I’m a lawyer, formally trained and over 30 years of experience in how to examine evidence and arguments used to sustain propositions, or ideas, as it were. I am not a trained philosopher, but as Mortimer Adler said, all men are philosophers to some degree. In discussions about Calvinism, James White doesn’t often use any sort of logical, disciplined argumentation that I’m familiar with. Instead, I see him using tactics like ridicule and ad hominem accusations. He also displays verbal, facial, and bodily expressions of contempt and disgust for his opponents, which can possibly indicate arrogance on his part, instead of confidence in the truth of his position. This makes me suspect his argument at the outset, because it seems that he’s painting his opponent as stupid, instead of addressing the validity of his opponent’s argument or of his own. In simple vernacular, you call this “bullying.” I have never given ground to bullies, and I’m not about start.
@@mannyedwards2820 He was utterly disgusting in their first debate. After waxing poetically about thorough exegesis before skipping through a much of Romans 8-9 in a matter of minutes. He then asked Leighton why he made no attempt to give a “thorough” exegesis, and did videos about it after.All the while, JW NEVER gave a remotely thorough exigisis. He is a con man!
@@jeffreybomba when I practiced law, I was almost unbeatable in court because of one simple thing. I never tried to fool the jury. They had confidence that I was telling them the plain simple truth, without any sort of debating trickery
The huge difference between these two men and James White is their character. These two are so humble, not attacking James, but dealing with truth. James is so disrespectful and demeaning at every turn; just arrogant. The fruit of each of their doctrine is evident
@@lindararey8641 To the point that he would correct God. "Lord, if you don't determine the weight of each individual piece of stool you aren't really sovereign!"
Thank you for the shout-out. I am glad Joel agrees with what I stated regarding the Greek and proper exegesis. I have always maintained that proper exegesis is needed, which White does not do and only appeals to his authority. Proper exegesis will NEVER lead to Calvinism.
I am no Calvinist and find it poisonous, but if proper exegesis never leads to Calvinism then are we to say Douglas Moo does not do proper exegesis? I am not pointing fingers here but want to know because I struggle with the idea that the highest rated commentary on Romans is written by a 5-point Calvinist. Do we simply ignore his Calvinism and assume his exegetical conclusions were based on presuppositions that existed outside of exegetical foundations?
It is enough only to know that the deterministic views come after Augustine of Hippo who have been affected by gnosticism. It doesn't meter how many famous calvinists have written exegesis on Romans 9 trying to apply individual salvation in this chapter. It is not there.
@@nikolaykarchev7642 Yes, and Paul himself was from the school of Hillel and studied under Gamaliel, both of whom believed in and taught choice and free will. I wrote a paper about Paul's education, and it's on my Academia page.
You can tell if someone knows a language by pronunciation, James sounds like an elementary student in both Greek and Hebrew. Goes to show how big of a joke most seminaries are that hire him out to teach the languages. I wonder if James learned Greek from the nonexistent "University" he graduated from.
Yeah... James White is either lying about his knowledge of the Greek language OR he knows the Greek perfectly fine and is misrepresenting it in order to make his false doctrine seem legit and that would make him a liar and a false teacher...
I appreciate you Leighton for all the work you do and have done and you are very humble and that is the true Gospel that all of us must face!! Your work is not a loss!! So many that actually Hear the gospel from even the debates are coming out!! New people are coming out of that thought every day!! All they need is to hear the true Gospel!! The one that is love and is there for you!! Not just stating how terrible we all are!! Yes we all will fall short that is why we need a Savior!! Looking at a sweet child like my sweet grandchildren, they are not responsible for Adams sin!! God gives us the ability to humbly come to him!!
I deeply appreciate: 1. Your humble pursuit of Truth (Leighton & Joel) 2. Your willingness to share your thoughts and insights Thank you! God bless you both!
Over the years I’ve come to expect that whenever James White starts digging into the Greek that you should definitely pay attention…because he’s probably he’s probably probably pulling the wool over the eyes of people like me who don’t read Greek, and twisting things to try to prove Calvinism 😂 To give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he truly believes everything he says, but he is too proud to consider the corrections that people challenge him with. It is for that reason that he will be held more accountable for his false teachings. When I was getting more into apologetics years ago I started listened to the dividing line, but fortunately I listened to some other people and learned about James’ bad reputation in many areas- both personally and theologically. Lord have mercy on us all and keep us humble and reachable.
I appreciate Leighton’s humility and eagerness to learn despite the heckling from antagonists. The servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle, able to teach, patient. 👏 Props to Brother Leighton
Man, Joel is great. So balanced. I've said it in jest a lot, but I think today it actually hit me as a reality. In the area of soteriology, I don't take James White seriously anymore.
When I first encountered White it was in debates with atheists, and I was impressed with his knowledge and debate skills. The more I hear from him, the less I like or respect him. It has become obvious that he is not interacting in good faith, but instead is relying on blustering arrogance and misdirection to avoid honestly engaging with other points of view.
@@corydittman4639 It is absolutely appropriate to point out when someone is acting in bad faith or behaving dishonestly, yes, regardless of whether that person claims to be a Christian or not. If you listen to much of what Dr. Flowers puts out, you will see that he never claims that White is not a brother in Christ. White's failure, over and over, to address the actual point of contention between the two perspectives only leaves open two possibilites: he either does not understand the argument or is deliberately pretending not to understand the argument. He is clearly not stupid, and the provisionist position is not very complicated, so it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he only addresses strawman arguments or misdirects to irrelevant questions of Greek grammar because it makes his position look stronger to those who aren't thinking about it as critically as they should. Pointing out this tactic is not the same as name calling and is entirely appropriate behavior for Christians who care about dealing with other Christians in honesty and integrity.
Nothing white hasn’t already done to countless true Christians that actually hold to true Biblical truth. However the Bible does say to expose tge deeds of darkness. So that’s why White is being exposed as a Gnosticism promoter. E5:11
@TKK0812 Agreed, For the calvinist reading this, there are much better scholars than James White from the reformed side, I would recommend Dr. Schreiner
As long as he can appeal to his own followers, he can feel more intelligent than others!! I have noticed that with such a closed mindset, you will not gain as much knowledge as listening and I feel that he is very condescending to people that are younger than he! MacArthur is also!! I am an older lady 52 and been a nurse for 32 years and all of my coworkers say they learn so much from me but I learn so much from them as well!! I enjoy hearing another perspective besides my own!
That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer but I have guesses. My first thought is that his books aren’t meant for academics and therefore not many academics read his books. In addition, very few scholars have any sizable audience enough for us to ever hear about their opinions. To be honest, his comments about the Greek are just short, quick comments and some times just in the footnotes where most don’t read. Of course, 99.9% of Calvinists see James White as the biggest scholar in the world so you’ll find a difficult time trying to find someone who would question him.
IMO, it shows who follows White and who does not. I mean, if you have a doctorate teaching at a school, why would you spend time listening to any of James Whites videos? You have other things you are working on...
Well Dr Abasciano has corrected him on the Greek of Acts 13:48, so there's that. Dr Al Garza has also responded to White's misuse of Greek on his channel too.
Leighton, after reviewing the debate and getting input from others would you consider making a video where you present the accumulated changes you would have made to your debate presentation? It could serve as a sort of capstone to the debate where you clarify and strengthen your position post debate.
My goodness, my worlds are colliding. I've watched Leighton for years now. And I knew Joel in Bible College. I can confirm, yes Joel was unequivocally a Calvinist.
Everyone, subscribe to Joel!!!!! I cannot emphasize how valuable it would be if we could support him to begin making regular content that addresses biblical languages and how the grammar does not support Calvinism. I came out of the a very calvinistic seminary unconvinced of Calvinism, largely due to Leighton’s help. Calvinists place heavy emphasis on the Greek and Hebrew and how it proves their position, but I am here to tell you the Joel’s of this world are highly needed to disprove their claims on their own turf. Thanks to you both for this video!
Don Stewart, one of the first pastors to come out of the Jesus/Calvary movement, when to seminary before there were any such Calvary institutions. He talked about going to Greek class and learning how to systematically break down the language, and then going to theology class and being told to break all the rules he had just learned about Greek to justify the system tied to the denominational institution.
Dr. Joel thank you for having this conversation with Leighton. I agree with him, it would be great if you start producing the material that so many people out there who are stuck in Calvinism need to hear and trust to come out.
Thank you for being a champion for our first LOVE!!! The one who loves our souls! “Behold I stand at the door and knock, if ANY MAN hear my voice and opens the door.”
This was a great show. A truly uplifting conversation. It was inspirational to hear his testimony out of reformed theology. I find our God is truly merciful to grant us mercy after we spend years maligning and distorting His nature and character. What a merciful compassionate God we serve. Whether we are deliberate or ignorant, deceived or intentional, God is always willing to rejoice over one sinner who repents of living in darkness. I believe it is just as incredible to witness a religious man come out of false teachings as it is for a man to get saved. I don't know which thing is more rare.
At one hour 23 minutes you figured it out exactly. You don’t have the tools at your disposal at a debate to refute white’s claims regarding Greek grammar. That’s exactly why he uses this technique at the debate. His cover is completely blown now.
The Horn debate showed the BS he is willing to go to completely inventing an entirely new Greek interpretation of Hebrews 10. He completely derailed himself when trying to cartwheel and flip his way outta that. Horn was up to it though and like a proper top tier lawyer reacted perfectly to reveal to the lay person just how ridiculous his position was from a scholarly perspective!
@@omnitheus5442 White didn’t invent an ‘entirely new’ Greek interpretation. John Gill (one of the most eminent scholars in his time) gave the possibility of this interpretation in the 1700’s ‘or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish. This clause, "wherewith he was sanctified", is left out in the Alexandrian copy’ Some research before baseless accusations?
For all the Greek that James claims to know, LITERALLY NONE of the Greek church fathers agree with him. They would have actually declared him Anathema! He has to go to Augustine (who only read the Latin, and didn't know Greek) as his reference. At our Greek Orthodox church the past week, the priest's sermon was on our Free Will and how God will respect our decision to turn away if we so choose. But will wholly embrace us if we choose to come to Him. A refresher from the "bible/baptist" churches nearby which now have femmale pastors or are becoming Calvinist. God bless your wonderful ministry!
Ephesians 1:5 NKJV [5] having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, Predestined us ->> TO ->> adoption as sons = Predestined us ->> TO ->> justification I was predestined to justification ->> ACCORDING to the good pleasure of HIS WILL(not my own will).
@johndisalvo6283 Belief and justification happen simultaneously. We are predestined ->>>>>>>> TOOOOOOOOO justification. We become adopted as sons the moment we believe.
@jayrodriguez84 Salvation is not adoption. Adoption is the result of salvation. Those who have been saved are predestined to adoption. Same with justification. You're changing the definition of words to mean salvation. They don't....
@@johndisalvo6283 I love how Romans 8 29:39 tells us we are predestined TO be conformed to the image of His Son B E F O R E 1. We are called by the gospel 2. We believe the gospel. Love that Romans gives us the order of salvation.
I love this video I am learning so much… It is emocional hard, so for people that was never reformed, have compassion on the people going through that journey
Wonderful! I'd love to see much more with him. If it were my will, I would have you two just walk us through the entire New Testament, verse by verse, giving all your thoughts on it. Love seeing you two together. Great team!
