That’s deep

That is a good one 😂 😅😅

That is really funny! XD

😂😂😂

Flowers gives TULIP a fat lip?

Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.

Exactly. For all of us who must cling to our natural desire to preserve self worth he is saving the day.

​@@maxstrange7606 🧑‍⚖️ James White's interpretation of John chapter 6 destroys the attributes of God which are shown consistently throughout the Scriptures. Thus, his interpretation is wrong.

@@maxstrange7606 Calvin did not have the opinion that humanity is both totally depraved and accountable. He explicitly wrote about double predestination which is the foundation of Calvinism. In DP, God creates some to go to Heaven and the rest to Hell. A person cannot be held accountable in his fatalistic/deterministic DP hypothesis. It would be like saying: 1. You were born prewired to sin. 2. You were born already preselected for salvation. 3. You are therefore accountable for your actions unto salvation. It’s logically impossible to be held accountable for preselected actions. If I program software to do certain tasks, then whatever PC/machine I load that software on, it will perform those tasks no matter what. I have read Calvin extensively. Calvin made it very clear what he believed and people died who opposed him. He clearly didn’t intend for anyone to challenge his beliefs. On the other hand, Jesus died and rose again to validate His beliefs and teachings. Huge difference in the two when seeking the truth.

@@jasonlewis5350yeah, most Calvinists don't hold to the views of John Calvin. To use their fancy terms: infralapsarian vs hyperlapsarian Most Calvinists are the former. I've attended OPCs & Dutch Reformed churches and read more classic Calvinistic works than anyone would believe if I told them. Im glad most Calvinists are generally nice people (and not murderers like their namesake)

Thank you for sharing and God bless you 🥰

Nice testimony, and doesn't do anything whatsoever to harm JW positoin. If you listen closely to yourself you'll understand why JW's position is superior. You reject it because "look at me I chased after God to do this and that, I made my choices, I begged him, me me me." You think, very oddly, that somehow you would not have been saved if you thought God was sovereign over his own creation? That makes no sense at all. Your position shows pride in yourself and strips away God's right to do with his creation what he wills. You are saying, effectually, "I will decide my fate, it's not God's decision."

At what point in time did God start working in you to be saved? I can assure you it was before you started thinking of him.

That is amazing, but could it not be said that, that was God's Devineand fully sovereign plan for you and his Glory?

​@@vigilantezackJames' position is absolutely hurt by his reputation of arrogance and pithiness.

When did this debate take place? Thanks

@@marteld2108 Thursday 3/7

@@Jeremyburroughs777 …thanks

@@Jeremyburroughs777 For the folks in the future, 2024.

He started out modestly, but got hype towards the end. And I understand, both are very passionate about this issue. Dr. White was frustrated because Dr. Flowers didn't stick with John 6. He kept going all over to argue against total depravity and that's not what the debate was about. But I'll also say Dr. White can be very difficult to have these conversations with- he has a tendency to get impatient. It's kinda sad, he's more gracious to Muslims he debates than fellow brothers in christ.

Descriptive not prescriptive

​@@Vae07 All of God's bidding are our enablings.

John3:20-21 20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.

@@DaysofElijah317 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

@@Vae07 Prescriptive.

No comments section really helps from Christians (the only ones watching) from tearing each other apart. Zero people are convinced of anything because they read it in the CSection. Not enough space to articulate.

kingdom of darkness

Ok. 👌🏾

​@bloodbought251 kingdom of darkness? I fall in the calvinistic camp and I would never say that about another brother. Do you know this man? To say something like that you better be ready to answer God if you're wrong.

Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.

@@maxstrange7606 Calvinism is dumb. Man is not totally depraved. And they get salvation backwards. Even if he did straw man Calvinism(which he didn’t), who cares. It’s a false Christian doctrine.

James White was just the one being very consistent, straight forward hermeneutics, no menta gymanstics, just pure scripture! :)

I can see why it is attractive but the substance isn't there.

​@@daveonezero6258The substance is literally all over John, while white keeps pushing special pleas and appeals to mystery, Flowers just reads vs32 onwards. You must have not actually watched the debate, typical of james white simps.

Edified...exactly on point 🎯

And many walked away from Christ, because like Christ said they were not drawn. You missued all that didn't you...

And if they walked away its because they were not drawn according to your misunderstood beliefs about predestination. How obtuse ​@alonzomccloud4530

@aarontaylor6156 Yes, that is correct. The chapter they are debating says that and shows it, 6:59-66. "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. v.66 From that time, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him." John the Apostle understood clearly what Jesus meant, writing in his Epistle 1 John 2:19, saying "They went out from us but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." It's not me misunderstanding that's what the text says. 🙄 I won't pour my supposed ideas into the text and there is no break in 6:v.44 and 45. "Those who hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." And didn't he just say no man can unless the Father draw him ? 🤔 A.W Pink gave some great advice. I paraphrase. "The biblical helps all have there purpose in understanding God's word, the Greek especially, but we must put them aside at times and read the word alone begging the Holy Spirit to give us understanding." Which has been my practice ever since. I pass down that advice to you, sir. Another question: In our unconverted state, is our faith tainted or pure ?

False gospel on salvation. Sadly !

He's not condescending. He is frustrated with Dr Flowers' continual misrepresentations. They have history outside of this debate.

I also noted that attitude. Obviously in a debate you must be persuasive. But you do not help your argument by mocking how the other person speaks or what points they have brought up. Just argue the points persuasively.

@@benanderson4118 I would agree that it doesn't help you in a debate which is why I wondered at Dr White debating in the first place. I can't stand Dr Flowers' tactics. They are misrepresentative of Holy Scripture.

@@rita8091 No. He is consistently condescending. Many of his interactions with detractors online display this as an unfortunate character flaw of White's.

Thought the same thing. The arrogance is off-putting.

A debate isn't about fiery preaching, it is about good arguments and persuasion that focuses on the debate question. Leighton has next to no debating skills, just emotional appeals and making big speeches.

@@Rhyno2183 totally agree! :D

Excellent from Dr White.

If free will is right, all people who have died without hearing the gospel can't be condemned because they have no opportunity to believe the gospel.

@@berniegonzalez5186 How do you back that up with scripture?

