighton's positions rather than do anything to actually refute them. He would then give a simplistic interpretation of the text as viewed through the lens of Calvinisim without ever doing anything to establish why one should be reading the text through that lens the first place.
Leighton Flowers gave very detailed answers that directly challenged Calvinistic presuppositions. His responses were consistently "If you were to try and apply this Calvinistic presupposition in this other part of the text then it would make scripture contradict itself, therefore this Calvinistic presupposition can't be the case."
Leighton gave detailed answers that addressed the roots of the disagreement. James consistently used debate rhetoric in lieu of actual reasoning, and when he wasn't he simply presupposed the truth of Calvinism rather than actually doing anything to defend it.
There are two things outside of this debate I'd like to point out. I don't say this to mindlessly attack Jame's character, but just to call a spade a spade the guy is a narcissist. If pride were water the guy would be an ocean. There are plenty of Calvinists who don't like the guy and rightfully wont recommend him because of it. This is because...
1 Corinthians 13:1-3 "If I speak with the tongues of mankind and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give away all my possessions to charity, and if I surrender my body so that I may glory, but do not have love, it does me no good."
Hypothetically, even if Calvinism were true then James White is still someone to avoid and not promote. If flat out doesn't matter how correct your theology is, not that Calvinism is correct, if you don't do what you do in love then it does no good. James White's scoffing, eye rolling, pointlessly disparaging remarks, openly dishonest debate tactics and outright lying (pretending as though he's never heard some of Leighton's positions before despite having addressed the exact same positions many, many times from many different people over his career simply to try and make it seem to the audience as if Leighton's view is something only he came up with), etc. James White doesn't show the love of God in what he does. If Leighton Flowers acted like James White then I wouldn't give Leighton the time of day either.
There are plenty of people who weren't Cavlinists until they were, and people who were Calvinists until they weren't. Typically what I've found is those who weren't Cavlinists until they were are those who weren't very knowledgeable about scripture and then someone walked them through the Calvinistic interpretation of passages like Romans 9. They typically can't present and accurate summarization of the non-Calvinistic position. Typically when someone was a Calvinistic and then aren't, they're capable of giving an accurate representation of both positions. They know both the Calvinistic and Provisionistic positions on these passages and can give an accurate representation of both. This is because most online resources (the gospel coalition, gotquestions.org, etc) are Calvinistic. There is a popular stigma among Calvinists that those who aren't Calvinists are, at best, 'simple' in their faith or at worse are unintelligent. People who were Calvinists have to willingly enter into that stigma to publically no longer be Calvinists. Usually the motivation for doing this is them having read scripture for themselves and they're honest enough that when they encounter scripture that can't be interpreted consistently with Calvinism they eventually learn that Calvinism isn't Biblical.
@@LawlessNate you said it big cat. Leighton didn’t come to the debate, to exegete the topic, he came solely to attack Calvinism.
This is another debate infraction, just like throwing in the infant stuff.
The reason the debate was so narrowly focused, was to keep the debaters on point. Flowers is incapable of doing this, as his knowledge is more shallow.
And for you to look down your nose, and accuse JW of narcissism is laughable. I once read, that usually those that accuse those of narcissism, are actually the narcissists.
I’m sure your knowledge of the DSM-5 is limited to that one diagnosis. (Now, go google DSM-5, lol)
And to imply that Calvinists are erudite, is kind of flattering, if it were true. Because 99% of Calvinists, are totally humbled by the fact that God has done what He has done in us, and His graciousness in teaching us “how” He did it.
Bringing up infant damnation is "beyond the pale?" You should be able to defend ALL aspects of your theology. If you believe in Unconditional Election you should be able to defend every facet of it. If it's God's truth you shouldn't be ashamed to engage. I concede that if I were a Calvinist, I wouldn't want to defend it either.
James has talked about his views on the concept of elect infants while pointing out that he's not dogmatic about it. He simply said he doesn't think its a good topic for formal public debate. Out of respect for White's views, Flowers should not have brought it up. Indeed, if James is not dogmatic about elect infants/unelect infants, why attempt to make him debate it?
There is nothing in John 6:44 about infant damnation. It's an indication of Flowers's inability to argue his John 6 position that he kept trying to argue everything else.
@@rlh125 the debate was about unconditional election. If it’s not taught didactically throughout the whole of scripture it’s false and if it’s false John 6:44 doesn’t teach it. If infants who are not elect are damned, defend it.
@@rlh125when does God's election take place in calvinism? Would you like to proof text romans 9:11-13? You either have to agree with the calvinist interpretation and so doing be consistent and agree with infant damnation or find a different timeline or means for God's election.
@@reformedpilgrimlets just skip the formalities and deal with it. Cuase thats what calvinism is all about
Leighton's errant views were exposed in this debate. He got upset, and his closing remarks were disturbing. John 6 teaches that God first gives people to the Son. The Father then draws these people by teaching them so that they hear and listen. These people then come to the Son. The Son will raise these people up on the last day because this is the Father's will. I'm not a Calvinist, but I can't avoid this plain teaching from scripture.
That’s a very reasonable position to take.
So God forces them to listen and learn. Love does't work that way. Some people want away from God, but nope, Almighty manipulates their being by force.
@@Yaas_ok123 You're getting at the crux of the matter. I don't claim to have the answer. I know personally that I loved my sin and wanted away from God but he pursued me nonetheless. I love Him because He first loved me.
@@DanielBShaw Yep. Father loves, you respont but not by force.
@@Yaas_ok123so you came to your conclusion based on John 6:44 and surrounding verses?
Flowers closing sums the debate up - much like their Romans 9 debate the passage under discussion has by this stage mostly disappeared and it's turned into his standard i hate Calvinism arguments...
Pretty much.
That wouldn't be necessary if Dr. White would agree to debate topics outside of his proof texts. Why refuse to debate unconditional election generally last week? Why did the debate in 2015 HAVE to stay in Romans 9 for him to accept?
@@DISGUSTINGHUMANANIMAL To try in vain to get Flowers to stick to and actually deal with those texts to any depth which you have to do to meaningfully discuss reformed theology...
We saw in this debate even when John 6 was the topic Flowers couldn't stay in John 6 for more than a minute without jumping off to some other text or even topic it was difficult to follow and to sit through...
For example John 6 makes no mention of infant salvation nor of presuppositional apologetics nor do the emotional reactions of R C Sproul or John Piper feature or Augustine or indeed Dr White himself or any of his books.
So if Flowers can go that far off topic when there is a specific text under discussion what would it be like if there wasn't?
@Michael-uk3pj That isn't the point. Of course, John 6:44 and Romans 9 are relevant to discussing Reformed theology. They're also passages that are much more comfortable to discuss for a Calvinist. Every system has passages that, at first glance, seem to support their view, while other passages require some explaining and heavy lifting to fit within the framework. The idea that you think it is on Leighton to always stay within Calvinististic proof texts to talk with Dr. White reveals your bias. You want to know what debate you will never see, Dr. White have? "Does 1 Timothy 2:4 teach Conditional Election?" Obviously, Dr. White can explain 1 Timothy 2:4, but because the clear surface level reading goes against his view, it would give Leighton a huge advantage in the debate. Dr. White knows exactly what he's doing in agreeing to the parameters of these debates, and it's not solely because his proof texts are important to discussing Reformed theology.
