The exact moment the "Debate (on John 6) Ended" between James White and Leighton Flowers and Why:
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 бер 2024
- In a pivotal moment of intellectual exchange, the debate between James White and Leighton Flowers reaches a climactic juncture. Flowers concedes a critical point: If White’s interpretation of the Greek text is accurate, then the TULIP doctrine stands affirmed, and conversely, his own stance is untenable. This concession marks a technical conclusion to the debate, underscoring the profound impact of scriptural interpretation on theological positions.
Link to the full Debate:
ua-cam.com/users/livedtjVLhR9...
If the Provisionist God is not able to "teach" sinners and cause them to "learn" any different than a secular college Professor is able to with his students then the Provisionist God has no more ability [to actually SAVE sinners] than a gospel Preacher does on Sunday morning.
This is the "god" that Leighton Flowers is promoting in this debate.
Exactly.
Sounds like an agnostic liberal God, idolatry.
Did Flowers say God was not able?
This provionism cult thing is founded on 2 demonic points.
1-man is good
2-God isn't sovereign, especially not in salvation.
@@reddog6308yes he did
Anyone watching this clip needs to watch the entire debate.
Just don't miss the part where Leighton is expoesd as the one bringing "presuppositions" to the text: ua-cam.com/video/8olsJo6N7zQ/v-deo.html
@@CCShortsUnlike Whites presupposition, Flowers is the natural and historical reading of the text. The fact that 2 possible interpretations of the text exist at all disproves sola scriptura
Link to full debate please
@@MasterKeyMagic so your saying scripture alone isn’t what we should base our beliefs and doctrines on? Paul tells us to discern everything by the scripture
@@Objectivetruth9122 Acts tells us the Ethiopian, who only had the scriptures, could not know what it meant unless taught first. Taught by who or what? Paul tells us to stand fast to what the Apostles taught either by word of mouth or by letter, some of which we have (2 Thessalonians 2:15). What was that word? The other infallible rule of faith(1 Thessalonians 2:-13-14), the one that infallibly identified the correct canon of scripture, Apostolic Tradition through the official living teaching body (Acts 15) of the one Church Jesus actually established, the Catholic Church.
No where does the Bible index itself or claim its all you need or that the word of god is exclusively found in it alone.
James white: what does the text say. Dr Flowers : but this is what makes sense to me.
James White - "If my presuppositions were true, would my presuppositions be true?"
Wow. What a scholar...
At what point did you hear that??
Within this Particular debate between the two, John 6:65 ends this debate 👀
John 6:65 NASB95
And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
Further confirming what was said in 6:44
What debate are they having? Also HE draws ALL MEN on the Cross. God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to the knowledge of the Truth. And whosoever cometh To Him He shall in no wise cast out.
@MichaelAChristian1 what does DRAW mean?
@@MichaelAChristian1 I believe the debate topic is “does John 6:44 teach unconditional election”
Mr Flowers' beliefs don't smell too good.
It wouldn't be practical to go out and preach the gospel with the idea in our hearts that God may or may not want them to be saved. Even if we think that preaching the gospel is an enormous privilege, when we do not truly believe that God loves people and desires that all people repent and to turn away from their wicked way of living, we will be lying to them and our preaching would be dishonest. I say this because we, in our church regularly go out and talk to people about the Gospel. I just couldn't take Dr. White's pints of view. Blessings brothers in Christ
Well you are talking to individuals right? You don't know who will respond or what seed you plant will grow do you? Likewise you don't know who is called with that inward call of the Spirit do you? So, you aren't lying. Why do you say God loves you anyway? Why not preach the good news as in 1 Cor 15 1-4 creedal statement?
That’s everyone’s problem with grace and sovereignty. God does desire that all men be saved, and he doesn’t take pleasure in throwing people in hell. I’m not sure what Bible people are reading, the one I’m reading shows a totally depraved incapable person, if left to their will would choose the fallen condition, hates truth and loves death, hates light and loves darkness, loves self and hates his brother. The sermon on the mount destroys any notion of an individual having anything redeeming within them. It’s disobedience, death and destruction when men are left to their own devices, that’s the Bible I’ve read. If I’m labeled a calvinists or reformists so be it. The truth is hated.
@@jethroscooter7214why would someone love death?
Dr. James White has played this clip on the Dividing Line. If Dr. Leighton Flowers simply reviewed Isaiah 54 and Jeremiah 31, which John 6:44-45 cites then it is obvious that it is a monergistic work of God in view.
He has reviewed it
Nah. You need to presume monergism to get monergism from the text. I see the creator God working synergistically with his created ones to accomplish his goals in those passages. Cf Jer 31:6 and Isa 54:15-16.
@@JosiahTheSiah "nah, you gotta presume monergism" goes on to presume synergism.
@@SolaScriptura21 🤨
I simply gave two references from the passages provided, and showed things that appear to be synergistic action. No presumption; just God accomplishing his will through the words and actions of those he created. You call that whatever you like.
@@JosiahTheSiah These quotes are horrible
Jer 31:6 There will be a day when watchmen cry out
on the hills of Ephraim,
‘Come, let us go up to Zion,
to the Lord our God.’”
See verse 1 31 “At that time,” declares the Lord, “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they will be my people.”
So we have the people of Israel specific
The watchmen specific
The hills of Efraim specific.
Come let us, not we will get there, no we need to get there thus specific.
Are you trying to prove hypercalvinism?
As for Jeremiah 54:11-16
“Afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted,
I will rebuild you with stones of turquoise,[a]
your foundations with lapis lazuli.
12 I will make your battlements of rubies,
your gates of sparkling jewels,
and all your walls of precious stones.
13 All your children will be taught by the Lord,
and great will be their peace.