It's amazing how James kept purposely ignoring that part, even when directly confronted with him ignoring that part.

He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God." (John 8:47, NASB)

@@WinkenSmile Why are they not of God. And they [the Jew] also, *if they abide not still in unbelief* shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in *again* {Romans 11:23}

@@larrybedouin2921 Then why isn't Jesus evangelizing them? He is very blunt with them, in Matthew he spoke of them like this. Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?" (Matthew 15:12, NASB)But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. (Matthew 15:13, NASB)

@@larrybedouin2921 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. (Romans 11:5, NASB)But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6, NASB)What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; (Romans 11:7, NASB)just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY." (Romans 11:8, NASB)

You’re just a cry baby

Yeah you arminians are female in how emotional y’all are.. that’s how you interpret the text, to fit your feelings 😢 😂😂

The emotionalism is often pointed out for this reason. Who cares what scripture says or what is true or what we need to know about God, my feelings are so happy!

Amen, our wills have to be involved by surrendering to Him and all who come to Him he will not turn away

Is "belief" something that we author within our own hearts, or something that God authors within the hearts of His people? It is written: "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set" (Hebrews 12:2.)

@@londonderrry Yes it is. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, *that the Gentiles by my mouth should HEAR the word of the gospel, and BELIEVE* And God, *which knoweth the hearts* bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. In whom ye also trusted, *after* that ye *heard the word of truth* the gospel of your salvation: in whom also *after that ye believed* ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

@@londonderrry All of God's biddings are our enablings. God does not ask man to do what is impossible for us to do. That is irrational thinking.

@@larrybedouin2921 "Be ye holy as I am holy." "“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart," "Be ye perfect as I am perfect."

Well said, I love theology and I also am no academic Savant. I am adamantly opposed to calvinism. And I am on flowers side ! However their is a big danger common in the reformed mind I call an "elect complex" their is no dispute that james is one of the best debaters in the 21st century. Unfortunately the 180+ debates in the belt of Dr white has gone to his head. And their are so many calvinist people who look like cult leader types. And McArthurism is pretty cultish, sadly many calvinists teach the gospel of calvin and not the gospel of christ. And many who defend white become white apologists and have the presupposition that if you are not in their camp (a calvinist) it's explained that we are not elect infact we are spiritually blind to this gnostic understanding of a hidden knowledge of God. Which is a terrible framework to hold up a theology. A more obvious cult like scientology or the jehovahs witnesses all have this understanding of some sort of elected class of people. This is comparable to a Hindu and Eastern higherarchy of classes. And the elect are above all others who where eternally decreed for hell fire, also called eternally reprobate. And alot of calvinists love to project if you disagree with the gospel of calvin your "man centered" and just love freewill. Infact the man centered doctrine we know as T.U.LI.P. and opposing calvinism is good, as anyone painting God almighty as the author of all evil ever, is miss characterizing God and his very nature, as christ is the greatest gift to humankind, an easy second best gift to mankind is freewill also freewill is more complexity to separate people from other creations.

And where in scripture does God say , one has to have gone to seminary etc to be able to discuss or understand God’s word John 14:25-26-25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

This is where calvanism runs so rampant. The teaching that God is not mighty enough to share His Word. It is only through man teaching you that you can understand. If you don't agree you just aren't smart enough or you have went to seminary. People follow and worship them over the Word of God because they have man's education. We live in a country where education has been so idolized it gives man value over God. God gives man value not education

Amen

I have looked at the Greek text and i still didn't understand what the point of what James white was getting out

What verse? You have a time stamp? Honestly I'm 2 years since my Accepting of christ and I didn't even realize there was a different view of what White is saying. I understand what he is saying just from my own studying and then this week found these debates and definitions.

what part suggests otherwise? name it specifically

Read, chosen by God by RC Sproul. I think you need to dig a little deeper. This is very surfacing and very sentimental, but it isn't very biblical. I've studied Calvinism for 30 years and seed. It is the most biblical defensible position on salvation.😮

I completely agree!

Yeah indeed! What's with the personal attack on Dr Flowers on how (supposedly) quickly he spoke in his opening statement 😖 I understood him fine.

The problem is that it's hard for a person who has a different view to follow someone else's argument. So talking slower helps us establish each proposal. The preachiness comes across as an aggressive attack. James White was simply trying to help him reach the other side of the room.

@@AFWorm I doubt he was 'helping him out'. Even later when Dr Flowers spoke slower JW can be seen eye rolling with certain facial expressions to the audience on anything he didn't agree with.

@@AFWorm That makes sense. But to be honest, I think everyone listens & learns differently. Personally, James White talking slowly and without much passion makes it harder for me be interested in and understand his arguments. I can do it. But it is more difficult. I do understand that people listen & learn differently though. So you do have a valid point. 👍

Got demolished entirely during the rebuttal, though.

Not really...He was not as strong, but that was because James pretebds to be exhausted, and doesn't want Leighton to use scripture to interpret scripture, James wants to ask leading questions through STULIP and want Leighton to stay ONLY in the chosen verse which as he pointed out if he accepted STULIP as the lens to read the text THEN White would be correct but since he doesn't hold to that presupposition then he argues differently, James is incapable of seeing it differently. So not really being destroyed just he was not going to play James game of Presupposed STULIP as the lens to read a specific text. Now granted Leighton lost points when he got angered amd overtly emotional. You have to remain displaced from your emotions largley in a debate forum.

Listen closely to Leighton’s comments about the bread coming down out heaven He says something similar to this bread is for you I don’t see “for you” in John 6 Jesus says “if anyone eats” That is a lot different! He appeals to emotions with a slight twist

Shall we watch the debate seven times?