@@DISGUSTINGHUMANANIMAL of course it's on Dr Flowers to stick in John 6 since that was the topic of the debate...
EXCELLENT critique! Thought it was pretty obvious Leighton came to debate Calvinism not the text. He knows walking through that text, exegetically, could never ever support his view.
Flowers won.
You nailed it!
Exactly!
The debate was on "Does John 6:44 teach Unconditional Election"
1. White lost the debate in his opener when he failed to establish that it does. He had the burden of proof, and he instead attempted to shift it on to Flowers.
2. The debate was on Unconditional Election, and thus Flowers had every right to push on the less palatable specifics of that doctrine. And White, rather than addressing them, ran to the moderator for help, and made both himself and the doctrine look weak.
3. White flat out lied during the cross-ex when asked about drawing is synonymous with regeneration, when what he has written on it outright says that they are, but on stage denied that. I can put up with all of outrageous and demeaning facial expressions and debate tactics, but lying about one's own library of published work is just too much.
Thought debate is about John 6?
@@jchen2873 White also referred to other fragments of Scripture. I thought the debate was about John 6?
I’m still struggling to understand why infant damnation is off limits in this debate. It seems to be a central issue of Unconditional Election, especially when White has publicly said that there is no difference between adults and children when it comes to election. I understand it’s a difficult subject to broach, but a necessary one. (I have to say I much prefer an open dialogue vs the debate format)
Out of James' clear dislike for debating this topic, perhaps Leighton would have best avoided it.
On January 25th, 2024, on the Alpha & Omega Ministries' video titled, "Lots of Short Topics, Andrew Fuller and the Reality of Death, then Back to Carl Trueman" James White said, around 48 minutes,
"I have worked as a hospital chaplain, I've published in the field. Most people don't know that if you don't watch the program and hear the few programs, where I've mentioned it, but I've been there and you don't make [infant damnation] a subject of debate.
"If a, if a family in Apologia Church wants to sit down with me and some of the other pastors and talk about biblically what the Bible teaches about God's sovereignty and salvation and the death of infants, then we'll do it. We'll be happy to do it and we'll be happy to open the scriptures, and we'll be happy to consider the broad spectrum of things, and we'll look at the various sides. You can find long lists of, of and, and, and it is the majority view, even amongst reformed people, that every child that dies in infancy is of the elect. In fact that's what the Westminster Confession says; it uses the phrase 'elect infants'.
"Okay how do you defend that biblically? What are elect infants? Well, obviously we're dealing here with speculative theology. We're going well in light of this, and this, and this. I put it together this way; we are not given anything in scripture about this; we're given, we're given, uh, David and and the child that dies, uh, being in the realm, realm of dead the dead. Uh, that doesn't really tell you much.
"And so the very idea of debating it is just disgusting and vile. Anybody who comes up with that should just crawl under a rock and never come back out. You would actually want to use that as a debating subject? You're disgusting. You're shameful. You need to grow up or or get born again or something because you got a problem."
Later, at about 51 minutes, he said,
"I've always said God has just as much freedom to be gracious in the matter of those who die in infancy as those who are adults. Let the judge all the Earth do right. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there's a Bible passage that answers all these questions so you can just be dogmatic about it, because there isn't. There just isn't so the very idea of debating [infant damnation]? Wow!"
@@reformedpilgrim interesting. Thanks for the detailed response
Because, the infant topic deserves and entire debate, not a single answer. It is disingenuous to all those that struggle with this event, to flippantly address it as a side point. White realizes this, because he has actually had a ministry, unlike the uncouth youth pastor Flowers. I’m a Texan, and this guy embarrasses me.
Debates like these are important. They do a good job of highlighting the fundamental differences between White's conception of who God (and those who agree with him) is and that of non-Calvinists. This isn't small and shouldn't be overlooked as mere small differences. White's view of God is fundamentally different than ours. In White's view, God is more concerned about His glory than He is about anything else. Any love God has for people takes a backseat to His glory & recognition. We believe God IS LOVE. For White, He's self-aggrandizing.
I was tentatively hopeful at the beginning, given Leighton's light-hearted self-deprecating comments about choice meats and the "one-stringed banjo" presentation. Boy, was I wrong! The intense disdain that clearly exists between these two guys is palpable. While James could've behaved himself more, I can understand his losing his cool, given how unhinged Leighton continued to become. I'm sorry, even provisionists should be honest enough to admit Leighton's unbecoming comments and conduct during this debate.
Pray for them both! They're both still talking about the debate in various online places.
@@reformedpilgrimThat's a good thought. I often forget to pray for them.
lol, naw, Arminians are militant. I refer to them as internal church persecution. How dare we infringe on their precious coveted free will.
@@glennashcraft3977He’s not an Arminian.
@@chaddonal4331 “Provisionists” lol, just another way of saying Arminian. Cmon bruh….really?
Thank you for highlighting that Q&A question regarding the supernatural nature of the Christian conversion experience. The Bible is clear that we’re not only saved from the penalty of sin, but also the power of sin once a sinner has been spiritually reconciled to God. God LITERALLY living in the soul of man and changing his heart is what He promises to do. Without that experience, how can one have any assurance that they have an actual relationship with God? The very reason I posses a continuous faith in God is because He’s been influencing and empowering me to love and obey Him from the very moment He saved me. Any theological view of Soteriology that results in nothing more than mere intellectual assent is a form of godliness without power.
I was surprised Mr, Flowers couldn’t answer. That should be a no brainer. Being reborn is supernatural. I’m in the middle. I believe God isn’t willing that any should perish, but that He has to open our eyes and hearts. I do think people get hardened or He hardens people that continually persevere in sin. He hardened Israel until the fullness of the gentiles come in. The Gospel is sufficient by the power of The Holy Spirit to open hearts. That not all believe is in the realm of God, so I am not going to argue that since it’s not up to me.
So you believe God makes you alive so that you can accept Christ and be made alive....am i correct?
The question of the unborn being damned to Hell is valid because it is the logical conclusion of the Calvinist view of John 6:44.
The sign of a flawed worldview is aversion to transparency when light is cast on said worldview’s implications.
The things you believe are the logical conclusions are not necessarily the actual logical conclusions, nor are they the things that Calvinists must believe.
Why is this even a point of contention? _Some_ Calvinists would say not all infants are among the elect, that does not make it universal opinion. _Some_ Arminians would say not all infants go to Heaven. The fact of the matter is Scripture is *not* crystal clear on this subject and it should not be a dogma. If you really trust God then you will acknowledge He is just and leave it at that.