I'm listening to this the whole time thinking yes, I can get this from English. Then some time roughly an hour and twenty minutes in they confirm its all well established in English. I find this often where people spend an hour talking about Greek only to conclude that it simply confirms what I'm reading in my King James Bible. My main point is to encourage other laymen. We don't need to be Greek scholars to understand the scriptures. Not saying it doesn't help but don't be discouraged because you lack a PHD.
James white accused those critiquing him of dismissing him as not a language scholar by saying he wrote an book 33 years ago on john 6 and the participle. So I just got the book. It’s pathetic and typical of Dr white on the Greek “Throughout this passage an important truth is presented that again might be missed in many English translations. When Jesus describes the one who comes to Him and who believes in Him,6 He uses the present tense to describe this coming, believing, or, in other passages, hearing or seeing.7 The present tense refers to a continuous, ongoing action. The Greek contrasts this kind of action against the aorist tense, which is a point action, a single action in time that is not ongoing. Many “believe” in Christ in this way in John’s Gospel, but they do not really believe because their faith is not ongoing, it is not alive. The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not truly and continually believe. The faith that saves is a living faith, a faith that always looks to Christ as Lord and Savior. Only God can give this kind of faith to a person. It is a work of Christ in the heart. Many in our world today want us to believe that we can accept Christ simply as a Savior from sin, but not as Lord of our lives. They teach essentially that a person can perform an act of believing on Christ once, and after this, they can fall away even into total unbelief and yet still supposedly be “saved.” Christ does not call men in this way. Christ does not save men in this way. The true Christian is the one continually coming, always believing in Christ. Real Christian faith is an ongoing faith, not a one-time act. If one wishes to be eternally satiated, one meal is not enough. If we wish to feast on the bread of heaven, we must do so all our lives. We will never hunger or thirst if we are always coming and always believing in Christ. He is our sufficiency. Christ is the bread from heaven. We must feed on all of Christ, not just the parts that we happen to like. Christ is not the Savior of anyone unless He is their Lord as well. The Lordship of Christ will be seen over and over again in the following verses. Seen, But Not Believed: John 6:36 Christ has proclaimed Himself the bread of life. His actions in feeding the five thousand the prior day should have communicated this to any who were spiritually sensitive, spiritually alert. But the sign did not bring faith. Jesus openly proclaims the truth about His Person but then goes on to say, “But I spoke to you because you have seen Me and yet have not believed.” Christ speaks plainly and openly to the people, for it is obvious that the sign alone did not communicate truth to the people. They have not believed on Christ even though they have seen His power. He provided to them bread in a miraculous fashion, yet He rejected their political, earthly aspirations. But they did not come to true faith in Him on the basis of having seen His miraculous events. It is interesting to note that in verse 40, after the roles of the Father and the Son in the Gospel have been clearly presented, Christ will speak of the one who “looks upon” the Son as the one who has eternal life.8 Here the people have seen Christ, but have not really looked on Christ. In both places, the operative factor is faith. Here, those who are not the Son’s do not believe, though they have seen. Their sight is not joined to real, living faith. But those who are given to the Son by the Father (6:37) look on Christ- not simply as a miracle worker or great teacher, but as the source of spiritual life, the Son of God Himself. They are the ones who have eternal life. Why do some see and yet not believe? Why do others see and believe? Are those who believe “better” than those who do not? What makes the difference? The Lord Jesus will answer that question in verse 37.” See how he asserts the present is continuous without mentioning other options for the present like the gnomic. See how he commits the abused aorist fallacy. See how he never mentions how to distinguish an adverbial participle from an adjectival or substantival? See how he doesn’t discuss aktionsart and verbal aspect. I started studying Greek in 2006. That’s nearly 20 years ago. This book written 33 years ago does not even account for what I learned by 2010. He repeats the same claims and has not updated his Greek evaluations.
TheLaymansSeminary..thanks for sharing the excerpt from JW's book written 30+ years ago. I read it 2x and can truly say I find no fault with his 'Lordship' over mere hearing or believing, emphasis. I guess even a broken clock is right 2 times per day....
Faith has a trust aspect. So, I think it is true that a Christian needs to be continually trusting in Jesus. There’s more to it than just belief in; it’s also trust in Jesus, His sacrifice and His victory overt sin and death.
True academics are typically very modest with their claims and approach as Joel is here. James, who isn't a scholar in any sense, doesn’t understand that.
@corydittman4639 He doesn't even have a Ph.D to be considered a scholar. I went to 2 Calvinist seminaries and we never engaged any of his works...because they didn't contribute anything of note.
Unambiguous evidence that James White is *wrong* about the word "belief" (πιστεύω) meaning "false belief" when it's in the aorist tense in the book of John. Below is every instance of the word "belief"(πιστεύω) in the aorist tense in John with a quick analysis of whether the belief is true belief or not: John 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. - Clearly true belief - John 2:11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. - Probably true belief - John 2:22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. - Probably true belief - John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. - Probably true belief - John 4:39 Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.” - Clearly true belief - John 4:41 And many more believed because of his word. - Clearly true belief - John 4:48 So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” - Clearly true belief because the text makes no sense for Jesus to want false faith John 4:50 Jesus said to him, “Go; your son will live.” The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went on his way. - Probably true belief - John 4:53 The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” And he himself believed, and all his household. - Clearly true belief - John 5:44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? - Clearly true belief - John 6:30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? - Clearly true belief - John 7:31 Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?” - Unclear without diving deeper into the passage - John 7:39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. - Clearly true belief - John 7:48 Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? - Clearly true belief - John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” - Clearly true belief - John 8:30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him. - Unclear without diving deeper into the passage - John 9:18 The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight - Clearly true belief - John 9:36 He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” - Clearly true belief - John 10:42 And many believed in him there. - Unclear without diving deeper into the passage - John 11:15 and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” - Clearly true belief - John 11:40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” - Clearly true belief - John 11:42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” - Clearly true belief - John 11:45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, - Unclear without diving deeper into the passage - John 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” - Clearly true belief - John 12:42 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; - Clearly true belief - John 13:19 I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. - Clearly true belief - John 14:29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe. - Clearly true belief - John 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. - Unclear without diving deeper into the passage - John 19:35 He who saw it has borne witness-his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth-that you also may believe. - Clearly true belief - John 20:8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; - Clearly true belief - John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed(Present) because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed(Aorist).” - Clearly true belief - John 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. - Clearly true belief - Note: One can nitpick here or there about instances but it's abundantly clear that most of these are regarding true sustaining belief. It’s worth adding that not only is there obvious cases where it is wrong for the aorist participle to signify false belief(John 6:45 with hears/ἀκούσας and learns/μαθὼν) but there is only two times in all of John(John 7:39 & John 20:29) where the Greek word for “belief”(πιστεύω) is used in the aorist participle form so there’s no way that one could ever come to an accurate use of a special way Paul uses the aorist tense to refer to false faith. In addition, the two instances refer to true faith anyways so the only instances we have go directly against White’s claim. White mentions how synonyms like “gazing” are used to signify true belief but there’s no way to establish a special meaning based off of this word in the aorist because the word isn’t used as an aorist participle in John. The word for "come"(ἔρχομαι, like "come to the Father") also is never used in the aorist participle form within John when used to refer to believing. The word for "draws" (ἑλκύω) in the aorist participle form is never used in John. The word for "learns"(μαθὼν) is used once in the aorist participle form and it's John 6:45 and obviously referring to true belief (if anything). The word for "hears"(ἀκούσας) in the aorist participle form is clearly not being used this way in John 6:45 as mentioned above. I honestly don't understand how White would ever come to take such a conclusion.
Spot on!!! James White's entire schtick defeated by a smart phone--and someone smart enough to use it correctly. Kudos to you, sir! D.A. Carson, in addition to his commentary on John, has written an excellent book titled "Exegetical Fallacies". If someone could persuade him simply to watch the debate, I think it would be enough to inspire him to rewrite his chapters on Grammatical Fallacies and Logical Fallacies, using James White as his primary source of examples 😆
James white was trying so hard to disprove the fact that there is a distinction in the drawing and the beilever , when Dr Flowers pointed out the hearing and the learning which is the responsibility of the individual, Mr White was like no no no that can’t be because God is the one that draws , and the believer just follows not because they listen and learn but because God saids so. Wake up folks
I would really like to know how the word “faith” can be used in the context of Calvinism at all. If grace is irresistible and something that you are determined to receive or give in to, how can that even be “faith” in any way? Doesn’t the word and meaning of faith itself express a choice of belief? How can you even use faith when you have no choice? I really don’t know how that can even work at all. Do you have faith without choice? Do you have faith within determinism?
Excellent video by both Dr. Korytko and Dr. Flowers. 👍I appreciate hearing the critique, and I am grateful both of these brothers are pursuing the truth in God's Word.
These long videos would be helpful with some chapter breaks to let us skip a bunch of junk at the beginning. I don't need to hear his qualifications or defense of how much of John 6 he has read. Let me hear him exegete the text and then I can look into his record afterwards.
According to White I guess Joe and Leighton should just shut off White's response. Cause he did the same thing as the reason why he shut off Joe's response.
I’ve started looking into a Greek concordance when I come across a passage that is tricky to navigate. It shows the Greek word, and you can look up everywhere else that word is used and HOW it is used. It’s a major reason why I reject Calvinism. Thank you for this broadcast!
I like doing the same to get a feel for the words used, but beware of doing more than that. You cannot understand a language without thoroughly learning it, grammar and syntax. I qualified in and worked translating German to English, and one of our lecturers once said 'you cannot find the meaning of words by looking them up in a dictionary'. You have to know the grammar and context as well.
It takes a while to get rid of all the brainwashing caused by this heresy, it took me some years after seminary and my wife still believes God creates people to suffer eternally in hell.
I don't see how Provisionism works against God clearly determining future happenings ahead of time. Surely if things are freely happening according to human choices then we don't know where things will go?
It's really starting to look like James White does not really have a basis for his Calvinism. The Greek doesn't support him because he doesn't even really understand the Greek. It's all just a defense mechanism for White to keep his warped Calvinism.
@@corydittman4639 James White knows better at this point. He's fully aware he's turning God into an absolute moral monster and doesn't even care. Instead of concerning yourself with me, maybe you should be more concerned with what Calvinists do on a regular basis, like I mentioned.
I've been trying to find the nicest way to say what I think about James White at this point but this is the best I can come up with: The more and more I listen to White the less and less I find myself able to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm only left with two options as to what kind of person he is and neither of them are very nice to say but that's just how it is. 🤷
James, please humble yourself and admit that you are wrong about this topic. You CAN choose to follow Christ. Like everyone else on the planet you are invited, will you accept? The God of the Bible is not a monster that creates certain people for the express purpose of sending them to hell. Jesus died for the sins of the world and All who call upon Him shall be saved. James, will you willingly call upon Him so that you too can know that you are saved?
I was just discussing Romans 1 and then got to the 1:20ish mark when James is saying only the elects are made to be taught by God. His logic is completely opposite to how he would try to worm his way through Romans 1 that tells us that God has made Himself known to all men (which would only be the elect according to his logic here), and man rejects/exchanges (which certainly can’t be the elect), then BECOME useless instead of being born that way, and are given over. Listening to a Calvinist is like listening to Vecini in the iocaine Powder scene from Princes Bride.