@@trebmaster haha I may. I want to make sure I'm actively listening and learning. 😊

In John 12:32, Jesus says that his death on the cross will have an astounding saving effect: “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” This verse is sometimes mistakenly interpreted to mean that Jesus draws all individuals to himself. John’s Gospel, however, will not permit that interpretation. In John 6, Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (6:37), and also, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6:44). In John 6:37 and 6:44, both verses describe people “coming” to Jesus, which is synonymous with “believing” in him (see the parallelism in 6:35 that shows how “coming” to Jesus and “believing” in him are equivalent phrases). Also in both verses, Jesus speaks about the same people with the phrases “all that the Father gives me” and “the Father who sent me draws him.” Those who are given are those who are drawn. Since John 6:37 implies that not every individual is given, we can confidently say that not every individual is drawn. In John 6, those who are “drawn” are saved. If 12:32 means that every individual is drawn, then we must affirm universalism (the teaching that every individual will eventually be saved by God). But since Scripture does not teach the salvation of every individual, we must reject an individualistic interpretation of 12:32. If not every individual is drawn to Jesus, though, then what does he mean in 12:32, “I…will draw all men to myself”? Interpreting “all men” in an individualistic way is not the correct, or the only, way to view those two words. The words should be interpreted this way: “Jesus draws people to him regardless of ethnic distinction.” This interpretation is strengthened and supported in three places: (1) In John 12:9 and 12:12, Jews approach Jesus with interest in him as the Messiah, mainly because of his recent miracle in raising Lazarus (11:43, 45; 12:9-11, 17-18). And in 12:20, some Gentiles go to Jesus as well. John 12, then, portrays both Jews and Gentiles going to Jesus. (2) In John 10:16, Jesus promised that he would have one flock, comprised of Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles are those “other sheep that are not of this sheep pen.” Jesus, the Good Shepherd (10:11), would call both Jews and Gentiles to salvation. (3) In John 11:51-52, the narrator says that “Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.” The “scattered children of God” are the elect Gentiles who will be part of the people of God through faith in Jesus. John 10, 11, and 12 all prepare us for Jesus’ statement in 12:32: “I, when I am lifted up from the earth [=death on a cross], will draw [=save] all men [=people who are Jews and Gentiles] to myself.” Jesus indeed draws “all men,” not because every individual is drawn but because sinners are drawn without bias to their ethnic distinction. Jesus not only came for Jews, he came for Gentiles. He not only came for the Jewish nation, he came to give himself for every nation! John 12:32 teaches that people from every nation will be saved (Rev 5:9).

Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.

@@maxstrange7606 LF is well aware that Calvinists believe in TD and that man is held accountable. He did not misrepresent Calvinists beliefs, what he did was question the justice of such a system. We (non-Calvinists) are aware of how Calvinists interpret the scriptures, we interpret them differently. Both sides believe the Bible but interpret It differently. It is perfectly okay for a debater to point out how an interpretation of scripture, seems unjust. Again we are aware that Calvinists don’t think God is unjust but you can’t just say God is still just if your beliefs are true, in a debate, you have to defend your ideas. Recap: 1. We don’t believe the Bible teaches it. 2. We don’t believe that would be a just way for God to interact with humanity. It is not a strawman question the justice of the Calvinist doctrine.

@@maxstrange7606 Calvinism is a bag of contradictions. The immutable characteristic of Calvinism is that God must meet their preconception of 'all-powerful'. God's word is an intimate glimpse of his being. Because something strikes a person as incompatible with their perception of what would constitute God is materially idolatrous. The scripture explains this when it says that God chose the foolishness (I believe genius) of preaching to save those who believe. God does in fact put a fork in the road of man's existential disposition. That fork may lead in many directions but only one of those many directions leads to God.

​@@maxstrange7606No one can be unable to make a choice AND be responsible, if you cannot respond by definition you are not responsible. It's literally baked into our language.

That’s not true though. Clement writes in a similar style to the NT authors and isn’t engaging w the issue of free will vs sovereign election. It’s difficult to appeal to St Clement on an issue that he doesn’t address in his letter

Next time try scripture. Start with Romans.

​@jerryspidell2331 Roman's is clear. The problem is Calvanists do not start with foreknowledge, which is where predestination starts.

I have followed J.McA for many years. Never heard him say this. Not in his writings either. Let's not assume predestination and free will are somehow separate and not compatible with the Sovereignty of God. Remember that many of these theological terms / truths are still not completely revealed to mankind and are still partially "mysteries." But, that is why there is a "tension" when we delve into the mind of God. Hopefully we never get so proud that we are never uncomfortable or have questions when reading Scripture.

What is this “last day” Jesus is referring to?

Good guys don't debate dishonestly like James White does. Stop calling evil good. He is straight up deceitful no matter whatever else he may do that seems good. There's a reason we are warned about wolves in sheep's clothing and false teachers.

I used to like him. I watched over twenty of his debates with Catholics from the 90s and learned a great deal. But, man, he has sure changed in the past decade. I can’t stand him anymore.

I didn’t really understand Calvinism and had listened to stuff from both White and Durban. It is definitely a blind spot. He has debated it so much that he has become hardened.

​@@silverbackhayabusawhat good did he call evil? Please provide a timestamp or reference of the deceit. Thanks mate.

​@@toktik8715 I think he was meaning "I" was calling good evil when I complimented James White even though I stated how I felt he had a blind spot on Calvinism but found him good in other areas.

Sure is!

If the Father chooses most to go to Hell by His choice isn't it possible that you're actually called to burn? Where's the assurance in that? Right, there's no assurance in that. Flowers should've used scripture to prove his case but he still won. Romans 2:11 there's no partiality with the Father and not willing that any perish and desires that all would come to knowledge of forgiveness 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9. Scripture never contradicts Scripture. Truth is white will burn if there's no repentance. Telling people that the Father is responsible for people going to Hell when it's really satan and the person's choice it's blasphemy by switching the credit to the wrong party that's why when the pharisees said Jesus was doing miracles through satan when it really was God they blasphemed the Holy Spirit

THIS!!! 👆🏽👆🏽👆🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽

What is it telling? That the reformers saw what had been taught since biblical times?

​@@TylerRayHamblinjust shows his presuppositions. That he uses reformed theology. That is what is telling. Since the reformation is changing the topic. If you are reformed of course James view is correct. However the topic is Does Jn 6:44 teach unconditional election from the bible not since the reformation.

That is ridiculous. Flowers continually goes off topic, leaning on emotional and philosophical question to try to disprove him. James white was the one trying to stay on topic.

​@@ChristmySavior3OK, calvinsts can't explain why the almighty creator would weep for an unbelieving creation when he created them that way. Calvinists are not Christian and I'm not afraid to say it. They aren't. Provisionism undermines his sovereignty so we obviously can't worship the same God.