@@ihiohoh2708 well, Soteriology is not limited to a binary interpretation I.e. Calvinism/Arminianism. Both of these options are deterministic at their core. Traditionalist Soteriology aka Provisionism is not burdened by exhaustive divine determinism, rather they hold to libertarian free will and God’s provision through the Gospel.
@@ihiohoh2708I think that's well-said. Add to this the fact that Leighton is well-familiar with what James has said on this subject and understands that it's deserving of being its own separate topic in order to parse it out and explain it properly. To bring it up as part of cross-ex instead of attempting to expose James' allegedly flawed exegesis of John 6, is petulant and manipulative. I would've been cranky about it, too.
@@DrVarner I quite like learning about other theologies so I know it’s not just Calvinism vs Arminian haha. My point was I don’t think we should be dogmatic about things not explicitly written in Scripture. Thanks for the reply. If I may ask, since you think Western Christians got so much wrong how do you know the Filioque is true? God bless
The idea that there are beliefs that we hold but don’t talk about out outside of the context of a local pastor is totally ridiculous. It may be said it’s irrelevant but the pearl clutching at the audacity to dare to bring it up publicly is truly absurd.
James has publicly talked about elect infants/unelect infants recently. He made it clear he's not dogmatic about his views on the matter and said he feels it's not a suitable topic for formal debate. Out of respect for James, Leighton should have not brought this up. Why would you want your opponent to debate a topic he said he won't and that he is not dogmatic about?
@@reformedpilgrim Perhaps you're unfamiliar with his teaching on the topic: "I think God's probably consistent here. And he's going to have elect infants and then there are others who will not be. And I don't know what basis to put that on other than the same basis as all the rest of us." - James White
If you are familiar you know there's more.
@@steveobrien3673 See my previous reply to you.
@@reformedpilgrim Hm. See my reply to your reply. :D
The suggestion that James does not teach infant damnation is deceptive. The hope that "non-dogmatic" is of any safety is foolish and a misrepresentation of his teaching. Nor is it an escape hatch for critique on uncomfortable beliefs if one chooses to simultaneously teach them. Calling it speculative theology and then defending your take on the topic, linking it to your existing soteriology, and calling God consistent due to your view is not stepping back from the speculative topic. It's taking a position on the speculative topic. When you take a position it's addressable. The emotional outbursts, indignation, and heretic hunting don't change the issue
This is an odd one as an observer of the Calvinist/non-Calvinist clumsy interactions. This is straight forward. James has changed his position. He previously taught one way and now he teaches clearly the consistency of God's freedom in all salvation and argues against the texts used to suggest there is a scriptural foundation to the idea infants are "exempt". It's not debatable unless James wants to publicly disavow and take a new position or classify the topic as speculative with the entailment that he doesn't know - not something James has done and not something he appears capable of incidentally.
It would help Calvinists to accept and defend, "yes that's what he teaches". The outrage just furthers the image of Calvinist as emotional and bad faith interlocuters.
@@steveobrien3673 There's no outrage here. And I'm not required to defend or attack what James said about the topic. I presented my opinion. You don't like it. Oh well.
Just found your channel after watching the debate. Great insights. Can’t wait to see more from you
I appreciate the encouragement. Lord willing, there will be more videos to come.
I agree. I’m not a fan of snarking in any Christian. Also, bringing up infants was so off topic, awful! However, I don’t think it’s wise to debate one verse or chapter. We should use as much of the Bible as possible to debate the topic at hand.
Because Scripture interprets Scripture, sooner or later we have to go to another passage to understand the one we’re focusing on. We may start in one place, but may end up in another, even though the topic is the same.
Well JW doesn't like to debate like that because he cannot defend his view otherwise.
Bringing up infant damnation is very necessary to calvinists. Why? Coz it shows how evil that theology is
I do not say this lightly or with anything but hope and love for anyone who is supporting the provisionist perspective, what Leighton said last night is just what Erasmus said 500 years ago and it was heresy then and is heresy now.
I respect your judgment, Dave. What did you find to be heretical? He’s at least in error, but I’m curious if I missed something.
@@reformedpilgrim I believe , and everyone can agree I hope, the exodus was a foreshadowing of God saving HIs chosen people. That is clear. But why was Moses prevented from entering into the promised land? I will do more study on this but in a nutshell, he proclaimed to the people that he deserves credit for bringing them out. That it is partly his putting up with them that they should be crediting him for. I would like to see more study done on this but it appears to me , that it parallels the synergistic view. It robs God of the glory he deserves. The view Leighton is proclaiming and promoting.
Bryan Chappel
ua-cam.com/video/y_-a9Cf4gMM/v-deo.html
Salvation by grace
ua-cam.com/video/LTfygeuWKQU/v-deo.html
James White
ua-cam.com/video/NtKRX58ujcY/v-deo.html
Enjoying your sense of humor! 😂 Excellent critique! Thank you!
Thanks! I like to laugh when I can. Glad to help others get a chuckle, if possible.
Furthermore, in the debate Flowers told everyone what his presuppositions were and it doesn't begin from free will. It begins from John 3:16. So when you make accusations like everything is built on free will, it tells me that your head is so far down in the sand that you don't even pay attention to what people are saying because you love for your errant calvinistic loveless doctrine has you blinded.
Presuppositions are everything, and James White has so much pride that he's not willing to even acknowledge the simple fact pointed out to him time and time again did he bases everything on his reading in the scripture through the lens of the TULIP.
It was also pointed out by flowers where this type of thinking and doctrinal interpretation had its roots, which was with Augustine in the 5th Century.
Flowers straightforwardly asked White if Jesus was teaching Calvinism in John 6 and White didn't like that question, so of course he just dismissed it as ridiculous. And that's what prideful people do when they're cornered with questions that their system don't have answers to.
The Bible does not preach Calvinism, Arminian, whatever. It preaches Christ crucified and resurrected. That should be our focus.
@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 Amen!
@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 Amen, sister!
@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533that’s a silly statement. Doctrine matters and putting names to doctrine is not a problem.
It’s like saying “no creed but Christ!”
That is a creed. And a terrible one.
Saying your presup is John 3:16 is a pointless statement.
Its pointless because it assumes John 3:16 favors your position.
I love James White and appreciate his ministry tremendously. And I've listened to a lot of the Dividing Line and been incredibly blessed by his teaching. That said, for years I have felt that his patience and gentleness towards others has waned very thin. He speaks with a stentorian voice that lacks gentleness. Yes, he knows the Greek... Yes, he's done a lot of debates... Yes, he's addressed John 6 many, many times, and he's consistent when sticking with the topic at hand. However, when my friends tell me that they don't believe Calvinist Soteriology, in large part because of the judgmental, grating nature of it's proponents... I no longer want to introduce them to my hero in the faith James White. I want to give them R.C. Sproul.
I avoided listening to James White for a couple years. He's not everyone's cup of tea, I get it. You could introduce your friends to Theocast with Jon Moffitt and Justin Perdue. They're Confessional, Reformed/Particular Baptists, as James White is, but they are primarily concerned with helping Christians who have dealt with church hurt and legalism, and are desperate to be reminded of the law/gospel distinction.