I also find that James White ends up arguing his Christian opponent’s case before the debate is over!! He did this with you and Jason!! He ends up talking in a circle and bringing your points out even more!!! I watched him while you were bringing out your point and he looked like it was points that he never heard!! He never heard because he never listens!!
What I also noticed about the aorist argument is that James White is assuming perseverance of the saints, hence why he says that those who did believe but stopped, don't have saving faith. It's fine that he doesn't believe that a Christian can't truly walk away from their faith, but he isn't getting that interpretation from his grammatical arguments. He isn't even getting that from John 6. He assumes it. I don't know if Leighton Flowers believes in Once Saved Always Saved, but the point is that topic is still an ongoing in-house debate that has nothing to do with John 6. James White should have conceded that and not have been dogmatic on it.
The fundamental point of argument is over how the word helko is used. According to Thayer's Lexicon, draw is used in the sense if moral or spiritual appeal, which is contrasted with other textual applications referencing inanimate objects like drawing water from a well or drawing one's sword. I'm disappointed that this point wasn't given to Dr. White in the debate.
The question is...would James humble himself to come out of Calvinism? Would he give up his Calvinist ministry for something else? Would he redact his books written? There are like Joel said, many things to consider when coming out of Calvinism.
John 6:44-45 (just like my birthday party) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. No man can come to my birthday party except I invite him: and we'll have a good time. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. As expected, I will invite all my friends. Every man that gets my invitation and likes the idea will come to my party. So simple. No elected party attendees before the foundation of the world. No man will irresistably come if he didn't want to. None of that. The English is just fine.
Ah but in God's birthday party God says that if I be lifted up I will draw ALL unto Myself. The Father's perfect desire is that All would come to knowledge of the or He invites everyone to His party because He not willing that any should perish 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9. You and everyone is invited it's up to you to come to the party empty handed buying things for free. Lol
The analogy is conflating the word "invite" with "draw". The words that Jesus uses to describe what the Father is doing is giving (v.37), granting (v.65) and drawing (v.44). Take note that to give, to grant and to draw are the sole prerogative of the Father. The Father has to initiate these things, otherwise _no one_ will come to the Son. Therefore, given what Jesus says, that nobody is able to come to him unless the Father gives/grants/draws, then your analogy would be more accurate if you said "nobody can come to my birthday party, unless I unlock the front door; and we'll have a good time". Everyone is invited, but only those who you unlock the door for will be allowed in.
@@Hez0 well you have a point but the door is not only unlocked but the veil was torn from top to bottom so everyone can go in freely. Nothing stops anyone from Christ anymore. The Father draws all men equally for 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 and there's no partiality with God Romans 2;11.
I was looking forward to this but a bit disappointed because it looks like Joel and James are talking past each other. James is trying to make a point based on usage: “the one believing”, aorist vs present, as used by John in his gospel. Joel rightly pointed out that usage and an author’s preference is key rather than dogged rules, but oddly failed to see that was James’ point! James wants to say that John uses “the one believing” in a very particular way. It really seemed as though Joel thought James’ argument was, “aorist tense means false in John’s gospel”. The comments around minutes 33-36 really surprised me.
If anyone hasn't watched NT Wright and James White's discussion of Paul and Justification on "Unbelievable", please do. White's arrogance is on full display, and only because of Wright's graciousness was he not obliterated.
@@eiontactics9056 fascinating idea. I don't know that that's correct, but it's intriguing. The problem is that we have a lot of tares among the wheat. I have a cousin who has been an Elder in a huge nondenominational church. He's a sociopath, but apparently, that church - an extremely wealthy one - can't detect it, though there is information online about him! He can sling the Godtalk with the best of them, but it would be hard to imagine a more dishonest man.
@@bobtaylor170 It's true! Look for the video by Beyond the Fundamentals titled "Calvinism and Narcissism Link Examined | Doug Gustafson". Interesting stuff.
D.A. Carson, in addition to his commentary on John, has written an excellent book titled "Exegetical Fallacies". If someone could persuade him simply to watch the debate, I think it would be enough to inspire him to rewrite his chapters on Grammatical Fallacies and Logical Fallacies, using James White as his primary source of examples 😆
The Father gave His children (those who knew God before Christ came). This in itself is so beautiful Especially when you read Hebrews 1 and seeing The Lord Jesus in His Full Glory
When I was leaning towards Calvinism about 10 years ago, James White and Jeff Durbin were the 2 major factors leading me that way. Now a decade later it’s amazing how the attitudes between the reformed and non reformed are wildly different. I grew up a Jehovah’s Witness (I’m Christian now) and I see similarities in approach with Dr. White and Jeff. It’s always “well they don’t understand “ and “they are not putting God in His proper place” and they’re demeaning towards anyone that opposes their views. It seems that those with the beliefs that you have to read into the scriptures are always the ones to bite when you try to speak and cry foul when you respond. Great stuff Dr. Flowers, keep combating the anger with love.
Moronic statements: I've never heard of him. (In other words his opinion is not valid because he's not a scholar that I've heard of and I'm trying to point that out to undermine his credibility) The implication that clearly you're not a theologian, which I find self-evident despite your admission of not being a theologian, expressly because you are not a Calvinist. Because only Calvinists can be theologians. Calvinists are the best theologians because they are Calvinist. Minions. Not only is flowers incapable, but so is everyone in his cohort. And that's in approximately 1 minute of him talking.
If this video is correct, when will JW make an apology for his slip shod use of the Greek? Pretty much the same thing for Dr Korytko JW, he hadn't heard about you. We still come back to one point; Calvinism cannot go back beyond Agustine. JW has a case of heartburn with LF because he cannot get LF to move off his base and agree with him
Good discussion. In *John 6:36-45,* Lord Jesus surely does give a reason why God chooses to give a certain people to the Son. *A question to consider is:* Who are the *"all"* whom the Father *gives* to the Son, and who will, therefore, *come* to the Son, whom the Son will not cast out? Lord Jesus explains as follows: *John 6:38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. *Question:* What is the will of the Father that Lord Jesus came down from heaven to fulfill? In "verse 39," Lord Jesus is now gives that reason: *"John 6 verse 39 states:"* This now is *the will* of my Father who sent me, that of all he has *given to me* I should lose nothing, but should raise him up at the last day. *A question to consider is:* Who are the *"all"* whom God *gives* to the Son? Does Lord Jesus tell us? *John 6:40* *{{{For}}}* this is the will of the one who sent me, that everyone *who sees* the Son, *and believes* in him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” *Verse 40* starts with the word *"For,"* which in Greek is *"gar"* and is a conjunction that shows us that what follows is the *reason why* for what was previously stated. *Question:* So, according to the context, who are the *"all"* whom the Father gives to the Son, and who will *come* to the Son, and whom the Son will not cast out, but will raise on the last day, giving them eternal life? Lord Jesus clearly gives us the *reason why* in verse 40: *"that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him."* - These are the ones the Father gives to the Son. That is God's Will. *"John 6:44 states:"* No one *is able* to *come* to me unless the Father who sent me *draws* him, and I will raise him up in the last day. *Question:* How does the Father *draw* people so that they are *able to* come to the Son? Lord Jesus explains this in *verse 45...* *John 6:45 (WEB)* It is written in the prophets, ‘They will all be *taught by* God.’ Therefore everyone who has *heard* (active verb) from the Father and has *learned* (active verb) comes to me. *According to John 6:45,* the *drawing* of God is *{{{his teaching,}}}* which is the *Gospel Word* of God accompanied *by the Spirit* about Lord Jesus according to the entire New Testament. The words, *"heard"* and *"learned"* are *active past tense* verbs, showing us that the hearing and learning are *not passive* on the part of those being taught; rather, they are the ones who actively listen. *So, the question I ask you is:* Are all those whom the Father *draws* by *His teaching* guaranteed to actively *hear* and *learn* from the Father? Not according to the Scriptures. *Isaiah 30:9 states:* For this is a rebellious people, false sons, sons who *"refuse to listen"* to the *"instruction of the Lord."* *Jeremiah 32:33 states:* They have turned their back to Me and not their face; though *"I taught them,"* teaching again and again, they would *not "listen"* and *"receive instruction."* *“John 6:45”* is explaining *“John 6:44.”* The context itself states that God draws to His Son those who have *listened* and *learned* from Him - his teaching. *Many refuse* the drawing by God's *Spirit (Acts 7:51-53)* and *Word (Matthew 22:3),* forfeiting salvation *(John 5:40)* out of pride and arrogance *(Romans 10:21).* Those who *listened* and *believed* are the humble sinners: *Psalms 25:8-9.* The *drawing* of the Gospel Word and the Spirit results in coming to Lord Jesus to be saved to those who do not resist *(Psalms 34:18; Luke 4:18-19; Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 18:9-14).*
The problem with your interpretation is that Jesus doesn't only use the word "draw" to describe what the Father is doing. He uses the word "give" (in regards to giving these people to the Son) in verse 37, and he uses the word "grant" in verse 65. For you to be consistent, you would have to translate these additional two words also as "teaching". The other problem with your presentation is that it ignores the greater context of the text. The people in John 6 were taught by God! God Himself was with them, face to face, in Jesus Christ! The whole reason why they followed Him was because they saw Him raise the dead (John 6:2). They witnessed Him miraculously feed 5000 men! This miracle was compelling enough that they declared Him to be the messiah (John 5:14). They crossed the sea to seek Him, that's how much they were coming to Him (John 6:25)! Then what happens? Jesus declares that despite being taught of God (for Jesus is God, and the Son has always been the one communicating the Father, see John 6:46), they do not believe. Then Jesus explains why they do not believe, despite being taught. The spiritual reality is that no one is able to come to the Son, unless the Father _grants_ it (v.65); unless the Father _gives_ those people to the Son (v.37); unless the Father _draws_ him (v.44). All of this, which is prerequisite for saving faith, are the work of the Father.