@@ericgray1312 yeah I worship the God in scripture and you worship the god in your mind. God had two wills. That is how I would explain that. Makes perfect sense

@@ericgray1312 to give you an example, an earthly king has two will as well.. if his friend betrayed the kingdom, the king would do what’s best for his kingdom in punishing his friend, but it would be difficult emotionally. It would be for his kingdom (one will) but hard because he desires for his friend to be saved (two wills).

⁠@@ChristmySavior3I think the difference your example would be if the King randomly caused his friend to betray the kingdom for the kings own glory then claimed it was still his will not to punish his friend. The U in TULIP means God has unconditionally elected people to damnation whilst telling us it’s His will to save those people who for His own glory He chose to burn in hell. At this point I don’t even know why I put the capital He we aren’t describing the same God.

🤦‍♂️

​@ShooterReview If you are a calvinist, according to calvinism, God made me type that response. If you disagree with my post then you are fighting God. Calvinism is selfrefuting nonsense. It is a satanic doctrine that makes God the author of sin.

@@ShooterReviewit blows my mind how many people think Leighton won this debate. He couldn’t even answer the one main question white asked him that was on topic and about the text at hand…leighton just threw out emotionally charged, philosophical questions and scenarios and kept skidding away from the text.

@@TylerRayHamblin AMEN! You absolutely nailed it

Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.

The debate is about whether Jesus preached Calvinism or not. If Jesus preached Calvinism He'd be unjust, a sadist, and equal to Satan (a baby torturer); White is fully aware of this and that's why he avoids the subject at all costs; instead of simply discarding the demonic belief of Calvinism he feigns offense, deflects, or even "flounders" to avoid the core of his belief.@@JRey-re9rl

It may be difficult for some, but for others, we're able to "read between the lines" per-se, and understand the implications of subject matters instead of only taking things purely as face-value. The scripture is the primary subject of the debate, but the core argument being had is Calvinism vs Free-will, which has even deeper nuances; some of which I addressed as "ad hominem" attacks. It would only be an ad hominem attack if I made a personal attack that was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which if you re-read what I said, I was sure to emphasize what makes Calvinism demonic: the torture of billions of babies ordained by God. There are only two different beings to worship/which can called gods: Jesus and Satan; only one would torture babies, the other would never do such a "demonic" thing, such as Calvin's god (little g).@@JRey-re9rl

@@audan2006 Unbaptized infants do not go to heaven.

@@audan2006 Argument by emotion. Basic, useless, dismissable. The emotional argument can be twisted right back on Flowers in the same way to the same effect. People need to stop thinking with their feelings and start trying to learn what is true.

I'll try it now to see how "emotional" the argument is; what happens to still-borns, babies aborted, SIDS victims, accidental death for children, etc?@@vigilantezack

James White simply doesn’t know how to not be snarky.

He's ALWAYS the first to show ugly character, in every debate he's in. It's possible to be strong and also to show grace to your brethren.

@@BPond7 would be interesting to see his snark go up against Dillahunty's snark, lol.

Leighton got heated and nearly lost it, James is a bit snarky but he can handle himself well

@@danielwarton5343 "nearly"🙄

I saw all three as well, as well as deflection, disingenuousness, and talking in circles.

You actually must have those qualities to become a card carrying Calvinist.

No, what you see is an individual who understands God’s Sovereignty (White) and someone that doesn’t (Flowers). Apparently you don’t understand God’s Sovereignty either.

@@jeromeburcham4145 Spoken like a true Calvinist.

@@jeromeburcham4145 not a contentious question, but rather clarifying: What is it about God’s sovereignty that Flowers doesn’t understand?

White is the only one who walked through the text

@Rhyno2183 no he didn’t he equated being taught by God to being raised which is a Calvinistic presupposition. He kept harping on hearing while ignoring the fact that the ones coming to Jesus were listening to and learning from God. These are not passive actions, no one learns passively, no one listens passively.

@@Rhyno2183did you not listen to LF? We walked through each verse right up to that verse. And included many others for clear co text. How can you make that claim?

He does this all the time. Red Herrings and goes into all high theology straw men. I've been listening to him for years because of his other material. I appreciate his other teachings and books. I Have never heard him explain how God can be mad a a sinner who is never called to be elect. NEVER talks about that.

In John 12:32, Jesus says that his death on the cross will have an astounding saving effect: “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” This verse is sometimes mistakenly interpreted to mean that Jesus draws all individuals to himself. John’s Gospel, however, will not permit that interpretation. In John 6, Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (6:37), and also, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6:44). In John 6:37 and 6:44, both verses describe people “coming” to Jesus, which is synonymous with “believing” in him (see the parallelism in 6:35 that shows how “coming” to Jesus and “believing” in him are equivalent phrases). Also in both verses, Jesus speaks about the same people with the phrases “all that the Father gives me” and “the Father who sent me draws him.” Those who are given are those who are drawn. Since John 6:37 implies that not every individual is given, we can confidently say that not every individual is drawn. In John 6, those who are “drawn” are saved. If 12:32 means that every individual is drawn, then we must affirm universalism (the teaching that every individual will eventually be saved by God). But since Scripture does not teach the salvation of every individual, we must reject an individualistic interpretation of 12:32. If not every individual is drawn to Jesus, though, then what does he mean in 12:32, “I…will draw all men to myself”? Interpreting “all men” in an individualistic way is not the correct, or the only, way to view those two words. The words should be interpreted this way: “Jesus draws people to him regardless of ethnic distinction.” This interpretation is strengthened and supported in three places: (1) In John 12:9 and 12:12, Jews approach Jesus with interest in him as the Messiah, mainly because of his recent miracle in raising Lazarus (11:43, 45; 12:9-11, 17-18). And in 12:20, some Gentiles go to Jesus as well. John 12, then, portrays both Jews and Gentiles going to Jesus. (2) In John 10:16, Jesus promised that he would have one flock, comprised of Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles are those “other sheep that are not of this sheep pen.” Jesus, the Good Shepherd (10:11), would call both Jews and Gentiles to salvation. (3) In John 11:51-52, the narrator says that “Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.” The “scattered children of God” are the elect Gentiles who will be part of the people of God through faith in Jesus. John 10, 11, and 12 all prepare us for Jesus’ statement in 12:32: “I, when I am lifted up from the earth [=death on a cross], will draw [=save] all men [=people who are Jews and Gentiles] to myself.” Jesus indeed draws “all men,” not because every individual is drawn but because sinners are drawn without bias to their ethnic distinction. Jesus not only came for Jews, he came for Gentiles. He not only came for the Jewish nation, he came to give himself for every nation! John 12:32 teaches that people from every nation will be saved (Rev 5:9).