Hes way too judgemental and petty...watched alot of his videos where he makes fun of other christians. Id be happy to link them here. Sis....should be ashamed of such behaviour
Thank you for being honest about his character; it's so blatant and it's frustrating to see people marvel and the king's clothing. That being said, his theology concerning sotereology is wrong. I very highly suggest watching some of Leighton Flowers videos. I give you a money back guarantee that if you listen to his content with an open mind devoted to the truth of God's word whatever it may be that you will be thoroughly convinced Calvinism isn't true. What's great about his content is that Leighton quotes Calvinists in their own words, thoroughly explains their positions so you know exactly how they think (again in their own words, and he himself was one for many years) in an intellectually honest manner. He then gives deep, careful study of scripture to show that it can't mean what Calvinists think it does. His content is wordy, he tends to make the same point a few times over and over, but I promise it's worth watching. Also, you can tell from his fruit that he's doing what he's doing out of a genuine love of God and out of love for his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who incorrectly believe Calvinism.
I doubt if anyone who does not believe that Conversion is Supernatural is actually saved himself
I won’t go that far. Perfect theology is not a requirement to inherit eternal life, thankfully. One need only believe in Jesus, as He’s revealed in the Scriptures.
He didn't reject the supernatural aspect of salavtion. He just explained it broadly. Sometimes he uses too much nuance instead of just answering the question lol
Flowers never said that salvation isn't miraculous. He said in this very debate that it is. The resurrection is miraculous, therefore the gospel message itself is miraculous, therefore the spreading of the gospel is itself a miraculous thing.
Thank you for your pure assessment that God won the debate.
First video of yours I have seen. Total agreement about debate in general. Unfortunatly in most debates everybody loses (especially people who should be repenting and believing the gospel but are too distracted by tribalism) I have never heard a reformed person who shares your view on debate.
It is unfortunate that Leighton was so emotional, and I have no idea why the answer to the gem question was not a simple "yes". Every bible believing christian in the world should believe that regeneration is a supernatural work of God. That should not be a point of contention.
On infant damnation: Let's give James the benefit of the doubt and say that it is genuine love for those to whom he ministers that will not allow him to debate it in public. However this is also true: His view of infant damnation (if elaborated in public) would be the end of his ministry. I am sure that is also in the back of his mind. Infant damnation is supported nowhere in scripture and only exists as a philosophical necessity of Total Depravity/Inability. A public debate on infant damnation can only result in a rivalrous, emotional name-calling fiasco that is more about the sovereignty of God than it is about what the Bible says about God's judgment of children.
Comment too long...😑
Actually great comment. My Question is this. I am not long saved and not terribly long studying Reformed Theology. Romans 9:11 saying that God chose one of the twins before even being Born...not having yet done neither good nor evil ...that the purpose of God according to Election might stand...wouldnt that suggest that if Esau died as an infant...he wouldn't of been saved? I dont know the answer...but according to that verse...it appears that Gods plan of Redemption according to Election...is not dependent on the age of the person? Or if God has pity because they are young. Because it seems they nothing they do it what Election or Salvation is based upon. Wondering to your thoughts. My first time visiting this channel as well. God Bless...
@@michellecheriekjv4115 Please do not mistakenly equate "election" with "salvation". There is no passage of scripture that says that. The bible does refer to people who are elect (or chosen) all through scripture and it also says for what they were chosen or called to do. It is never lost people who are called to be saved people. So the calvinist hijacking of terms has happened to the word "election" and people who cannot see Romans 9:11 in any light other than calvinism frequently claim to no longer be christians because of it.
Romans 9-11 answers Jewish objections to gentile believers being fellow recipients of the promise, but Romans 9 starts out by addressing Israel's corporate calling. In Genesis 11 all nations of the earth had disobeyed God, had their languages confounded and were scattered. In Genesis 12 God makes a new nation: He calls Abraham and makes promises to him that are repeated to Isaac and will be passed down to one of Isaac's sons. These promises are not simply "that the person will be saved", but rather that through Abraham (and then through Isaac) God will bring blessings to the whole world. The blessing of Abraham includes land and a favored status among the nations, but the most important part is the promise of seed: one particular person. The promised "seed of the woman" from Gen 3v15 that would crush the head of the serpent and reclaim dominion of the earth that was forfeit in Adam is refering to Jesus Christ. And the chosen lineage through which the Savior of the world would enter his creation is what specifically was given to Abraham and passed to Isaac.
Sorry for the long answer. The purpose of election in Rom 9v11 concerns to which son (Esau or Jacob) that promise will be given. It is not about an infant being damned in the womb.
No bible-believing christian in church history has ever thought that election was about salvation until Augustine in the 4th century. Augustinian election has nothing to do with biblical election, but every Calvinist on earth believes Augustine instead of the Bible.
The next time you read Rom 9 start from verse 1 and remove the reformed presupposition that "election" has anything to do with "being saved".
Hope this is a help to your faith and a blessing to your walk. Much prayer for you, sister.
God's election is about his intent to bring a person to salvation, which is something he will accomplish in time. If Esau had passed away as an infant, that would have been a part of God's plan in time. I think whatever one believes about election, the question about the fate of infants is one we can't know for sure about, and have to trust God's mercy and righteousness.
Election doesn't mean that someone is saved independent of anything else, but it does mean that God will without exception bring about the salvation of the individual.
one thing that Leighton says is that God is not willing that any should perish, but Leighton is not an open theist which means God knows the future so why would God bother to not desire that any should perish when He "knows" that some will
1 Corinthians 1:21 KJV - For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
I think leigthon admits he is a semi pelagian on one of his videos. How does the arminian view of romans 3:10-23 if he don't agree on total depravity.
As far as I understand, he doesn't hold to the idea that being in Adam is enough to make us need Christ; we have to sin on our own to need Christ's atonement. He gave some insight into his views on this in his interview with Keith Foskey during the Why Calvinism Conference on February 24th of this year.
@@reformedpilgrim leighton should have avoided at all cost. He have a hate on calvinist on his yt channel.
Leighton Flowers was the winner of the debate. White dismissed passages that went against him by anthropomorphizing them. However, the passages he turned to were just as "anthropomorphic." Yet, he'd put more emphasis on the verses he believed supported him, rather, his interpretation of them. He made wild leaps in logic too.
LF was definitely not the winner.
LF was definitely the winner. JW kept contradicting himself throughout the debate.
No one wins here. Both are wrong.
@@ihiohoh2708they can't both be wrong in this instance- John 6 either teaches unconditional election or it doesn't...
Flowers spent 30 minutes making often entirely unsubstantiated assertions about what around 30 other passages taught
White cannot in 10 minutes respond to them all
White walked through John 6 and interpreted it
Flowers took a bit of John 6 and said the meaning is found in Isaiah or John 3 or 14 or Hebrews or Romans or Ezekiel but didn't look at any of those passages in detail either...