@@Hez0 All of the context was given, and explained in detail. Regarding John 6:65, let us look at the context of that as well, and pay close attention to the following words: *For this cause* in verse 64. *John 6:64-65* (WEB) 64 But there are some of you who *don’t believe.* For Jesus *knew* from the beginning who they were who *didn’t believe,* and who it was *who would betray him.* 65 He said, *{{{For this cause}}}* _[the reason just given in verse 64 - cause and effect]_ I have said to you that no one can *come* to me, unless it is *given* to him by my Father.” *In reply,* In *verse 64,* Lord Jesus does not say Lord Jesus *knew* those whom the Father didn’t *give faith* to, or that he knew the one whom the Father *formed* to betray him; rather, Lord Jesus’ “foreknowledge” is that he *“knew”* from the beginning who they were. God places the responsibility to believe or refusing to believe on each individual, although God foreknew who they were, and God can use even sinners to bring about his plans. Then, in *verse 65,* Lord Jesus says that *“For this cause,”* which is the *"cause"* Lord Jesus just got done describing in *verse 64.* What did Lord Jesus describe in *"verse 64"* that was the *cause* _[For this cause]_ of God's action of *"giving"* to Lord Jesus? What is the *cause* that resulted in God not *giving* those to the Son in *verse 64?* *The answer is:* _John 6:64 But there are some of you who _*_don’t believe._*_ For Jesus _*_knew_*_ from the beginning who they were who _*_didn’t believe,_*_ and who it was _*_who would betray_*_ him._ *Cause and Effect* The *cause* always comes before the *effect.* The *cause* for which God did not *grant* them to come to the Son was because *they did not believe.* God only *grants* to come to the Son to have life to those *who believe* in him. God does not grant unbelievers to come to the Son and have life. That is God's will: See again *John 6:40,* which plainly states: *_that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him._* Now let us address *John 6:66-71.* *John 6:66-71* (WEB) 66 At this, many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Jesus said therefore to the twelve, “You don’t also want to go away, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 *We have come to believe* and *know* that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 Now he spoke of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, for it was he who would betray him, being one of the twelve. *In reply:* Whom did God choose? And whom did Lord Jesus know would betray him, according to the context? Was it not in the foreknowledge of Lord Jesus to know who would not believe or believe in him? And was it not in the foreknowledge of Lord Jesus to know Judas’ heart, that he was a pawn of the devil? I have given you the actual context of “John 6:32-71;” and there exist no teaching in those verses, or in all of *John 6* that God elected to *give faith* to anyone so they can believe by an act of regeneration. *In fact,* no spiritually dead person can have spiritual life except by first believing - he who believes: *John 5:24* (WEB) 24 “Most certainly I tell you, he who hears my word *and believes* him who sent me *has eternal life,* and doesn’t come into judgment, but has *passed out of death into life.*
@@steventhompson8130 Regarding John 6:64-65: Firstly, I believe that the sinner is responsible for his unbelief. Therefore, you are attacking a straw-man by assuming I don't believe that. Secondly, regarding the "for this cause" aspect of those two verses, Jesus is merely saying in those verses that because of their unbelief, He therefore tells them _why_ they don't believe: which is that no one can come to the Father unless granted by Him. Regarding the "Cause and Effect" section, you say the following: _"God only grants to come to the Son to have life to those who believe in him."_ But the only ones who believe in Him are the ones who are _granted_ to believe by the Father. It seems that you've put yourself into an infinite loop, as follows: "Only those who are drawn believe (Jesus' teaching); but only those who believe are drawn (your assertion); yet in order to believe, you must be drawn (Jesus' teaching); but only those who believe are drawn (your assertion)...", etc. _That is God's will: See again John 6:40, which plainly states: that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him._ Verse 40 should be seen in the light of the immediate context. Verse 39 says "that I should lose nothing of *all that he has given me,"* Verse 38 says that Jesus is doing the _Father's_ will. Verse 37 says *"All that the Father gives me* will come to me," Only those who are given to the Son (v.37, v.39), or are granted to believe (v.65), or are drawn by the Father (v.44) result in someone coming to Christ. Therefore, the "everyone who looks on the Son" in verse 40 are those who have been given, granted and drawn by the Father. _Now let us address John 6:66-71._ Those verses were not brought up by me, and you don't appear to present a point of difference for me to address regarding these verses.
@@Hez0 *You write:* _Regarding John 6:64-65: Firstly, I believe that the sinner is responsible for his unbelief. Therefore, you are attacking a straw-man by assuming I don't believe that._ *My RE:* I assumed nothing, and in no way attacked a straw-man. All I did was explain *John 6:64-65,* covering all bases. No need to be paranoid. *You write:* _Secondly, regarding the "for this cause" aspect of those two verses, Jesus is merely saying in those verses that because of their unbelief, He therefore tells them why they don't believe: which is that no one can come to the Father unless granted by Him._ *My RE:* No, that is not how communication works. There is no reason given for *why* they don't believe in "John 6:64-45." Rather, Lord Jesus plainly states that because they don't believe _(for this cause)_ is why he said to them _'that no one can come to him, unless it is _*_given_*_ to him by his Father.'_ That is objective reading. *John 6:64-65* (WEB) 64 *But there are some of you who don’t believe.* For Jesus *knew* from the beginning who they were who *didn’t believe,* and who it was *who would betray him.* 65 He said, *{{{For this cause}}}* _[the reason just given in verse 64 - cause and effect]_ I have said to you that no one can *come* to me, unless it is *given* to him by my Father.” *You write:* _Regarding the "Cause and Effect" section, you say the following:_ "God only grants to come to the Son to have life to those who believe in him." _But the only ones who believe in Him are the ones who are granted to believe by the Father._ *My RE:* That is your belief; in that, God grants to a select number of people, as a gift, faith to be saved. However, that is nowhere found in the immediate context, nor is such a teaching found anywhere in the Bible. You are reading your belief into the text. If you are going to use *"Philippians 1:29"* as your proof-text, as so many Reformists and Calvinists do, then you are in error. *Philippians 1:29* (WEB) 29 Because *it has been granted* _[5483 echaristhē: verb orist indicative _*_passive_*_ 3rd person singular]_ *to you* [4771 hymin: personal possessive pronoun, dative 2nd person plural] on behalf of Christ, not only *to believe* in him, but also *to suffer* on his behalf God is not giving [1435 dṓron] you faith and suffering as a gift; rather, *it has been* graciously bestowed [5483 echaristhē] *to you* personally not only to believe in His Son, but also to suffer for him as well. The people themselves *[to you]* are being granted the gracious privilege to believe and suffer for their Lord. So, although (through the Gospel) *all* are granted to *believe* in Christ and to *suffer* for him, many will refuse the gracious initiation, and not everyone who believes will remain in the faith. Even so, it was granted *to you* to believe and suffer for Christ just the same. *The Passage states:* "It has been granted [passive, 3rd person] *to you* to believe and to suffer for Christ's sake." *The Passage does not state:* God is *giving* [1435 dṓron] *you* faith and suffering as a gift for Christ's sake. We are not only freely granted the gracious opportunity to believe in Jesus, but also to suffer for His sake, so that we may also share in His glory. God grants *to you* to believe in and suffer for His Son, but it is still up to you to believe, of which was freely granted to you to do. *You write:* _It seems that you've put yourself into an infinite loop, as follows:_ _"Only those who are drawn believe (Jesus' teaching); but only those who believe are drawn (your assertion); yet in order to believe, you must be drawn (Jesus' teaching); but only those who believe are drawn (your assertion)...", etc._ *My RE:* No infinite loop is possible if you read the context. The drawing of the Father is for *all,* but the *everyone* who are the ones actually drawn are those who *listen to* and *learn* from the Father. They *all* heard the Gospel message *(Romans 10:17-18),* but they refused to listen and learn; and so, they are not drawn. *For instance,* salvation is offered to all through the Gospel, but not everyone hearing the Gospel are saved because they refuse to believe. Likewise, redemption by the blood of Christ purchased is for all, but the only ones redeemed are those who believe *(John 3:16).* *You write:* _Verse 40 should be seen in the light of the immediate context._ _Verse 39 says "that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me,"_ _Verse 38 says that Jesus is doing the Father's will._ _Verse 37 says "All that the Father gives me will come to me,"_ *My RE:* you are reading backwards, and you are omitting the word *For* so you can twist what Christ actually stated to fit your doctrine. Just read it the way Lord Jesus intended, including *"For."* Be objective, because you do not want to misrepresent Lord Jesus or His Words.
I love these discussions and I did watch the debate - thank you for posting. Here is my situation - I know nothing about Greek nor anything about Calvin and Calvinism. What I DO know is as follows: My Sovereign Creator God decided to create me, and did so nearly 83 years ago. God did not ask me if I wanted to be created (im happy I didn't have a choice), instead He did exactly what only a Sovereign Creator would and could do, He created me. After birth, He saved me Sovereignly by mercifully and graciously giving me His Faith to believe in His sacrifice for my sins, and giving me the promise of Eternal life when His appointed time for me to leave here, is reached - absence from this body is to be present with the Lord. Does anyone doubt that the Creator has no earthly rules that He has to follow, and that He has, can, and will chose for Salvation, whomever He wills, on ANY basis known only to Him, in the vastness of His universe? Speculating about the whys and hows of Creator God's methodologies, is pointless in my view, because of our finite inability to understand compared to His infinite, unfathomable Sovereignty beyond our understanding. I guess spiritual discussions like this are more profitable and wholesome, than Sports or other secular topics, but let God be God. Amen!
@lbamusic Your submissions sound good sir; however, we have to go with what the text says. The text allows God to be God. We can't tell others to allow God to be God outside of the text. Shalom!
@@Hez0 No, rather the original commenter, by his stated position, implies determinism when he responds to the video above by saying, "Let God be God" This is often the response of reformers when pressed on the meaning of the text. They somewhat infer that since God is all powerful, he can chose whomsoever he wishes to save from before the foundation of the world and then they read that into the text. However, when a scholar such as the fellow in the video above comes out to say that the text does not preach determinism, they still respond with, "Let God be God" It's for the reason above that I wrote what I wrote. I may be wrong about the original commenter though. If that's the case, I will not hesitate to apologise.
@@Godssboy I'm still not following. I'm not seeing anything egregious from what the original commenter said. The Father decreeing what He wills is not determinism, so I'm also not understanding that aspect of your comment. Could you please show me from John 6 f(since that is the topic surrounding the video), that the commenter is incorrect?
@@Hez0 Friend, I hope you are being sincere and not pulling my legs because that would not be in the spirit of this discussion. First, I never claimed the original commenter said anything egregious. I said his comments sounded good, but in the Spirit of the video, there was nothing the gentlemen said that should have warranted the common calvinistic response of, "Let God be God." I do not see a basis for that response. Also, I said, in my initial response to you, that if the original commenter were to respond that I misunderstood him, I will gladly apologise. Now regarding John 6:44-45, the Greek scholar in the video claimed that James White's translation and, subsequently his interpretation, of the Greek tense of the hearing and learning from the Father was erroneous and as such, the passage doesn't affirm determinism as some are inclined to believe. I did not say that God isn't sovereign and that he hasn't determined anything at all. All I insinuated in my original comment was that the purpose of the video was to show that JW's translation of the text was erroneous and pple should not respond to textual critique by stating, "Let God be God" as though it is not God that inspired the text itself. In a nutshell, I didn't see a basis for the original comment I responded to if it means what I think it means. I sincerely hope that I am clear.
This is really neat thinking on "who is your Father?". Thank you for this discussion of father in the book of John. Tell me where to read more on this!!!!!
The fundamental point of John is the deity of Jesus, which was being attacked by Gnostics heavily already in John’s day. It makes perfect sense that he has a continuing pattern that the belief in the Son and not be separated from belief in the Father.
That was really interesting, thank you! About John 6:44-45 No one can understand the passage unless thinking biblically. Everyone who has heard and learned will understand. He will be greatly rewarded and their understanding will increase. It is written in the curriculum. In the big picture John uses this type of chiastic structuring all throughout his gospel and I see no reason why it couldn't be the case in micro also. So.. No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father will come to Me. And I will raise him up on the last day. And they shall all be taught of God. It is written in the prophets.