*Flowers

@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 No, White.

@@Xenosaurian Haha how did Flowers win the debate?

If the Father chooses to make people for destruction on purpose isn't it possible that you're actually called to burn? Where's the assurance in that? Right there is none. Romans 2:11 there's no partiality with God. It's the Father's desire that ALL would come to knowledge of forgiveness and not willing that any should perish 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9. Telling people that the Father is responsible for people going to Hell when it's really satan and the person's choice it's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit switching the credit to the wrong party that's why when the pharisees said Jesus was doing miracles through satan when it really was God they blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Tulip great flower but heretical doctrine that'll send millions to Hell

@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 He spoke common sense and was biblically consistent and generally honest, whereas White avoided the subjects, mocked his opponens, and behaved in an obnoxious and deceptive manner.

...all the way to Finland ! 😂

Who shut their bible?

@@recoveringknowitall1534 Dr. White

Don't you think that was more so because Dr. Flowers did not want to talk about the text? It seems like Dr. Flowers was here to debate "Calvinism." You can see that in the questions he is asking, It's not about the text. Which would be fine, except the debate is about John 6:44;45. You can go into rabbit holes for hours about the supposed implications of the belief, but it seems more productive to be intentional and surgical and discuss only specific ideas within an organized debate. It seems like Dr. White was there to compare exegetes of John 6:44;45 not Dr. Flowers.

@@Stv4711 Only if I thought throwing out logic and biblical interpreting consistency, was the correct hermeneutic to form theology by exegeting scripture from a presupposed Calvinistic systematic lens. Then I would agree with you.

@@Stv4711 nope. pretty sure, james white was trying to deflect away from the actual implications and bog down in details of the texts to redirect away from what flowers was trying to show as the implications.

Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.

Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.

There's only one thing that they both need to do in their preaching, they need to stop calling calvinists their brothers and sisters. A system of theology that makes God the author of sin and evil, no different than Satan, is blasphemous, and saying people will be saved by election and not faith is a different gospel. PERIOD.

Steve Gregg is a wonderful teacher. I'd love to watch/hear him debate Leighton Flowers on Once Saved Always Saved. Steve also has a really long teaching on Calvinism where he argues from both sides and he also debated James White on Calvinism years ago.

Be careful to note what L.F. is doing. He only sees in either/or categories in this debate. The Bible upholds both statements above, man is BOTH Totally Depraved AND accountable for his rejection. However, L.F. has built a straw man of Calvinism. Again, Calvinist see the Scriptures telling us that man is BOTH depraved AND accountable. L.F. cannot live with this kind of paradoxical tension, in which the Bible actually speaks. In order to force the Bible to speak in his either/or categories at this point, he creates a caricature of Calvinism, making Calvinism fit HIS EITHER/OR category. Calvinism is wrong if man is simply totally depraved. Calvinism is right if man is totally depraved and at the same time responsible for his rejection. L.F. has presented a lopsided view. His view will appear right on the surface because he is tearing down a view that is not found in the Scripture. His anthropology is half right and his soteriology is half right but he is missing the Calvinistic half, rather the biblical half that speaks of mankind depraved and fallen from the womb. Calvinism is BOTH/AND...it holds on to the tension that mankind cannot believe because they have BOTH a sinful nature AND they have not been given to the Father.

Please explain

Please explain. I'm not a Calvinist, just here to learn. God bless!

@@83mliz Mainly all of the verses all throughout the Bible that speaks about God wanting people to be saved yet they have a choice to repent and receive the gospel. Nowhere in the Bible is this idea of total inability to receive the gospel when it’s presented and Leighton makes a good case on that. Gods blinding and hardening also shows that we can’t be totally dead in our response to truth or else God is just being redundant as if blinding a dead corpse. The consistent view is that God would harden those and give them up to a reprobate mind based on a their personal desires not arbitrarily because some are predetermined to. I wish I could pull up all the verses from the top of my head but if you watch Leighton’s other videos you can take note of each verse he references and see for yourself so you can be equipped to speak to a Calvinist brother.

If I have it right. White: Legacy Standard. Flowers: NASB 95

I see james white took off his comment section.

Strong words. Proof?

@@danielletracyannAs far as I know he’s always had comments turned off. Like many Calvinist channels they can’t have their claims challenged.

Go back and watch other debates he does or just his regular show, being deceitful and disingenuous are the only ways he knows how to advance his position. Oh, and randomly saying the original Greek word for the translated English word when it brings absolutely no distinction or clarity. E.g. ... John 6:60 “This is a difficult saying; who can listen to it?” Dr. White, "sklēros....difficult." And...? You added absolutely nothing Dr. White by referring to the Greek as opposed to just saying "difficult" or "hard" in the common tongue of everyone in that room, English. He tried to baffle us with Greek BS on John 3:16 "whosoever" as well and it's unfortunate that Leighton wasn't ready for it. Dr. White pretends the meaning of whosoever in the Greek necessarily means only those who believe yet whosoever means just that. The believes that follows it also stands alone. One could argue either way that the whosoever does indeed apply to believers because that's who is saved (presumed to be regenerated prior to the verse) or that whosoever applies to everyone and the condition that they choose to believe is what brings salvation. There seems to be a better argument by the rest of biblical context that it's by freewill choice so Dr. White must play games with the Greek knowing most people struggle with English alone. I have yet to see Dr. White meaningfully translate a Greek word to show nuance in the original that is either lost or not apparent in English. He could easily take a word or phrase and cite the case (genitive, accusative, dative, etc.), the tense (past, present, etc.), gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), or whether something like the word you is singular or plural. Not once. He's a sham artist.