James presented the truth of scripture. Leighton just made emotional appeals and humanistic reasoning
Did u watch the same debate? You are clearly biased towards Calvinism which from my perspective, is a heretical doctrine of demons.
Any doctrine or systematic that denies the sufficiency of Jesus Christ's blood to atone for the sin of all humanity on God's terms is simple, flat out, heresy.
Superficial view
If Calvinism is true, which it’s not, it can’t avoid the issue of infant damnation. If Calvinist believe Calvinism is the gospel, they should have no problem openly and publicly discussing it. White avoid that issue because he knew it has no biblical bases and was unwilling to admit it. White severely times bagged the moderator to have Flowers stop asking him questions he was afraid to answer. Calvinism is 100% unbiblical and completely illogical.
Where does John 6:44 mention infants dying in infancy?
I believe that the proper name to refer to the provisionists or the free willies, if you prefer, is Flowersists .
I agree. I am not convinced debates help. You chose James just because you are a Calvinist as James is?
I chose James because Leighton Flowers clearly lost, didn’t exegete the passage, didn’t really deal with it and pretty much conceded James’ position. The dude was all over the place.
@@KnightFel
As he was about a decade ago when they had their John 6 debate.
James White isn't a Calvinist. lol
Logically if some chose flowers, that makes that person only choosing flowers because his theology is rooted in Arminianism
@@jeshaiahgreen3636 Is that all you got? "You are an Arminain!"
My friend, Can the natural man respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit ?? or is the Holy Spirit not capable of convicting him of Sin Righteousness and Judgement?
I doubt anyone who believes that conversion is the result of some kind of supernatural regeneration before faith knows salvation.
Salvation is conditional on someone believing the gospel. Whether they think that they had libertarian free will to choose to believe the gospel or if they believe that God deterministically forced them to believe seems irrelevant specifically in the context of whether someone is saved. The faith is there on both sides; one side is just wrong about how they got to the point of having that faith.
All scriptures point to repentance and faith before regeneration.
Flowers won. James has no answer to infant damnation because calvanists believe this.
@@jasonpellegrini7148 Regeneration happens in baptism (Rom. 6:3-8; Titus 3:5). The washing of regeneration and newness of life.
Why are Calvinists upset about anything? Why is White upset about anything? Why was even Jesus upset, if he was, with Judas? Judas was part of the plan. Why doe Jesus get angry at Peter or the money changer? Is it real anger? Real anger wouldn't make sense, would it? Wouldn't that be anger at God's plan.
That “gem” of a question was a “gotcha” question and Leighton knew it. It’s loaded with presuppositions and means totally different things depending on your theology. As a non-Calvinist I’ll answer. Yes and no depending on what you mean. Yes: the plan of salvation was conceived by, carried out by, and only possible with God. No: it is not, as in the Calvinist system requiring a supernatural quickening in order to believe. As Leighton rightly said repeatedly, the order found in scripture is first believe then have life, not be given life irresistibly so that you can believe. Of course Leighton doesn’t believe he saved himself such trash and slander needs to stop. White got a taste of his own medicine for once (quite a bit nicer in many way’s considering the history of White belittling and lying about Flowers in my opinion) and all the fan boys feelings are hurt. You CAN NOT be a presuppositionalist and really believe Sola Scriptura. One of MANY contradictions in White and Calvinism as a whole.
You know it’s not presupposing right
The Bible says it’s a supernatural work of God
Can you even be a Christian and say this?
But at the same time it should be no shocker since Leighton said you can believe the Quaran just as you can the Bible
Shocker
Well said. The true good news about the God of all grace sending His Son Jesus Christ for all of mankind must be proclaimed as a clarion call with a very distinct sound of glorious music 🎵, not as the noisy gong and clanging cymbal of Augustinian Calvinism. ✝️🙏🏼😇
But the bible also teaches you have to be born again before you see the kingdom of God. Its also teaches the natural man cannot understand spiritual things for they are spiritually discerned and like lydia God has to open the heart for the person to believe. Non calvinists cannot believe all of scripture
Leighton Flower's view of provisionism does not require a miracle for salvation. For example, no prevenient grace is needed in his view.
”I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.“
Ezekiel 36:25-27 ESV
The New Covenant are all things the Lord does. How can these not be supernatural, regardless of if you believe man has a choice or the grace is a gift?
Can I have a recorded conversation with the video uploader about this subject with the only foundation and stating point in the conversation being Truth? with nothing out of bounds to discuss ?
Sounds just like a Calvinist. Let’s not talk, publicly, about our true beliefs, i.e. infant damnation, because it could paint us in a bad light. Our beliefs about God should not be kept in the dark. If they are God-given, we should want to proclaim them to the world.
Why would that paint reformed theology in a bad light?
I never said beliefs should be kept in the dark. I was simply relaying what James had said, that infant damnation is not a suitable topic for a formal debate, such as his recent debate with Leighton.
@@reformedpilgrimBut he has spoke about it publicly and has received calls about it on his radio program. It's very disingenuous to say I'm allowed to say my theology about it in public, but I refuse to defend it. While at the same time constantly putting down any view that opposes it. And the way he puts down opposing views are by calling them inconsistent and unbiblical. Part of debate is being able to defend your position. In debate you look for the weakest part of an argument and attack it. That is what happened. James White knows this well and does it to everyone he debates.
The only purpose of the infant damnation question was to derail the debate. Leighton knew he was losing and thought that would be his ace in the hole.
@@SDRBass I wasn't commenting on who was winning or losing. That isn't the issue I was commenting on. But instead this poor defense of why this issue is somehow off limits. Infant damnation is an unbiblical doctrine that attacks the character of God. It also undermines Calvinism so it must not be discussed.
Excellent review. I know you say hes a brother...but here's my thoughts...or maybe a question. If the Holy Spirit teaches us Scripture.... wouldn't we understand according to 1 Cor 2:14 the doctrine of Election, predestination and Foreknowledge? Its one thing to be brand new....but not bring new ...reading the scriptures and fighting soo vehemently against it? Like everyday...and almost gnashing of teeth. Like the man of Romans 9:14, 20. And also Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to the man who strives against his Maker." I am still trying to truly understand. 🙏 Appreciate your feedback. God bless
The simple answer is that it’s not up to me to throw people out of the kingdom. Leighton has made a profession of faith. Perfect theology is not required for salvation, thankfully.
I am troubled by his words, and have attempted to call him out directly for it, but I don’t get to revoke his membership from the kingdom.
Debating infant damnation was not a good idea cause it exposes the false doctrine. Just another powerful proof JW was not defending the true gospel but a false doctrine!!
No one should be apprehensive, declaring the truth and defending it anytime, anywhere if indeed it's the truth!
Very good point about what we should take from debates. It shouldn’t be a pounding down of individuals. Loved the video.