I would love to read from the scholar that Dr. Joel quoted about the Father-Son relationship. But I have 0 idea of how to write the name, in order to look for him hehe
10:01 flowers is the most unpretentious person w/ in the entire debating sphere 18:01 theology/biblical studies 1:39:01 excellent breakdowns 1:45:01 powerful testimony 2:05:35 cognitive frames; exmp being "cancelled" 2:08:20 matt bates allegiance book
Dr. Joel, at 1:12:00 and prior is urging Flowers to abandon his historical narrative perspective of the 1st century Jews coming to the Son from the Father as an historically unique scenario, for a broader theological emphasis (true for all time) of John’s emphasis that the Father and the Son are united (you don’t get one without the other). However, while the second is surely true, it is actually John 6 (along with John 17) that establishes this reality. (John 17 from an eternal perspective, and John 6 revealing how this happened in time.) So, I disagree with Joel’s assertion that the theological argument is a stronger one (and his recommendation then to drop the historical narrative). Rather, both are true, and two witnesses are always better than one. Putting them together: In time (as revealed in John 6), those who have belonged to the Father (I.e. what Acts calls God-fearing Jews) will be drawn to the Son and none will be lost in this transition (from the fold of God’s kingdom to the sheepfold of those who are now “in Christ”). This should be encouragement to know that those living in the time of transition will not fall thru cracks and be lost! Meanwhile, the theological point is also true, that as to hear Moses is to hear from God; even moreso to hear from the Son is to hear the same voice as the Father. So anyone coming to the Father also gets the Son (and the critically important textually relevant converse: those who reject the Son have proved to reject the Father!) Combined, this is a profoundly strong two-fer for Calvinists to reckon with. (And also highlights White’s silliness in trying to put coming to the Father and Son in different lanes).
Even I, as a layman, get the feeling White doesn't understand how languages work. For example he reads, "All whom the Father gives me will come to me," and comes away with they all come BECAUSE they are given. He thinks the "being given" RESULTS in coming to Jesus. You have to be incredibly ignorant to think that. If I'm assigning you a group of people to teach and I say, "All the students I'm giving you will need help with reading" that doesn't mean their needing help with reading is the result of me giving them to you. It could simply be that I'm setting aside people who need help with reading to give to you. This is basic reading comprehension and he doesn't get it.
I can't pick on him, mine is terrible. Although I just gave up entirely on Erasmian pronounciation and switched to modern Greek pronunciation, since it makes koine way easier to study for me. But even my modern Greek pronunciation is terrible --- so I'm not gonna cast stones. 😅
About Joel's testimony regarding Romans 9 - I had once mentioned to a Calvinistic small group leader/teacher that Romans 9 is specifically addressing Jews, and he responded "well, Christian Jews", thinking that dismissed my point, which caused me to pause briefly enough to where the moment was lost. I have some thoughts on what I would say to that now, but I wish that I had been ready to respond to it at the time! Just curious as to how some people here would respond to that rebuttal?
@@matthewsouthwell3500 Please understand (as I didn't clarify this very well to the small group leader with whom I originally had this conversation, and I think hence his response) that I'm not saying that Romans was written to Jews only, but that Romans 9 is specifically addressing the problem of Israel's unbelief. Yes, Paul mentions the Gentiles in verses 24-26 and 30 as he is revealing God's greater plan (and OT prophecy) in light of Israel's unbelief, but the overall context of this chapter (and chapter 10 and most of 11) is to answer the question "what about Israel?". Paul's audience knows that Israel by and large rejected Jesus, and the resounding question is "why/how did this happen?". Paul is explaining that it is because "not all Israel is Israel"; i.e. God's promise to Abraham was not to all of Abraham's children (by blood) but of the promise (through faithfulness). Paul clarifies this by pointing out Jacob and Esau, and that it has been part of God's sovereign choice from the beginning to bless some - not all - of Abraham's blood descendants to inherit the promise made to Abraham. To someone who had been a Jew and took pride in tracing their bloodline back to Abraham as an inheritor of the same promise, Paul's words would especially seem unfair. The interlocuter that Paul is portraying in verse 19 is that of an indignant Jew who is questioning how Israel could be blamed if God through his sovereign will is using Israel's unbelief in the same way that he used Pharoah's so as to "display his power" and so that "his name would be proclaimed in all the earth" (verse 17). Chapters 9, 10, and most of 11 are Paul's explanation of how things came to be with Israel's unbelief, as well as God's plan to bring Israel back into the fold: Rom 11:11: Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
This was enlightening to hear Joel’s nuanced perspective on John 6:45 that I had not considered before, and the fact that leighton conceded that he was right and that he needs to revise his book is funny. Not that the conclusions are wrong but some of the points were wrong
James is just so condescending. He illustrates no spiritual fruit in how he interacts with actual scholars. He has a fake Ph.D and consistently shows he is outmatched in conversations with people or interacting with videos of people who know what they are talking about (NT Wright, William Lane Craig, Ken Wilson, now Joel). Despite this...he treats these scholars like they are total morons. He mocks them over and over again. He brings reproach to the Name.
@@corydittman4639 Lots of false prophets build up large churches. That's not evidence of good theology and it's not what spritual fruit refers to. One cannot listen to White for any length of time and come away with the impression that he is exhibiting kindness, gentleness, patience, or humility.
@corydittman4639 He didn't debate any of those people I mentioned...he has had "conversations" where he attempts to assert his nonsense and then is proved to be outmatched by actual scholars, of which he is not.
@@mbritton837 i think he does! A lot of people talk about how osteen is all milk and no meat but if meat is going to lead to determinism and teaching that God determines all rapes, adultry and teaches that our God doesn’t love then some may need milk for the duration!! I will take milk with feeding tube before I choke on the meat of James White or Matt Slick or that other guy that said his wife could not even read a book before he read it because he was ahead of her!! God bless his wife!! Hope she doesn’t stay beat down!! I believe in submitting and honoring my husband but he honors me as well!!
Absolutely loved the last part of the broadcast! Joel's story is so cool. If you are interested in learning the contextual overview of: 1:53:48 Romans 9= Israel Elected Romans 10= Israel rejected Romans 11=Isreal Accepted Please visit either Duluth Bible Church Romans 9, 10 & 11 study or Andy Woods Romans 9-10 study! It is soooo fun to learn the dispensational program of Israel.
The hearer of the Gospel and Him who learns from the Father, which is God teaching him are the same. Heard and believed on the Son. We must believe that God raised Him from the grave so that we may be saved and that eternal life draws us to the Son.
I am (more or less) a Calvinist, and I would appreciate an explanation from Joel of John 6 from a non-Calvinist perspective. His points about the passage being about a commonality or continuity between the work of the Father and the work of the Son is one of the most reasonable alternative interpretations I've heard. But the passage is clearly about an ability to come to the Son (not just that those who would come to the Father would naturally also come to the Son). The passage seems clearly to be about "election" - that the only ones who will come to the Son are those given by the Father, and precisely these are the ones to be raised on the last day. The only reasonable question is what are the criteria of election - is it that God finds something in some people which he doesn't see in other people (which I think we'd have to call some kind of virtue), or is it that he sees their willingness to believe? When you take into account other passages - of being chosen before the foundation of the world, and where being chosen is for the sake of God's praise only and not because of something we did, to me it becomes clear that this is describing an election that is unconditional with regard to anything about ourselves.
If you'll read the entire chapter you can see those spoken of in vs 44 45 are the 12. No way around this because they were the only ones left after His, "drink My blood" statement. And at His arrest they were let go. John says this was to fulfill what He said (in ch 6) "..that of all the Father has given Me (the 12) I should lose none." Which is >contextually < the point of 6:44,45. Jesus was not laying out a universal mechanism for how men are drawn throughout the future, during the Age of Grace. Neither men understand this. Thus the debate was a pointless waste of everyone's time. Take care
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi If v.44 and 45 are only about the 12, then either you are a disciple, or you are not in the new covenant; for Jesus in verse 45 alludes to Jeremiah 31:31-34, which describes the new covenant. Here is Jer 31:31-34 described: Verse 31 says there will be a new covenant. Verse 32 says that unlike the old covenant, this one cannot be broken. Verse 33 says that God will make a people for himself by changing their hearts, making them able to respond to his law. Verse 34 says that these people will have their sins atoned for, and that they therefore will listen and know God. Therefore, Jer 31:31-34 is describing new testament Christians; people who have had their sins atoned for (v.34), who have had their hearts changed to respond to God (v.33), and who will remain believers (v.32). With the above in mind, does it not meld rather well with what Jesus has been saying throughout the whole chapter (as characterised by the original poster, as opposed to your view)? Otherwise, you would have to say that Jesus is describing the new covenant, which is only for the 12, and then after the cross there is a "new new covenant", which differs in name and substance, for it applies to all men, and people can fall away from the covenant, and the atonement applies not just to those coming to God, but also to those who have fallen away.
@Matthew-eu4ps Joel knows way more than I do, and perhaps your question has already been answered, Matthew. But let me offer my take on your questions, if I may. "What are the criteria of election - is it that God finds something in some people which he doesn't see in other people (which I think we'd have to call some kind of virtue), or is it that he sees their willingness to believe?" - A couple months ago, I discovered in a word search on Bible Gateway that "elect" shows up eighteen times in the ESV, including "election." And not one of these uses is a verb, but rather a descriptive noun. So then I sought to understand what "the elect" constituted. My question was no longer, "who is elected?" but "who is the elect?" Pertinent to this conversation, we read in Ephesians 1:4-6, "Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." I recommend you watch Dr. Flowers' 10-minute video on this chapter for a clear explanation. In agreement with Dr. Flowers, I assert "the elect" or "the chosen," who are the corporate Bride and Body of Christ (i.e. the Church), are predestined for adoption, blessing, an inheritance (v. 11), etc. That is, whoever enters the Body via repentance and faith "gets in Christ," who was chosen from before the foundation of the world to accomplish His plan, and joins the predestined outcome promised for the Church. So the Church is "the elect," and all who repent and believe become part of "the elect." Thus, the criteria for election is to "get in Christ." God has graciously extended the gift of the Gospel-the complete work of Christ in His perfect life, death, and resurrection. He has also made us responsible to receive Him and believe in His name (John 1:12). This implies we are able to respond to His drawing (wooing). This maintains "saved by grace through faith," as God has extended His grace and we receive His free gift through faith. So *election* is corporate and unconditional-the Body of Christ will indeed be raised to life on the last day (John 6:39). But the condition for our *salvation* is repentance and belief. Hence the call to repent and believe throughout the New Testament, and in fact in this chapter: "Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God [i.e. the action God requires], that you believe in him whom he has sent'" (John 6:29). We are called/drawn/wooed to believe in the Gospel, and those who believe will join the elect Bride of Christ.
Imagine believing yourself to be an expert, a scholar, a teacher of babes. To have written books (s) plural, to debate regularly, to come on TH-cam regularly to correct everyone who disagrees with you. Just to be PROVEN WRONG about everything you say by people who are true experts (unlike pretend experts). Then you would be James White.
I’m a lawyer, formally trained and over 30 years of experience in how to examine evidence and arguments used to sustain propositions, or ideas, as it were. I am not a trained philosopher, but as Mortimer Adler said, all men are philosophers to some degree. In discussions about Calvinism, James White doesn’t often use any sort of logical, disciplined argumentation that I’m familiar with. Instead, I see him using tactics like ridicule and ad hominem accusations. He also displays verbal, facial, and bodily expressions of contempt and disgust for his opponents, which can possibly indicate arrogance on his part, instead of confidence in the truth of his position. This makes me suspect his argument at the outset, because it seems that he’s painting his opponent as stupid, instead of addressing the validity of his opponent’s argument or of his own. In simple vernacular, you call this “bullying.” I have never given ground to bullies, and I’m not about start.