14 In righteousness you will be established:
Tyranny will be far from you;
you will have nothing to fear.
Terror will be far removed;
it will not come near you.
15 If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing;
whoever attacks you will surrender to you."
Who is the afflicted city?
It seems like Mr. Flower's entire argument is hinged on the word "learns" in v45. He is arguing that those who have not just "heard" but also, "learned" from the Father come to Christ. This acrobatic move reshapes the scope and flow of the argument to put the power back in the hands of the "learning" person. So in summary God draws those who have learned in Leighton's eyes.
The issue is that the exegetical work Mr. White did shows the flow of the text in context. That is that the crux of the issue are unbelieving followers of Jesus who found him for the wrong reasons (food). Jesus confronted them and directed them to come to him for Life. Jesus also said more than once that the reason they don't believe is that they aren't:
1. Given to him by the Father's Will vs 37-39
2. Drawn vs 44
3. Taught by God vs 45
4. Granted by God vs 65
All of these statements point to the requirement of God's intervention (not man's vs 63). This clearly shows the Trinity in salvation by the will of the Father through the work of the Son by the power (sovereign/effectual call) of the Spirit. While we all agree man is a participant it is clear that this is a sovereign work of God at the core.
Jesus even ended the by saying, "Didn't I choose you?" This indicated the source of their faith based on everything he previously taught in the chapter.
Jesus often said. "He who has ears, let him hear." Thinking of this statement compared to John 6 one must ask, "How does someone get the kind of ears that they need to hear Jesus?" John 6 and other places would say, "From above... or from the Father."
Great points!
Who is putting power in man's hands? Can your 2 year old child resist you if you wanna punish them? Sure. Will they succeed? No. How much more is our resistance futile when compared to God?
he is not just creating a subset of those who "learn", he is first expanding the subset of 37-39 to include all humans on earth before reducing back to the "learned" subset to finish it out.
Thank God for faithful men who rightly divide the word of truth! We all need to be studying the covenant of God more than we do.
And Flowers does not.
Wow. More calvinists vs provisionist. Let's just divide ourselves even more. That's always a good thing
If THEY could just settle with being Provisionist, instead of Anti-Calvinists, the divisiveness would cease.
@@CCShorts with all do respect, until a single calvinists can reconcile colossians 2:12 or any other of the many parts of Paul's Epistles where he says saved and regenerated through faith, Not unto faith, I'm good. All of my favorite pastors are calvinists but to say God decrees rape is blasphemy...it's just as dangerous as Catholicism
See what I mean... ☝️
@@CCShorts asking questions and critiquing is not dissension. Yikes.
First...There were no questions.
Second... you are not critiquing "Calvinism" but your misunderstanding of it. That is called Leightonism.
For those who may have gotten lost in the debate, here’s the main crux of the debate, with JP's comments at the end.
Flowers’ argument
No one [whole] can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him [subset]; and I will raise him [same subset] up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all [whole] be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father [same subset], comes to Me.
White’s argument
No one [whole] can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him [subset]; and I will raise him [same subset] up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all [still the same subset] be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father[still the same subset], comes to Me.
The arguments boiled down to who is the “they…all” that shall be taught of God.
Is it only the ones drawn who are taught, listened, and learned?
White: Yes
Flowers: No
Is it all Israel taught, and the ones who listened and learned are drawn (and come)?
Flowers: Yes
White: No
Is there any change in the “who” and “how” Jesus will draw in John 12:32?
Flowers: Yes
White: ???? No maybe??? Not clear
That’s pretty much the debate on how each side reads and argues from these verses.
JP comments:
Since Flowers believes that Jesus was only gathering a subset before the cross/exaltation anyway, he could actually affirm or grant White’s entire interpretation above (even if he thinks it’s wrong) and Unconditional Election still does not follow from it.
Even White admits some in the crowd could believe later (assuming by UC or whatever, but that doesn’t matter).
The only thing that does follow is temporary rejection (of each other) by both Jesus AND by the audience.
Temporary rejection ≠ Unconditional Election
Now, Unconditional Election may be true on other grounds, but Unconditional Election is not proven even on White’s reading of the text of John 6. He can presuppose it on those other grounds, but that’s irrelevant and question begging. He had to prove it from this text. He didn’t.
Yes, only Jews and Israel. A Jew is not outwardly but inwardly circumcised of the heart. Not all Israel is Israel.
Thanks for the summary. I didn’t understand flowers point on drawing. If it was teaching, then why not all who are taught come? If they don’t come, then they are not being taught, which is equivalent to “drawn” in his interpretation.
Why can’t unconditional election be simply due to the drawing being effective? All who are drawn WILL come. Is the alternate idea that God draws those who he knows will come? Then he still only draws some. And he does so before they make a choice, because he knows what they’ll choose. That’s my sense on what’s being communicated. And then all who God chooses will come to him and only them.
I’m not a TULIP guy, but it seems pretty simple to me. Neither of them provided a good explanation from the text for why God chooses some and not others.
It was the Romans 9 debate all over again. It was a colossal waste of time. These two should never debate again.
Yeah I believe Flowers hasn't made it to Whites level of understanding yet... so your probably right.
That's how these have all been. "Let's talk in circles about theopneustos for 2 hours....again" Yawn.
It seems as though all Flowers wants to attack and talk about is a man named Calvin and then butchers the text trying to do so.
@@CCShortsBoth royally screwed the debate up. Flowers had too much emotion, White had too much anger. The issue is they don’t empathize enough. Also, debates are good but the issue is that they need to go on a podcast where they can spend 2 hours on an area without a time limit. These formal debates kill both of their actual thoughts
Flowers is a warning for others, showing the dangers of liberal thinking.
Leighton," I know what the Bible says, but will believe what I want instead."
Think you got that backwards