"I'm not a provisionist, that's just the way it is" Also feeds into tribalism, the problem with debates is people are too busy trying to "win" instead of coming to the truth. The difference between White and Flowers is just this, Flowers is attempting to have a conversation White refuses to have. Flowers has said repeatedly before and after that it's not about winning, while White is only obsessed about winning now matter how divisive, untruthful, and disingenuous he comes across. If we're going to judge a tree by the fruit, what does each fruit speak of their bearer? Proverbs 8:13 James 4:6
If Flowers wanted to have a conversation, he could have been more conversational as Jason Breda was back in February, or as Dale Tuggy was last Saturday (3/9/2024) at the same venue. Flowers should have presented himself more like he does on his channel if he wanted to be conversational.
Seriously. If pride were water then James White would be an ocean. What tree is this fruit from? People harp on Leighton for being 'emotional', but having passion for scripture and theology isn't sinful like Jame's snark is.
Not to mention. James uses some really intentially-deceptive debate tactics. As one example, he ran to the Greek because he knew that Leighton isn't an expert about Greek. James then talked about a few things in Greek that do absolutely nothing whatsoever to prove unconditional election simply because he knew the vast majority of people watching aren't experts in Greek. James is being lambasted by some actual Greek scholars for it, too, because some of what he said was factually inaccurate beyond just not proving the point he was trying to suggest it made.
Eph 2:3 I think is key in understanding WHY salvation is "not of works" (Eph 2:9). That is because in v. 3 "we were, nature, children of wrath." Here, salvation from God's wrath for our bad behavior is clearly at stake. In this context, salvation must involve a change of nature, but changing your nature is like changing your DNA - quite impossible - for us, at least. In this context we can see that our own effort cannot achieve salvation. This is the crux of the problem. Therefore, when Eph 2:9 says salvation is "not of works" it merely means that you cannot change your nature by your own effort - instead, a supernatural work is required. Consequently, Eph 2:9 does not say that our works/deeds are not required but that they, in themselves, do not achieve a change of nature. If Eph 2:9 said "you cannot change your nature by your own effort" would you deduce that your action is not required to receive God's transformation of your nature? You might, but this statement doesn't exclude a requirement for your action. This is a subtle but important distinction from the usual understanding of Eph 2:9.
Faith isn't a work. Putting your faith in the work of Jesus on the cross isn't itself somehow a work.
@@LawlessNateIf you understand my comment, it doesn't matter one way or the other if faith is a work. BTW, I didn't even mention faith above.
Leighton doesn't disagree with scripture. He disagrees with the Calvinistic interpretation of scripture. All James White did, as well as you, is read what the text said and assume your interpretation. You haven't explained why your interpretation is correct. Leighton walked through the context of John 6:44 and clearly laid out how it becomes a Provisionist text
Three things for you:
1. This is a Reformed channel, so you're probably not going to like it here;
2. I don't have to explain my understanding of John 6:44 from scratch in every video I mention it in;
3. I already have a video where I go over my understanding of John 6:44, but given how you've started, I suspect you'd reject that as well.
Flowers did disagree with the scripture - he could not read and follow the scripture. He has to gather verses here and there and then interpret them with his creature level wisdom.
@@jchen2873 No. Leighton walked through the context. Starting in John 5 and all the way from verse 32 to set the context. James White didn't do that.
Flowers seemed to have a false gospel, because he has a false view on the impact of Adam’s sin.
Oh my Calvinists arguing that infant damnation is out of scope when talking about unconditional election?
Stop this nonsense and recognize that White lost this debate big time
They will dodge that subject till Jesus comes and the really evil ones will say yes... non elect babies go to hell
@@user-dd1bz9hb5cI didn’t dodge it. I have a video about it.
I believe I can hold onto each side's presuppositions, but I wonder if the Calvinists may be calculating God's omnipotence and holiness, good and right practice on its own, but pushing our limited knowledge of His attributes into a philosopher's deep contemplation, with a devotee's reverence to Calvin who first drew up the rules.
For me, I am the created, the servant, the grateful sinner whose sins were washed away by my Savior's blood. A journey brought me here, and my decision to subject myself to God's saving plan was necessary. There is communication of the Word and Spirit on what I experience as my mind. We may all have been picked out, one by one, before the beginning of time, and others may have been rejected outright in that same moment, but that is not for me to ponder. I understand what it took to save me and the charge placed on me to live as one who was redeemed.
Later in the Gospel of John, Jesus calls Peter to follow him, and Peter asks "What about him?" Jesus responds "What is that to you?" I guess you could argue both sides of the debate based on this exchange between Jesus and Peter. To me, it's telling me to mind my own path. My brothers' paths are their business with Him.
I'm copy/pasting this quote from another video because this guy had it 100% right "Dr. White definitely understands what Provisionists believe, and he was aware Dr. Flowers would be very prepared, but his debate tactic is to play dumb, and make it seem like it's his opponent's fault that he doesn't understand, and say his opponent's arguments did not prove what he was attempting, and attack the credibility of Dr. Flowers arguments without addressing many of the arguments. Dr. White was prepared, and played his audience well, and was successful in to provoking Dr. Flowers. The more emotional Dr. Flowers got, the more calm in in control Dr. White was. However, Dr. Flowers did an effective job showing that his position on John 6:44-45 was correct. Dr. White only wins his Calvinist audience by cheap shots and effeminate tactics."
You might benefit from a little Calvinol. ua-cam.com/video/YFiaaHVgz8A/v-deo.htmlsi=Vi60I2rb9MSSnVh0
@@reformedpilgrim So you've mixed it up a bit. Instead of feeling the need to respond to something you can't refute with just "lol" now you quote a snarky video from a prideful Calvinist.
@@LawlessNate When did I reply with “lol” to you?
An ifb from the east coast have spend some time in mid south to get proper accent
James Got a Spanking!! Flowers was much more convincing and passionate in his delivery. James is now starting to be so predictable that his opponents are giving him a better run than in the past .
He’s “predictable” because he’s simply stating what the Bible states lol. Truth doesn’t change. This is the exact complaint Michael Lofton had in another video. Same arguments for 30 years because the truth doesn’t change. Flowers didn’t deal with John 6:44, he was all over the place just spamming proof texting, and Flowers avoided the most important question, whether or not salvation/regeneration is supernatural. Leighton couldn’t answer it. He refused to.
Preaching is not a necessary mark of good debating. Passion does not insure accuracy or relevance.
@@truthfirst2983i agree it doesnt. But combined with truth is an effective tool
@@KnightFel Like running to the Greek to point out pointless facts about Greek that don't actually support anything about what you're saying? James seems to do that quite a lot, and he's getting lambasted by some Greek scholars for it. Scholars with doctorates from *real* universities.
@@user-dd1bz9hb5c I think an excellent nickname for Leighton Flowers would be 'the artful dodger.' He uses techniques to avoid questions like a politician often does.
Jesus Christ (The Eternally Existing Son of God, God The Son, Savior, Christ) promises eternal life ONCE you believe he died for your sins, was buried, and rose again the 3rd day! Once Saved Always Saved! You can't lose your salvation once you believe on Jesus Christ alone! Salvation is forever and salvation can't be lost!!!!