You pretty much nailed this guy.
@@jeffreybomba You know, most people I know have the same reaction and have no training. They just listen to him and say "he's sus." 😆
@@mannyedwards2820 He was utterly disgusting in their first debate. After waxing poetically about thorough exegesis before skipping through a much of Romans 8-9 in a matter of minutes. He then asked Leighton why he made no attempt to give a “thorough” exegesis, and did videos about it after.All the while, JW NEVER gave a remotely thorough exigisis. He is a con man!
@@jeffreybomba when I practiced law, I was almost unbeatable in court because of one simple thing. I never tried to fool the jury. They had confidence that I was telling them the plain simple truth, without any sort of debating trickery
@@mannyedwards2820 Now you are claiming to be an honest lawyer? I must now discount everything you just said🤣😂 You are a true unicorn!
The huge difference between these two men and James White is their character. These two are so humble, not attacking James, but dealing with truth. James is so disrespectful and demeaning at every turn; just arrogant. The fruit of each of their doctrine is evident
Very well said..I’ve said this many times over the past 6 years, JW was not so arrogant in the past (early years).
I get the impression that White's main presupposition is that he can never be mistaken, i.e. wrong.
If White is becoming more arrogant, maybe he is questioning his system. 🙏
@@lindararey8641 To the point that he would correct God. "Lord, if you don't determine the weight of each individual piece of stool you aren't really sovereign!"
I would expect nothing less from a Calvinist.
Thank you for the shout-out. I am glad Joel agrees with what I stated regarding the Greek and proper exegesis. I have always maintained that proper exegesis is needed, which White does not do and only appeals to his authority. Proper exegesis will NEVER lead to Calvinism.
I am no Calvinist and find it poisonous, but if proper exegesis never leads to Calvinism then are we to say Douglas Moo does not do proper exegesis?
I am not pointing fingers here but want to know because I struggle with the idea that the highest rated commentary on Romans is written by a 5-point Calvinist. Do we simply ignore his Calvinism and assume his exegetical conclusions were based on presuppositions that existed outside of exegetical foundations?
It is enough only to know that the deterministic views come after Augustine of Hippo who have been affected by gnosticism. It doesn't meter how many famous calvinists have written exegesis on Romans 9 trying to apply individual salvation in this chapter. It is not there.
In the commentary he concedes that there are other legitimate interpretations and that he has chosen his
@@barnabas857Can you give me a page number?
Edit: never mind i found it thabksy
@@nikolaykarchev7642 Yes, and Paul himself was from the school of Hillel and studied under Gamaliel, both of whom believed in and taught choice and free will. I wrote a paper about Paul's education, and it's on my Academia page.
Broadcasts like these are making me think that James White has been overselling his Greek expertise for a *looooong* time.
You can tell if someone knows a language by pronunciation, James sounds like an elementary student in both Greek and Hebrew. Goes to show how big of a joke most seminaries are that hire him out to teach the languages. I wonder if James learned Greek from the nonexistent "University" he graduated from.
Yeah... James White is either lying about his knowledge of the Greek language OR he knows the Greek perfectly fine and is misrepresenting it in order to make his false doctrine seem legit and that would make him a liar and a false teacher...
@@EgbertWarriorforChristJames white definitely knows Hebrew. Not sure about Greek
Tell me you're an idiot without telling me you're an idiot. @@eugene3484
He doesn't know how to pronounce 'oikonomia.'
I appreciate you Leighton for all the work you do and have done and you are very humble and that is the true Gospel that all of us must face!! Your work is not a loss!! So many that actually Hear the gospel from even the debates are coming out!! New people are coming out of that thought every day!! All they need is to hear the true Gospel!! The one that is love and is there for you!! Not just stating how terrible we all are!! Yes we all will fall short that is why we need a Savior!! Looking at a sweet child like my sweet grandchildren, they are not responsible for Adams sin!! God gives us the ability to humbly come to him!!
Yes God gives us!
Leighton is the furthest from humble. He doesn’t believe God is Sovereign
I deeply appreciate:
1. Your humble pursuit of Truth (Leighton & Joel)
2. Your willingness to share your thoughts and insights
Thank you! God bless you both!
Over the years I’ve come to expect that whenever James White starts digging into the Greek that you should definitely pay attention…because he’s probably he’s probably probably pulling the wool over the eyes of people like me who don’t read Greek, and twisting things to try to prove Calvinism 😂
To give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he truly believes everything he says, but he is too proud to consider the corrections that people challenge him with. It is for that reason that he will be held more accountable for his false teachings. When I was getting more into apologetics years ago I started listened to the dividing line, but fortunately I listened to some other people and learned about James’ bad reputation in many areas- both personally and theologically. Lord have mercy on us all and keep us humble and reachable.
Anyone that uses Greek and Hebrew to change what the English says plainly is a liar, there are no exceptions.
I appreciate Leighton’s humility and eagerness to learn despite the heckling from antagonists. The servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle, able to teach, patient. 👏
Props to Brother Leighton
Man, Joel is great. So balanced.
I've said it in jest a lot, but I think today it actually hit me as a reality. In the area of soteriology, I don't take James White seriously anymore.
When I first encountered White it was in debates with atheists, and I was impressed with his knowledge and debate skills. The more I hear from him, the less I like or respect him. It has become obvious that he is not interacting in good faith, but instead is relying on blustering arrogance and misdirection to avoid honestly engaging with other points of view.
@@corydittman4639 It is absolutely appropriate to point out when someone is acting in bad faith or behaving dishonestly, yes, regardless of whether that person claims to be a Christian or not. If you listen to much of what Dr. Flowers puts out, you will see that he never claims that White is not a brother in Christ. White's failure, over and over, to address the actual point of contention between the two perspectives only leaves open two possibilites: he either does not understand the argument or is deliberately pretending not to understand the argument. He is clearly not stupid, and the provisionist position is not very complicated, so it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he only addresses strawman arguments or misdirects to irrelevant questions of Greek grammar because it makes his position look stronger to those who aren't thinking about it as critically as they should. Pointing out this tactic is not the same as name calling and is entirely appropriate behavior for Christians who care about dealing with other Christians in honesty and integrity.
@corydittman4639 it's either dishonesty or it's vast ignoramus. Most of us choose to believe he is in fact, intelligent.
Nothing white hasn’t already done to countless true Christians that actually hold to true Biblical truth.
However the Bible does say to expose tge deeds of darkness. So that’s why White is being exposed as a Gnosticism promoter.
E5:11
@TKK0812
Agreed, For the calvinist reading this, there are much better scholars than James White from the reformed side, I would recommend Dr. Schreiner
Great response!
I just want to know why has it taken this long for a Greek expert to correct White from his errors?
As long as he can appeal to his own followers, he can feel more intelligent than others!! I have noticed that with such a closed mindset, you will not gain as much knowledge as listening and I feel that he is very condescending to people that are younger than he! MacArthur is also!!
I am an older lady 52 and been a nurse for 32 years and all of my coworkers say they learn so much from me but I learn so much from them as well!! I enjoy hearing another perspective besides my own!
It seems this debate had a large impact
That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer but I have guesses. My first thought is that his books aren’t meant for academics and therefore not many academics read his books. In addition, very few scholars have any sizable audience enough for us to ever hear about their opinions. To be honest, his comments about the Greek are just short, quick comments and some times just in the footnotes where most don’t read. Of course, 99.9% of Calvinists see James White as the biggest scholar in the world so you’ll find a difficult time trying to find someone who would question him.
IMO, it shows who follows White and who does not. I mean, if you have a doctorate teaching at a school, why would you spend time listening to any of James Whites videos? You have other things you are working on...
Well Dr Abasciano has corrected him on the Greek of Acts 13:48, so there's that. Dr Al Garza has also responded to White's misuse of Greek on his channel too.
wow... this is gonna take a while to go through... what a blast and a privilege and a blessing.... example of you tube at its best!!!!
Leighton, after reviewing the debate and getting input from others would you consider making a video where you present the accumulated changes you would have made to your debate presentation?
It could serve as a sort of capstone to the debate where you clarify and strengthen your position post debate.
My goodness, my worlds are colliding. I've watched Leighton for years now. And I knew Joel in Bible College. I can confirm, yes Joel was unequivocally a Calvinist.
Haha! That’s amazing. I’m sure he’ll love to see this.
Joel was the guy who handed in a 25 page paper when the teacher only asked for 12 pages. So where he ended up in his career makes sense.
@@prairiepastorThat's funny and made me smile.
Leighton, this is one of the best interviews I've seen on this topic. Excellent exegesis of the Greek by your guest. Thank you for what you do.
I second that.
Everyone, subscribe to Joel!!!!! I cannot emphasize how valuable it would be if we could support him to begin making regular content that addresses biblical languages and how the grammar does not support Calvinism. I came out of the a very calvinistic seminary unconvinced of Calvinism, largely due to Leighton’s help. Calvinists place heavy emphasis on the Greek and Hebrew and how it proves their position, but I am here to tell you the Joel’s of this world are highly needed to disprove their claims on their own turf. Thanks to you both for this video!
Leighton, The Father has always spoken through the Son in the Spirit
James White wrong? Surely you jest!
LOL!
😂 haha funniest comment
😂😂😂❤
James White is wrong and stop calling us Shirley.
@@-the_dark_knight lol😂
Don Stewart, one of the first pastors to come out of the Jesus/Calvary movement, when to seminary before there were any such Calvary institutions. He talked about going to Greek class and learning how to systematically break down the language, and then going to theology class and being told to break all the rules he had just learned about Greek to justify the system tied to the denominational institution.
That sounds about right 😅
Dr. Joel thank you for having this conversation with Leighton. I agree with him, it would be great if you start producing the material that so many people out there who are stuck in Calvinism need to hear and trust to come out.
This was incredibly fantastic! Thank you @Joel Korytko for everything you shared! Please, please, please do a video on Romans 9!!!!
Yes, I love listening to Dr. Korytko! I'd love to take one of his classes. He is very clear in his presentation.
You were a blessing to this show and audience Joel.
Thank you for being a champion for our first LOVE!!! The one who loves our souls!
“Behold I stand at the door and knock, if ANY MAN hear my voice and opens the door.”
This was a great show. A truly uplifting conversation. It was inspirational to hear his testimony out of reformed theology. I find our God is truly merciful to grant us mercy after we spend years maligning and distorting His nature and character. What a merciful compassionate God we serve. Whether we are deliberate or ignorant, deceived or intentional, God is always willing to rejoice over one sinner who repents of living in darkness. I believe it is just as incredible to witness a religious man come out of false teachings as it is for a man to get saved. I don't know which thing is more rare.
Gentlemen, thanks for a wonderful and gracious broadcast.
God bless Dr Varner!
I second that.
Thanks brother for your scholarship and humility! God bless you!!!!
At one hour 23 minutes you figured it out exactly. You don’t have the tools at your disposal at a debate to refute white’s claims regarding Greek grammar. That’s exactly why he uses this technique at the debate. His cover is completely blown now.