I have watched Dr White for years. Your claims are false.

I found it funny White left out LEARNED twice, Flowers had to add it...

I found it devastatingly telling.

In John 12:32, Jesus says that his death on the cross will have an astounding saving effect: “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” This verse is sometimes mistakenly interpreted to mean that Jesus draws all individuals to himself. John’s Gospel, however, will not permit that interpretation. In John 6, Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (6:37), and also, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6:44). In John 6:37 and 6:44, both verses describe people “coming” to Jesus, which is synonymous with “believing” in him (see the parallelism in 6:35 that shows how “coming” to Jesus and “believing” in him are equivalent phrases). Also in both verses, Jesus speaks about the same people with the phrases “all that the Father gives me” and “the Father who sent me draws him.” Those who are given are those who are drawn. Since John 6:37 implies that not every individual is given, we can confidently say that not every individual is drawn. In John 6, those who are “drawn” are saved. If 12:32 means that every individual is drawn, then we must affirm universalism (the teaching that every individual will eventually be saved by God). But since Scripture does not teach the salvation of every individual, we must reject an individualistic interpretation of 12:32. If not every individual is drawn to Jesus, though, then what does he mean in 12:32, “I…will draw all men to myself”? Interpreting “all men” in an individualistic way is not the correct, or the only, way to view those two words. The words should be interpreted this way: “Jesus draws people to him regardless of ethnic distinction.” This interpretation is strengthened and supported in three places: (1) In John 12:9 and 12:12, Jews approach Jesus with interest in him as the Messiah, mainly because of his recent miracle in raising Lazarus (11:43, 45; 12:9-11, 17-18). And in 12:20, some Gentiles go to Jesus as well. John 12, then, portrays both Jews and Gentiles going to Jesus. (2) In John 10:16, Jesus promised that he would have one flock, comprised of Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles are those “other sheep that are not of this sheep pen.” Jesus, the Good Shepherd (10:11), would call both Jews and Gentiles to salvation. (3) In John 11:51-52, the narrator says that “Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.” The “scattered children of God” are the elect Gentiles who will be part of the people of God through faith in Jesus. John 10, 11, and 12 all prepare us for Jesus’ statement in 12:32: “I, when I am lifted up from the earth [=death on a cross], will draw [=save] all men [=people who are Jews and Gentiles] to myself.” Jesus indeed draws “all men,” not because every individual is drawn but because sinners are drawn without bias to their ethnic distinction. Jesus not only came for Jews, he came for Gentiles. He not only came for the Jewish nation, he came to give himself for every nation! John 12:32 teaches that people from every nation will be saved (Rev 5:9).

i seen it the exact opposite way. I guess people see different things watching the same things lol

I’m not going to go through and mark the time stamps. White gave his opinion of John 6. Flowers tried to use other verses to bring context to the passage and White was having none of it. He did not want the logical conclusions of Calvinism exposed, like infant damnation.

Yes, it’s his go to method to undercut anyone he sees as a threat. It’s narcissistic behaviour at a minimum. Regardless, it always amazes me when people who have listened to him for years don’t seem to recognize this pattern, I figure it’s probably because it fits their bias so it’s warmly regarded as “calling someone out for not rightly dividing the word”. 🙄🤷🏻‍♂️

@@brianhill3219 White comes off like a Muslim debating the Trinity. Take a few verses, smuggle your own theological errors into the text and claim that the other guy isn't doing the work.

There’s nothing subtle about it. He’s saying that flowers didn’t deal with the question or the text, and he didn’t. Or, he did what White said he would do, which was read the text out of order so as to read his desired position back into the text. It was, in short, nonsense, given that you would NEVER do that to discuss any other issue.

@@spacemanspliff7844 JW has never dealt with the text, he just assumes Calvinism and accuses his opponent of being a Pelagian. Flowers was not only right on the text, he was prepared for JW's despicable debate tactics. JW has been routed.

*spiel Agreed.

@@leenieledejo6849 thank you sir 😂

Don’t fix what ain’t broke

@@GrantFontenot-gd6lc too late. He’s already a broken record.

@@jesuschristsaves9067 You're welcome. I don't go around correcting everyone. I just love the word "spiel" and like to see it used (so I'm glad you edited it) 😅👍🙏

Thank you brother. I have had the book (revised version) for years and never made it to that chapter (pg. 177 “Responding to Critics”). Just wanted to thank you for sharing that so I can really understand each of those “wrongful attributions of the stances of others.” Thank you, Thank you. 👊❤️🙏🙂

Thanks for sharing that. I just ordered the book (second edition). Appreciate the mini review.

Geisler ignores the context of his 3 "proof texts". "All men" in his second proof text refers to all kinds of men because the context directly mentions kings and all authorities. To quote White: “The same kind of usage (all kinds of men being in view) is found elsewhere in Paul, such as Titus 3:2: to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. This should be connected to the fact that in the very commissioning of Paul, this phrase is used in a way that cannot be made universal in scope: For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard (Acts 22:15).”

Go back to Romans 9

Yes. Boettner has an entire chapter on it in his book on the Reformed Doctrine of Presdestination.

​@@TylerRayHamblinRomans 9 is about the election of the nation of Israel, not the unconditional election of individuals. That's why you see in Romans 7 up until Romans 11, the audience that Paul is speaking to is "those who know the law", namely the Jews. In Romans 11:28, Paul says that the Jews by election are praised by the patriarchs, but by the gospel they are enemies. Paul is saying that the election of the nation of Israel is not part of the saving gospel. Romans 9 is about Israel's past, Romans 10 is about Israel's present, and Romans 11 is about Israel's future. So when it talks about God can save whomever he wants to save, it's in response to the Jews, who objected to the fact that God was extending his hand to gentiles in addition to the Jews. The old covenant was that God was to start the nation of Israel through his chosen people, and disseminate his word to them first. The New covenant said that now the Gospel of Jesus Christ is extended to everyone, not just the Jews. Paul's reputation in Romans 9:11 is that the Jews are mistaken that just because they are elected it doesn't mean that they're saved. Paul is intentionally bifurcating election with the gospel. The election of the nation of Israel is not the same type of election in which God chooses his people. The body of Christ is constantly called "a chosen people" (1 Peter 2:9). So the election that saves, is corporate election, not election of individuals.