Damage control
Navigation
Was it a miracle for the people at the wedding in Cana to drink the water turned into wine?
No, it is not a miracle to drink water that has been turned into wine. The miracle was in the changing of water into wine. Drinking it after the fact is not the miracle.
@@reformedpilgrim overall I do favor that answer, though I could see why someone might say yes instead - because it was a miraculous thing, the wine itself is miraculous. So just like the lame walking and the blind seeing is a miracle (though those acts are not actually the miracle, but rather the healing itself is the miracle), one might call drinking this wine a miracle (that was, after all, what Jesus made the wine for - to be drunk, not to be poured down the drain or something).
This illustrates why I don't think the question you liked so much was particularly great (I don't think it was bad, I just think it could have used extra clarification that the format didn't allow). If something as straightforward as drinking the miraculous wine could be answered yes or no with no real disagreement (except over the breadth of the term miracle), how much harder is it to give a yes/no answer about conversion. Especially when conversion itself is a rather broad term (is it the whole salvation experience? Is it just the start of it? How limited at the start? Just the repenting? Repenting and believing? Does it include justification? Regeneration?) and further complicated by the likely disagreement among the audience over whether the gospel (the power of God for salvation) being preached and/or believed in itself constitutes a miracle or not. From your answer about the wine, I am inclined to think you would say no, the preaching/belief is not a miracle (though the person believing would require one).
@@sirnate4005 The gospel is power of God unto salvation. This is supernatural. The inspiration of Scripture is supernatural and miraculous that it should be preserved and brought together for us to read today.
Is conversion a supernatural work of God, ie. a miracle? YES!
Someone who was dead in trespasses & sins has been made alive. Someone who was by nature a child of wrath has been crucified with Christ, and now has the Holy Spirit and eternal life, having passed from death to life. Someone who did not understand the things of God now understands. A sinner has been born again!
It is unquestionably a miracle, a work of God.
@@reformedpilgrim Amen brother. I completely agree. (I suspect Dr. Flowers would as well, which I think was why he answered the way he did - starting basically the same way you did your answer, but then honing in on the substance of his disagreement with Dr. White)
If a miracle didn't happen then they wouldn't have been able to drink said wine, so of course it was miraculous.
Children of wrath does not mean you can't respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Why are you expanding its meaning. None of the verses you cited imply total depravity
If "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing," and if "the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned," and if "none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God; all have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one,” then how does such a person believe the gospel?
@@reformedpilgrim by hearing the Gospel and opening their heart to God. The verses you cited were not meant by the author to indicate that a person would not respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Before Cornelius was "regenerated" as you reformers say, the Bible says that he was "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always", therefore your whole theology falls apart. Repent of your gnostic determinism and turn back to the true Gospel preached by Jesus where everyone is free to respond to the calling of Jesus.
@@EnHacore1 I didn't use the word "regenerated". I'm just asking how people go from not accepting the things of the Spirit of God, which are folly to them, to accepting them? How do they go from not being able to understand them to understanding them?
How do people that do not seek after God open their heart of stone?
@@reformedpilgrim they hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some choose to believe it while for others do not. Philippians 1:6, 1 Peter 1:5, James 1:17
@@EnHacore1 "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." So, an unsaved person will view the gospel as folly. How does a sinner understand the gospel if it must be spiritually discerned?
spot on
JW was trying so hard to make it sound like listening and learning are irresistible which is insane!! In no language do these words mean what he was implying they meant!!
LF had the right to get emotional because JW was stuck on just trying to make listening and learning imply effectuality and couldn't move past that as someone trying so hard to draw water from an empty and dry well.
LF asked JW about infants which was so relevant and JW avoided going there as if it was out of bounds to drill down to what Calvinism actually teaches and what he taught in his own books. He wouldn't even comment!!
LF made a powerful and compelling case for provisionism
This debate might have been the very first time that a decent portion of James White's audience got to hear Leighton Flowers in his own words *with context* instead of just from 10 second clips cherry picked by James and taken out of context.
This has nothing to do with anything.
Do not read this reply.
6:50 Col 2:11,12 strongly implies there is a supernatural miracle in regeneration. But this happens in water baptism. How about that for an unpopular view? Neither Leighton nor James would agree, I'm sure, not to mention most reading this comment.
Baptism saves? Dude, have you ever heard of the thief on the cross? 😂👍
@@ihiohoh2708Yep. Jesus wasn't raised by his time so he couldn't be baptized into Jesus' resurrection - dude.
@@bobthrasher8226 LutheranSatire - WhaddaBout the Thief on the Cross
@@bobthrasher8226 For the record I agree with baptism actually having saving efficacy.
@@ihiohoh2708OK, I get it... pretty funny. Waddabout "But Christ didn't send me to baptize..?"
Calvinism is just not logically sustainable.
The real question is, does God save His people, or do they save themselves with God's help?
I disagree with the premise of your question. It seems to assume that the only way God can be wholly credited with our salvation is if he alone effectually causes it. I believe I made a free, non-coerced choice to place my faith in Jesus and that I am therefore saved. This does not make me in any way responsible for my salvation. If Christ had not been crucified for my sin, I could not then do anything nor provide anything to God that would accomplish what Christ accomplished on the cross. The reason my free decision to believe does not negate God's sole credit for my salvation is that faith is not a work, which means it does not merit or earn me anything. Faith is clearly contrasted from works multiple times in the Bible. I can choose to believe and still receive no credit whatsoever in my own salvation because faith does not earn me anything.
@@DrDemolition97-- What distinguishes you from those who do not make the choice to trust Christ for salvation? Are you somehow smarter, or wiser, than they are?
God saves His people! Soli Deo Gloria!
@@gregb6469 No, what distinguishes me from them is that I believed in my heart and confessed with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, he is the son of God, and he died for my sins and was resurrected on the third day. Again, as Paul shows in Ephesians 2, there is a clear contrast between faith and works. If faith was a work, then I'd have "earned" the appropriate wage, which would be salvation. Paul clearly states faith is NOT a work, therefore my choice to have faith does not "earn" me anything, therefore I receive no credit for my salvation and am not a "synergist."
Your question equates "believing" with "saving". We do no saving, we do believing. God does 100% of the saving. But he only does it to those who believe.
What was low and unfortunate was JW refusing to answer specific questions and dictating what questions were allowed and which were not!! Ridiculous! Thatwnas not JW job but the moderator who JW kept going to for help to avoid answering the questions he didn't like.
Not one question did LF cry it wasn't relevant and answered all because he was defending the truth not a doctrine!!
Flowers did not exegete the passage but rather inserted his own beliefs concerning “Calvinistic” theology.
T is based on Augustine's pagan philosophy ideas. It was consensus view till Augustine that God makes initiative but man has free will to react to that appeal. Ofcourse LF affirms that there is miracle when one converts. As Jesus said, if you come to me, you have life. Life is miracle from God.