The Horn debate showed the BS he is willing to go to completely inventing an entirely new Greek interpretation of Hebrews 10. He completely derailed himself when trying to cartwheel and flip his way outta that. Horn was up to it though and like a proper top tier lawyer reacted perfectly to reveal to the lay person just how ridiculous his position was from a scholarly perspective!
@@omnitheus5442 White didn’t invent an ‘entirely new’ Greek interpretation. John Gill (one of the most eminent scholars in his time) gave the possibility of this interpretation in the 1700’s ‘or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish. This clause, "wherewith he was sanctified", is left out in the Alexandrian copy’
Some research before baseless accusations?
For all the Greek that James claims to know, LITERALLY NONE of the Greek church fathers agree with him. They would have actually declared him Anathema! He has to go to Augustine (who only read the Latin, and didn't know Greek) as his reference.
At our Greek Orthodox church the past week, the priest's sermon was on our Free Will and how God will respect our decision to turn away if we so choose. But will wholly embrace us if we choose to come to Him. A refresher from the "bible/baptist" churches nearby which now have femmale pastors or are becoming Calvinist.
God bless your wonderful ministry!
Ephesians 1:5 NKJV
[5] having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
Predestined us ->> TO ->> adoption as sons
=
Predestined us ->> TO ->> justification
I was predestined to justification ->> ACCORDING to the good pleasure of HIS WILL(not my own will).
@@jayrodriguez84. Yes…. THOSE WHO BELIEVE are predestined! He DOES NOT PREDESTINE US TO BELIEVE!
Take off your TULIP GLASSES and read the text.
@johndisalvo6283 Belief and justification happen simultaneously.
We are predestined ->>>>>>>>
TOOOOOOOOO
justification.
We become adopted as sons the moment we believe.
@jayrodriguez84
Salvation is not adoption.
Adoption is the result of salvation.
Those who have been saved are predestined to adoption.
Same with justification.
You're changing the definition of words to mean salvation.
They don't....
@@johndisalvo6283 I love how Romans 8 29:39 tells us we are predestined TO be conformed to the image of His Son
B E F O R E
1. We are called by the gospel
2. We believe the gospel.
Love that Romans gives us the order of salvation.
I love this video
I am learning so much…
It is emocional hard, so for people that was never reformed, have compassion on the people going through that journey
Wonderful! I'd love to see much more with him. If it were my will, I would have you two just walk us through the entire New Testament, verse by verse, giving all your thoughts on it. Love seeing you two together. Great team!
Please do Romans 9 with Joel! I really enjoyed this video!
I'm listening to this the whole time thinking yes, I can get this from English. Then some time roughly an hour and twenty minutes in they confirm its all well established in English. I find this often where people spend an hour talking about Greek only to conclude that it simply confirms what I'm reading in my King James Bible.
My main point is to encourage other laymen. We don't need to be Greek scholars to understand the scriptures. Not saying it doesn't help but don't be discouraged because you lack a PHD.
or any other translation
Can we get Dr ken wilson back into these discussions? Still hoping for a wilson v white debate. Thank you dr. flowers for all your work and dr. Korytk
Wow great video. Would love to see more videos between you guys.
James white accused those critiquing him of dismissing him as not a language scholar by saying he wrote an book 33 years ago on john 6 and the participle. So I just got the book. It’s pathetic and typical of Dr white on the Greek
“Throughout this passage an important truth is presented that again might be missed in many English translations. When Jesus describes the one who comes to Him and who believes in Him,6 He uses the present tense to describe this coming, believing, or, in other passages, hearing or seeing.7 The present tense refers to a continuous, ongoing action. The Greek contrasts this kind of action against the aorist tense, which is a point action, a single action in time that is not ongoing. Many “believe” in Christ in this way in John’s Gospel, but they do not really believe because their faith is not ongoing, it is not alive. The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not truly and continually believe. The faith that saves is a living faith, a faith that always looks to Christ as Lord and Savior. Only God can give this kind of faith to a person. It is a work of Christ in the heart. Many in our world today want us to believe that we can accept Christ simply as a Savior from sin, but not as Lord of our lives. They teach essentially that a person can perform an act of believing on Christ once, and after this, they can fall away even into total unbelief and yet still supposedly be “saved.” Christ does not call men in this way. Christ does not save men in this way. The true Christian is the one continually coming, always believing in Christ. Real Christian faith is an ongoing faith, not a one-time act. If one wishes to be eternally satiated, one meal is not enough. If we wish to feast on the bread of heaven, we must do so all our lives. We will never hunger or thirst if we are always coming and always believing in Christ. He is our sufficiency. Christ is the bread from heaven. We must feed on all of Christ, not just the parts that we happen to like. Christ is not the Savior of anyone unless He is their Lord as well. The Lordship of Christ will be seen over and over again in the following verses. Seen, But Not Believed: John 6:36 Christ has proclaimed Himself the bread of life. His actions in feeding the five thousand the prior day should have communicated this to any who were spiritually sensitive, spiritually alert. But the sign did not bring faith. Jesus openly proclaims the truth about His Person but then goes on to say, “But I spoke to you because you have seen Me and yet have not believed.” Christ speaks plainly and openly to the people, for it is obvious that the sign alone did not communicate truth to the people. They have not believed on Christ even though they have seen His power. He provided to them bread in a miraculous fashion, yet He rejected their political, earthly aspirations. But they did not come to true faith in Him on the basis of having seen His miraculous events. It is interesting to note that in verse 40, after the roles of the Father and the Son in the Gospel have been clearly presented, Christ will speak of the one who “looks upon” the Son as the one who has eternal life.8 Here the people have seen Christ, but have not really looked on Christ. In both places, the operative factor is faith. Here, those who are not the Son’s do not believe, though they have seen. Their sight is not joined to real, living faith. But those who are given to the Son by the Father (6:37) look on Christ- not simply as a miracle worker or great teacher, but as the source of spiritual life, the Son of God Himself. They are the ones who have eternal life. Why do some see and yet not believe? Why do others see and believe? Are those who believe “better” than those who do not? What makes the difference? The Lord Jesus will answer that question in verse 37.”
See how he asserts the present is continuous without mentioning other options for the present like the gnomic. See how he commits the abused aorist fallacy. See how he never mentions how to distinguish an adverbial participle from an adjectival or substantival? See how he doesn’t discuss aktionsart and verbal aspect. I started studying Greek in 2006. That’s nearly 20 years ago. This book written 33 years ago does not even account for what I learned by 2010. He repeats the same claims and has not updated his Greek evaluations.
TheLaymansSeminary..thanks for sharing the excerpt from JW's book written 30+ years ago. I read it 2x and can truly say I find no fault with his 'Lordship' over mere hearing or believing, emphasis. I guess even a broken clock is right 2 times per day....
@@lbamusic I was addressing his treatment of the participles. I know not all will come to the conclusion of free grace theology
Faith has a trust aspect. So, I think it is true that a Christian needs to be continually trusting in Jesus. There’s more to it than just belief in; it’s also trust in Jesus, His sacrifice and His victory overt sin and death.
True academics are typically very modest with their claims and approach as Joel is here. James, who isn't a scholar in any sense, doesn’t understand that.
so right... i learn a little and sometimes am ashamed of how i present myself as knowing greek...
i see myself in jame white and it motivates me to repent!!!!
@corydittman4639 He doesn't even have a Ph.D to be considered a scholar.
I went to 2 Calvinist seminaries and we never engaged any of his works...because they didn't contribute anything of note.
Unambiguous evidence that James White is *wrong* about the word "belief" (πιστεύω) meaning "false belief" when it's in the aorist tense in the book of John. Below is every instance of the word "belief"(πιστεύω) in the aorist tense in John with a quick analysis of whether the belief is true belief or not:
John 1:7
He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
- Clearly true belief -
John 2:11
This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
- Probably true belief -
John 2:22
When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.
- Probably true belief -
John 2:23
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.
- Probably true belief -
John 4:39
Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.”
- Clearly true belief -
John 4:41
And many more believed because of his word.
- Clearly true belief -
John 4:48
So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.”
- Clearly true belief because the text makes no sense for Jesus to want false faith
John 4:50
Jesus said to him, “Go; your son will live.” The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went on his way.
- Probably true belief -
John 4:53
The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” And he himself believed, and all his household.
- Clearly true belief -
John 5:44
How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?
- Clearly true belief -
John 6:30
So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?
- Clearly true belief -
John 7:31
Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?”
- Unclear without diving deeper into the passage -
John 7:39
Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
- Clearly true belief -
John 7:48
Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him?
- Clearly true belief -
John 8:24
I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
- Clearly true belief -
John 8:30
As he was saying these things, many believed in him.
- Unclear without diving deeper into the passage -
John 9:18
The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight
- Clearly true belief -
John 9:36
He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?”
- Clearly true belief -
John 10:42
And many believed in him there.
- Unclear without diving deeper into the passage -
John 11:15
and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”
- Clearly true belief -
John 11:40
Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”
- Clearly true belief -
John 11:42
I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.”
- Clearly true belief -
John 11:45
Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him,
- Unclear without diving deeper into the passage -
John 12:38
so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
- Clearly true belief -
John 12:42
Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue;
- Clearly true belief -
John 13:19
I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.
- Clearly true belief -
John 14:29
And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe.
- Clearly true belief -
John 17:8
For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.
- Unclear without diving deeper into the passage -
John 19:35
He who saw it has borne witness-his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth-that you also may believe.
- Clearly true belief -
John 20:8
Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;
- Clearly true belief -
John 20:29
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed(Present) because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed(Aorist).”
- Clearly true belief -
John 20:31
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
- Clearly true belief -
Note: One can nitpick here or there about instances but it's abundantly clear that most of these are regarding true sustaining belief.
It’s worth adding that not only is there obvious cases where it is wrong for the aorist participle to signify false belief(John 6:45 with hears/ἀκούσας and learns/μαθὼν) but there is only two times in all of John(John 7:39 & John 20:29) where the Greek word for “belief”(πιστεύω) is used in the aorist participle form so there’s no way that one could ever come to an accurate use of a special way Paul uses the aorist tense to refer to false faith. In addition, the two instances refer to true faith anyways so the only instances we have go directly against White’s claim. White mentions how synonyms like “gazing” are used to signify true belief but there’s no way to establish a special meaning based off of this word in the aorist because the word isn’t used as an aorist participle in John. The word for "come"(ἔρχομαι, like "come to the Father") also is never used in the aorist participle form within John when used to refer to believing. The word for "draws" (ἑλκύω) in the aorist participle form is never used in John. The word for "learns"(μαθὼν) is used once in the aorist participle form and it's John 6:45 and obviously referring to true belief (if anything). The word for "hears"(ἀκούσας) in the aorist participle form is clearly not being used this way in John 6:45 as mentioned above. I honestly don't understand how White would ever come to take such a conclusion.
Spot on!!! James White's entire schtick defeated by a smart phone--and someone smart enough to use it correctly. Kudos to you, sir! D.A. Carson, in addition to his commentary on John, has written an excellent book titled "Exegetical Fallacies". If someone could persuade him simply to watch the debate, I think it would be enough to inspire him to rewrite his chapters on Grammatical Fallacies and Logical Fallacies, using James White as his primary source of examples 😆
Thanks @WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou. This is good! 👍
James has to view it that way because if he doesn't Calvinism falls apart.