They are, I’m a provisionist myself, but they take it that God chose people without favoritism. Now I don’t understand how that works, and neither do they, they appeal to great mystery.

They see that verse as proof of the “unconditional” part of election.

Which, of course is active, not passive.

Is it ??? I thought the active was passive or was it the other way around-was the selecting of his hearing something that was being done to him?

White is using the Critical Text. It omits "Learns" apparently!

@@JRey-re9rl Um, sir, this is an encouraging KZfaq comment to a brother in Christ, not a treatise on the scriptural justification for rejecting Calvinism. Thank you for reinforcing the negative stereotype of most Calvinists I have interacted with online.

@@JRey-re9rl What on earth are you talking about?

@@JRey-re9rl What is it you think you are doing by calling me a fangirl with no substance? Ad hominem much?

@@JRey-re9rl Except that there isn't a single ad hominem statement in my original comment, but there is in yours. Congratulations! You're also guilty of hypocrisy. I'll leave you to it.

​@@JRey-re9rlImagine being so consumed with Calvinism that not only do you use the term ad hominem incorrectly, but you refuse to just accept an exhortation toward a brother in Christ.

That's the heart of the issue. Calvinism is a cult that makes God unloving and arbitrary and my disappoint is Leighton's unwillingness to call out the cult for what it is. He has no problem doing it with Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses but since he was formally a Calvinist, he refuses to defend the love of God and call it out as a cult. I wonder if Leighton is too prideful to admit having fallen for a cult. Whatever the reason, he does a great job defending God in other ways, he just needs to step up and call out Calvinism as a cult instead of embracing its followers as believers. He could be encouraging them straight into damnation.

I think he is trying to stick to the argument amongst people he considers brothers,but he’s certainly not afraid to go to the core of the issue which is why infant damnation was brought up.

The cognitive dissonance of someone to say something like that is almost laughable. It’s as if they never thought to ask themselves “Why does God tell me to do this if it will do literally no good anyway?”

@@DaysofElijah317 I have no problem calling a lay, unstudied Calvinist, a brother in Christ. I do take issue calling a studied, and moreso a "scholar" like White, a brother because they should understand the text well enough (through study and supposedly guidance by the Holy Spirit) to not make a caricature of the basic nature of God. Additionally, when one of these studied men, or scholars, engages on the topic, I see the same dishonest and disingenuous tactics over and over again when defending Calvinism. The thing that often makes one want to embrace them as brothers is their good works, (e.g. Durbin's anti-abortion efforts, White's defenses against other cults, etc.). But should those works blind us to what their core beliefs are. I have met some amazing Mormons but their core beliefs are damning. Same goes for Jehovah Witnesses. But again, their core beliefs are damning. Why would we need to be warned about teaching of other gospels or wolves in sheep's clothing if we could ignore core beliefs and simply look to good works? It's the core beliefs (faith in God and His nature) that save, not works, no matter how good.

That’s a red herring. Jesus tells us to love our enemies, love our neighbor which boils down to love everyone. “How do we love the people God has hated since the beginning of the world?” First of all, love your enemies… that doctrine sort of covers everything. Secondly, as it was clearly stated by James White, we don’t know who God’s elect are but we preach according to the hope that God’s sheep will hear his voice. Proclaiming, repenting and believing the gospel are commands. Thats just a fact, not sure what your problem with it is other than to act as if it’s a gotcha moment like “aha! he said he only preaches the gospel because it’s a command, im so much more loving and pious than him!” But in reality that was only one of the reasons he gave and it was specifically to refute the common objection provisionalists make that “what’s the point of preaching the gospel if God’s elect will be saved no matter what?” And he explained that God is a God of the ends as well as the means. It’s as absurd as asking “if God predetermined that I would eat lunch today, then why should I eat?” Well sure, God predetermined that you would be full by means of eating food and likewise that you’d be saved by his servant preaching the gospel. It’s a bad argument, and the fact that you look at this as a sort of “aha” moment shows you don’t understand the point that was made or you’re being blatantly disingenuous. You: “Not to mention gospel motivated by LAW not LOVE because it’s not out of compassion but command” Jesus: “if you love me obey my commandments” Wow, so as we see, Jesus’ own words don’t jive with whatever it is you’re saying. Love is the motivation to obey commands. Law can be the motivation, that is, if you think you’ll be justified by doing good and obeying God’s commands. Ironically, that’s exactly how folks like you present the gospel, teaching that it’s up to me and you to live good lives otherwise we’re going to hell. As far as damned babies go. Scripture clearly tells us we’re evil from birth, “the wicked are estranged from the womb they go astray telling lies even from birth.” David tells us he formed in iniquity from his mother’s womb. Does an infant who dies go to hell? Well the scripture doesn’t say, but rest assured God is perfectly just and full of mercy, I’m sure he’ll be able to sort em out. JW didn’t really address that point because he doesn’t need to. Babies going to hell is not a reformed talking point, some more fringe branches of reformed thought might hold to that but you have the fringe people in everything. It’s irrelevant. Calvinists hold that man is sinful and depraved from birth, a doctrine clearly taught in scripture as I quoted above from two psalms for a couple examples.

It's because it isn't the gospel - it's a doctrine of devils. Hellish. it impugns God's character and is built on false humility - pride.

Then (W)ho is worthy or decides who goes to heaven? John 1: 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Yes!!!

Exactly

What doctrine in particular do you find most appalling?

@@elkellenhabla I'm not the guy you asked, but Limited Atonement is just wrong. I accept T, U, probably I and don't have a problem with P. L is just wrong and Calvinists are guilty of elevating their own theological system / their own reason above scripture regarding this. The most egregious case being when they push the blatantly, *obviously* wrong line that 'world' means the elect in John. Have they read John? The word 'world' is negative 2 times out of 3!

@@SeanusAureliusso you think Jesus died for the non-elect? What sense does that make?

@@elkellenhabla So the non-elect are they crash dummies, props or maybe a Netflix special for the elect?

🤦‍♂️

He is close to crossing the Tiber. Very, very close.