In this Q&A, Leighton made it clear that the miracle in conversion is external to the sinner. He did not affirm that God does a supernatural work within the sinner to convert him or her.
@@reformedpilgrim Provisionists affirm that power of God is in His Word itself. Rom. 1:16 "...the Gospel, for it is power of God to salvation for everyone..". Power of God is supernatural ofcourse. Arminians hold that some "extra mercy" by the Sprit is needed Word of God to work. To us the Word is enough.
@@Yaas_ok123 That God works supernaturally external to the sinner is not in question. The sinner has a critical flaw that must be addressed.
The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. The natural man can't understand the things of God. The lost are by nature children of wrath. Hearts of stone need to be made into hearts of flesh. Clearly something miraculous inside the sinner MUST occur.
See 1st Corinthians 1-3, Ezekiel 36, Ephesians 2.
@@reformedpilgrim That is the error Augustine brought from pagan philosophies to christian doctrine. We are "dead in our sin" like Prodical Son was (dead).
@@Yaas_ok123 You're ascribing Augustine to my position, but I haven't appealed to Augustine.
Obvious we can only start dealing with the scriptures as soon as you start discarding verses like John 3:16, John 1:12, 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Titus 2:11, these essential verses you need to violate in order to accept your corrupt belief system.
The anger Flowers expressed, signifies a righteous anger against a despicable theological framework. The same disturbing feeling gets to me, when you in your religious arrogance think you are in a position to correct Leighton Flowers.
In a sense it is ridiculous to be obsessed about how people are saved, it is far more important to ask the question why are people saved. My conviction is that the reason is that by the Grace of God the power of sin is being defeated in our life, so Gods Grace should be sufficient to overcome sin, that is how I experience Gods Grace working from day to day in my life.
I cannot escape the very strong suspicion I do have, that Calvinists put their trust in their believe system (unconditional election) in order to have a 'valid' theological excuse for their moral incompetence. Therefore acknowledge that Gods Grace is conditional on the basis of the respons on the Gospel as given in Acts 2. Calvinism functions as blinders in order to prevent a fully restored life as has always been Gods purpose.
You are confusing discarding certain verses with simply disagreeing with your understanding of those verses.
You appear to be assuming that Leighton can't be corrected, which appears to be an appeal to Leighton as an infallible authority.
God's grace is a wonderful thing. I am thankful that He is sanctifying us every day and I look forward to the day all believers are glorified in Christ's presence, at His return.
You seem to be ascribing motive to Calvinists. Be careful not to treat your suspicions as fact. Rather, use it as an opportunity to pray for Calvinists, and yourself, that you do not do the very things you are suspicious of others about.
@@reformedpilgrim Disregarding the straight meaning of those verses is unacceptable to me.
I am pointing out a great danger within Calvinism and that is trusting being elected (thus saved) because you do have solely a mental understanding of the Gospel. (Faith precedes and thus equals salvation).
In my conviction if people want to be saved they have to take verses like Acts 2:37-41, Luke 3:8, John 17:3 (actually knowing God) and Romans 8:14 very serious.
@@glennishammont7414 You've made a claim, and now I'm going to ask you to back it up: Show me where in this video I disregarded the straight meaning of John 3:16, John 1:12, 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Titus 2:11. Please include time stamps, while explaining what you think the "straight meaning" is.
@@reformedpilgrim My original comment was a copy/paste act. So it was not meant to be personal, but if you talk about Calvinism in a general sense it are the logical implications of accepting doctrines like double predestination, unconditional election. limited atonement and irresistible grace.
@@glennishammont7414 A common error in these theological exchanges is to assume that what you view as the logical implications of a positions are the _same_ was what your "opponent" believes, or concludes.
Example: If I were a Provisionist, I'd have to conclude that I saved myself. Therefore, Provisionists believe that they saved themselves.
You're doing this to Calvinists, equating your personal conclusions to what Calvinists are actually doing/believing/teaching/saying.
This is a very bad video. It is just as bad as the Rogue Calvinist videos. "By nature we are children of wrath." Is Ephesians 2 talking about the elect or the reprobates?
Ephesians 2 is talking about all humans.
Calvinism is false because Calvinist's cannot prove who are the members of the elect from the members of the reprobate.
Calvinists cannot even prove their own identity of election nor their identity as a Christian.
Your profession of faith has to be a choice that you have freely made without coercion from this supposed "irresistible grace" nor can your free will choice be something that was predetermined before the foundations of the world. God can have foreknowledge of me professing my faith in Jesus Christ it does not mean that God had anything to do with my choosing of God. God does the actual saving. All I do is profess my faith which does not merit anything.
If you are a member of the elect then you are destined to go to heaven. Hence it follows that you must know whether if you are a member of the elect or not otherwise Christianity is worthless because no matter what you do you cannot change God's mind because he has chosen before the foundations of the world who are going to be the elect and who are the reprobates. You cannot be a Christian if you are not an elect.
Calvinism is heretical theology. We need to abandon Calvinism and just read the bible if you are sola scriptura.
Everyone who believes the good news of Jesus Christ is elect.
@@reformedpilgrim Ok so you would agree with me that election is conditional for whoever freely chooses to believe the good news of Christ is an elect.
@@walnoemispoyt5604 Not exactly; there are people who are elect who do not yet believe.
"He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him." Eph. 1:4 It stands to reason that there are many who have been chosen in Him who have not yet believed in Christ.
We need not concern ourselves who exactly that might be, and simply proclaim the gospel everywhere. One may plant, another may water, but God gives the growth. (1 Cor. 3:5-9)
@@reformedpilgrim I said what I said because I was hoping that you were not a Calvinist. From our perspective it would look like there are elects who do not yet believe but this way of thinking is FAULTY because from God's perspective there is only elect and there is only reprobates because He has complete knowledge since the beginning.
What is at fault is our conception of predetermination.
Predetermination in the case of God is defined as a path that has been set by God and because He has set the path He is also the cause of that path. This way of thinking is consistent with the ideas of cause and effect.
You cannot reject "cause and effect" because you use this very idea on a daily basis to sustain your life.
The problem with this interpretive understanding of Eph 1:4 that all Calvinists are making is that they are failing to be consistent to recognise the problems of partiality and the problems of evil that consequently happen by adopting the view of predetermination.
You have God choosing some people for salvation and others for hell and all of these choices are made before the foundations of the world and these choices cannot be changed because no one can change God's mind.
You have God being the cause of evil because he is sending people to hell before they have done any kind of good or wicked work.
John Calvin demonises people who try to ask the question of who in the current times are elect? He is wrong. 1 Cor 3:5-9 is not talking about the elects because the gospel is supposed to be heard by all humans in the hopes that all humans will one day come to Christ. Otherwise the great commission is worthless because only the elect can come to God and God before the foundations of the world has chosen his elect and reprobate.
@@walnoemispoyt5604 Which is more important to you: a) that I stop being a Calvinist or b) that I am already your brother in Christ?