Yeah that’s def a good sign 😂

@@BMB125 You said it

Grammatically, you're saying that Leighton is a Catholic. He's not. Maybe what you mean is what is suggested by the following: "As a Catholic, I think that Leighton..."

How does one claim that parts of God’s word to be Calvinist friendly?

"He has been ducking debates..." how convenient....😂😂😂 Can you cite anyone who got more debates than James White?

Do you really think every fool has to be answered?

He's ducking because he got slaughtered. We all saw him get upset before by his own mouth contradicts himself. Flowers shouldn't pointed out with scripture that there's no partiality with God Romans 2:11. And willing that any should perish and desires that all would come to knowledge of forgiveness 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9.

lol!

How do you win an argument without ever addressing the topic of it?

White's beard and dark attire is either a conscious or unconscious attempt to emulate the appearance of his teacher John Calvin. I have seen other "Reformed" teachers following the same trend. In this regard we must remember what Paul said about being a disciple of a disciple rather than a disciple of Jesus. …11 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?… (1 Corinthians 1:11-12)

Lol it’s like when a Muslim debates a Christian and all the muslims come in drop a comment without watching the debate like a cult

Leighton just shouted nonsensical questions that were off topic and he couldn’t answer the one clear question on the actual topic at hand that White asked him multiple times. Leigh didn’t even come close to showing up for the debate properly.

Not if Dr. White has anything to say about it

The fall has systemically affected the faculties of man. It has not robbed them of these faculties, but has given them a sinful bias. A choice that is certain does not nullify its freedom. Calvinism doesn’t deny a choice is made from the faculties of man and that the entirety of these faculties are employed in the process, but rather the outcome without divine intervention is certain. 2nd Chronicles 30:10-12

@@joecuster6926 We are not born again before we believe.

Your theology starts with man so of course you read that way

@@user-bc4sg7cn9n That is God speaking 🔊 Have you ears to hear?

🧑‍⚖️Do you find Calvinism logical and scriptural?

@@calebjushua9252 Hi, without the scriptures it is illogical.

@@angj5609 🙋 You are correct. That's why Calvinism is a false teaching because it contradicts the Scriptures.

@@angj5609 🙋 Nowhere in the Scriptures can we find that God doomed a person for a sin which he was preprogrammed to do.

Nowhere in the Scriptures can we find that God doomed a person for a sin which he was preprogrammed to do.

12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12, ESV)

Who grafts the branches into the vine?

@@h2s142Why does God graft branches in? ”You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭11‬:‭19‬-‭23‬

John 15:5-6 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. It is dependent upon the individual abiding.

That about sums it up

Indeed! Dr Flowers consistent use of 'scripture interprets scripture' is on point the entire time. Dr White's inconsistent man-made use of STULIP rather than actual scripture is hard to watch frankly... May he come to acknowledge scripture above all

Amen!

It’s like he forgot it was his turn to be questioned

We experienced this moment differently.

@@DaysofElijah317 He was being sarcastic

That part

Most of my life I was in a church with very similar teach to dr Flowers. I stated to see the things in scripture that dr white is talking about. However I had no idea what any of that was about nor did I learn it from a person. The more I studied the Bible and looked up the Greek words for myself the more convinced I became. It was honestly a terrible place to be for a time. How do you interpret or understand Matthew 13:10-16?

Dr White clearly went through the text in question which was the point of the debate. Thanks Dr White!

@@jennyalvis4568So did DR. Flowers just not to Dr. White’s liking, the debate was not on what the verse said but on how it was understood. Dr. White didn’t support his position.

@@Gettindirty187what I would say after looking at the passage is that we do not know how the ‘one who has’, possesses any and without further study it could support either reading of the text. Still it seems more logical that those who are continually coming to God with a proper attitude and desire to learn are the ones who will be given more.

Search KZfaq for the below title: *Hardening of the Heart: John MacArthur vs Calvinism | Soteriology 101 | Dr. Leighton Flowers*

It seemed as though Dr. White believed Leighton didn’t have the right to speak about Calvinism much less debate it since he left it.

That’s what I was thinking. They can’t even defend their five proof texts let alone any other scripture…….

That is such a great point. We rarely if ever see these debates going the other way. It’s like the Calvinist is always playing on their home turf.

I wanna see that

Watch the video that "wise disciple" did to review this debate. What he says is hard for both sides to hear, but the guy was a debate teacher.

I don't understand where scripture gives Layton Flowers the Grace to continue debating a well-known heretic false teacher. Calvinism is heresy. John Calvin was a heretic. The only reason his of false doctrine had any foothold was because of his attachment to the Catholic church and people still didn't understand or know or read the Bible so they believed him but that man tormented the Jewish people and true believers it's a well-known fact of history that John Calvin hated the Jewish people. James White is a heretic and flowers does not have a biblical right to continue engaging with a heretic. I believe flowers has the biblical right to expose the LIE of Calvinism as much and as often as he chooses that I don't believe he's supposed to put himself in a position to have a back and forth with a heretic. The Bible gives clear direction on how to handle a heretic. If Flowers believes that his position is Right which I personally agree with him wholeheartedly then by virtue of his biblical position he needs to also apply the grace given by God on hell to handle a heretic and I believe the Bible says go to them two or three times and if they still don't hear you then treat them as a heretic.

Even Calvin rejected Calvinism before he died

@@Roger-il8iw My only holdback from the debate was Dr FLOWERS inability to balance the fact that God can and does do as He pleases when He pleases, and this does not make Him unloving even if one was born reprobate. Who are we to say He couldnt make a pawn for His purpose just to annihilate that same pawn later. In many ways Job was willing to accept that God was good though He couldn't understand why his whole family had to die, etc... Many of these things can't just be explained by the ability of man to hear, understand, and accept the gospel. Sometimes you just have to step back and realize that God's got everything under control.

@@eternalinvestments3422 I’m not entirely sure I follow your point. But I do agree that non-Calvinists (which are the vast majority of Christians) have a more powerful and more sovereign view of god. I believe god can absolutely do whatever he wants. He does not have to control everything as Calvinists say, but he absolutely could if he wanted to. In other words I actually believe god is god.

Luther, Tyndale and many others affirm what you guys call, 'Calvinism'.