James white was trying so hard to disprove the fact that there is a distinction in the drawing and the beilever , when Dr Flowers pointed out the hearing and the learning which is the responsibility of the individual,
Mr White was like no no no that can’t be because God is the one that draws , and the believer just follows not because they listen and learn but because God saids so.
Wake up folks
I would really like to know how the word “faith” can be used in the context of Calvinism at all. If grace is irresistible and something that you are determined to receive or give in to, how can that even be “faith” in any way? Doesn’t the word and meaning of faith itself express a choice of belief? How can you even use faith when you have no choice? I really don’t know how that can even work at all. Do you have faith without choice? Do you have faith within determinism?
Excellent video by both Dr. Korytko and Dr. Flowers. 👍I appreciate hearing the critique, and I am grateful both of these brothers are pursuing the truth in God's Word.
These long videos would be helpful with some chapter breaks to let us skip a bunch of junk at the beginning.
I don't need to hear his qualifications or defense of how much of John 6 he has read. Let me hear him exegete the text and then I can look into his record afterwards.
According to White I guess Joe and Leighton should just shut off White's response. Cause he did the same thing as the reason why he shut off Joe's response.
I’ve started looking into a Greek concordance when I come across a passage that is tricky to navigate. It shows the Greek word, and you can look up everywhere else that word is used and HOW it is used. It’s a major reason why I reject Calvinism. Thank you for this broadcast!
I like doing the same to get a feel for the words used, but beware of doing more than that. You cannot understand a language without thoroughly learning it, grammar and syntax.
I qualified in and worked translating German to English, and one of our lecturers once said 'you cannot find the meaning of words by looking them up in a dictionary'. You have to know the grammar and context as well.
This was a great video of how to use and understand the language from someone who really understand how language works. I have subscribed to to Joel.
I am subscribing also. Great teaching, great demeanor.
Praise God you don't need to be wise to be Taught of the Father, just believe. Cause I am not the sharpest tool hallelujah
I am a Calvinist and I do enjoy Leighton's content.
How can you remain a Calvinist?
I too am interested to know why you remain calvinist
It takes a while to get rid of all the brainwashing caused by this heresy, it took me some years after seminary and my wife still believes God creates people to suffer eternally in hell.
@@Tatiana-cp1fc Apperently he's chosen.
I don't see how Provisionism works against God clearly determining future happenings ahead of time. Surely if things are freely happening according to human choices then we don't know where things will go?
It's really starting to look like James White does not really have a basis for his Calvinism. The Greek doesn't support him because he doesn't even really understand the Greek. It's all just a defense mechanism for White to keep his warped Calvinism.
@@corydittman4639 James White knows better at this point. He's fully aware he's turning God into an absolute moral monster and doesn't even care. Instead of concerning yourself with me, maybe you should be more concerned with what Calvinists do on a regular basis, like I mentioned.
I've been trying to find the nicest way to say what I think about James White at this point but this is the best I can come up with:
The more and more I listen to White the less and less I find myself able to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm only left with two options as to what kind of person he is and neither of them are very nice to say but that's just how it is. 🤷
James, please humble yourself and admit that you are wrong about this topic. You CAN choose to follow Christ. Like everyone else on the planet you are invited, will you accept? The God of the Bible is not a monster that creates certain people for the express purpose of sending them to hell. Jesus died for the sins of the world and All who call upon Him shall be saved. James, will you willingly call upon Him so that you too can know that you are saved?
So much great stuff from Joel. Keep going Joel! And thanks to Leighton as always.
I was just discussing Romans 1 and then got to the 1:20ish mark when James is saying only the elects are made to be taught by God. His logic is completely opposite to how he would try to worm his way through Romans 1 that tells us that God has made Himself known to all men (which would only be the elect according to his logic here), and man rejects/exchanges (which certainly can’t be the elect), then BECOME useless instead of being born that way, and are given over.
Listening to a Calvinist is like listening to Vecini in the iocaine Powder scene from Princes Bride.
I also find that James White ends up arguing his Christian opponent’s case before the debate is over!! He did this with you and Jason!! He ends up talking in a circle and bringing your points out even more!!! I watched him while you were bringing out your point and he looked like it was points that he never heard!! He never heard because he never listens!!
How oblivious are you?
Not the best way to debate, right?
What I also noticed about the aorist argument is that James White is assuming perseverance of the saints, hence why he says that those who did believe but stopped, don't have saving faith.
It's fine that he doesn't believe that a Christian can't truly walk away from their faith, but he isn't getting that interpretation from his grammatical arguments. He isn't even getting that from John 6. He assumes it. I don't know if Leighton Flowers believes in Once Saved Always Saved, but the point is that topic is still an ongoing in-house debate that has nothing to do with John 6. James White should have conceded that and not have been dogmatic on it.
The fundamental point of argument is over how the word helko is used. According to Thayer's Lexicon, draw is used in the sense if moral or spiritual appeal, which is contrasted with other textual applications referencing inanimate objects like drawing water from a well or drawing one's sword. I'm disappointed that this point wasn't given to Dr. White in the debate.
This was really really good.
The question is...would James humble himself to come out of Calvinism? Would he give up his Calvinist ministry for something else? Would he redact his books written? There are like Joel said, many things to consider when coming out of Calvinism.
he is just a tool.... to divide the body of christ
James White most certainly shows a level of arrogance that is alarming to me. I pray that he HUMBLES himself before GOD does it for him.
@@suburbanrapperwhite loves his title, little chance of him repenting
I truly believe this is the problem. He is not willing to admit that he’s been wrong.
John 6:44-45 (just like my birthday party)
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
No man can come to my birthday party except I invite him: and we'll have a good time.
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
As expected, I will invite all my friends. Every man that gets my invitation and likes the idea will come to my party.
So simple. No elected party attendees before the foundation of the world. No man will irresistably come if he didn't want to. None of that. The English is just fine.
Great illustration!
Or even more simply put only God knows. However, just if u hear the gospel u say yes I need this
Ah but in God's birthday party God says that if I be lifted up I will draw ALL unto Myself. The Father's perfect desire is that All would come to knowledge of the or He invites everyone to His party because He not willing that any should perish 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 peter 3:9. You and everyone is invited it's up to you to come to the party empty handed buying things for free. Lol
The analogy is conflating the word "invite" with "draw". The words that Jesus uses to describe what the Father is doing is giving (v.37), granting (v.65) and drawing (v.44). Take note that to give, to grant and to draw are the sole prerogative of the Father. The Father has to initiate these things, otherwise _no one_ will come to the Son.
Therefore, given what Jesus says, that nobody is able to come to him unless the Father gives/grants/draws, then your analogy would be more accurate if you said "nobody can come to my birthday party, unless I unlock the front door; and we'll have a good time". Everyone is invited, but only those who you unlock the door for will be allowed in.
@@Hez0 well you have a point but the door is not only unlocked but the veil was torn from top to bottom so everyone can go in freely. Nothing stops anyone from Christ anymore. The Father draws
all men equally for 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 and there's no partiality with God Romans 2;11.
I was looking forward to this but a bit disappointed because it looks like Joel and James are talking past each other. James is trying to make a point based on usage: “the one believing”, aorist vs present, as used by John in his gospel. Joel rightly pointed out that usage and an author’s preference is key rather than dogged rules, but oddly failed to see that was James’ point! James wants to say that John uses “the one believing” in a very particular way. It really seemed as though Joel thought James’ argument was, “aorist tense means false in John’s gospel”. The comments around minutes 33-36 really surprised me.
“ If you can’t bewilder them with brilliance, baffle them with SOMETHING ELSE “--James White
Lol
Or, If you can’t bewilder them with brilliance then belittle them with your ignorance…
@@4godisholy Yes, James does a lot of that too! His fan boy lap dogs also.
@@johndisalvo6283
Sadly that is true.
Why didn’t invite James white to be in the program and give the chance of responding.
Wow, fantastic explanations regarding Father and Son in gospel of John thank you Dr Korytko!!
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me.” (John 12:32) End of debate.
If anyone hasn't watched NT Wright and James White's discussion of Paul and Justification on "Unbelievable", please do. White's arrogance is on full display, and only because of Wright's graciousness was he not obliterated.
NT Wright is a guy that takes 20 minutes to explain why a text doesn't mean what it says.
While I´m more on the Provonist side and certainly not a Calvinist I do have to say that NT Wright indeed is overrated and a very poor scholar.
Wow James White is exceptionally rude, arrogant and prideful and is so difficult to listen to him
I love him. He's the Snidely Whiplash of Calvinists, splendidly repellent.
@@bobtaylor170 a true imitator of Christ's, nope nevermind 😂
There is a link between Calvinism and Narcissism.
@@eiontactics9056 fascinating idea. I don't know that that's correct, but it's intriguing.
The problem is that we have a lot of tares among the wheat. I have a cousin who has been an Elder in a huge nondenominational church. He's a sociopath, but apparently, that church - an extremely wealthy one - can't detect it, though there is information online about him! He can sling the Godtalk with the best of them, but it would be hard to imagine a more dishonest man.
@@bobtaylor170 It's true! Look for the video by Beyond the Fundamentals titled "Calvinism and Narcissism Link Examined | Doug Gustafson". Interesting stuff.
I would love to here this guys break down Ephesians 2:8!
Pink Floyd: Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. James White: Clinging onto grammatical fallacies is the Reformed way.
D.A. Carson, in addition to his commentary on John, has written an excellent book titled "Exegetical Fallacies". If someone could persuade him simply to watch the debate, I think it would be enough to inspire him to rewrite his chapters on Grammatical Fallacies and Logical Fallacies, using James White as his primary source of examples 😆
Sounds a little off key 😝
The Father gave His children (those who knew God before Christ came). This in itself is so beautiful
Especially when you read Hebrews 1 and seeing The Lord Jesus in His Full Glory
In your assessment, in what sense did they know God before Christ came? Was it in a salvific sense?
When I was leaning towards Calvinism about 10 years ago, James White and Jeff Durbin were the 2 major factors leading me that way. Now a decade later it’s amazing how the attitudes between the reformed and non reformed are wildly different. I grew up a Jehovah’s Witness (I’m Christian now) and I see similarities in approach with Dr. White and Jeff. It’s always “well they don’t understand “ and “they are not putting God in His proper place” and they’re demeaning towards anyone that opposes their views. It seems that those with the beliefs that you have to read into the scriptures are always the ones to bite when you try to speak and cry foul when you respond. Great stuff Dr. Flowers, keep combating the anger with love.
So interesting to hear his assessment of White's "exegesis".
Moronic statements:
I've never heard of him. (In other words his opinion is not valid because he's not a scholar that I've heard of and I'm trying to point that out to undermine his credibility)
The implication that clearly you're not a theologian, which I find self-evident despite your admission of not being a theologian, expressly because you are not a Calvinist. Because only Calvinists can be theologians. Calvinists are the best theologians because they are Calvinist.
Minions.
Not only is flowers incapable, but so is everyone in his cohort.
And that's in approximately 1 minute of him talking.
If this video is correct, when will JW make an apology for his slip shod use of the Greek? Pretty much the same thing for Dr Korytko JW, he hadn't heard about you. We still come back to one point; Calvinism cannot go back beyond Agustine. JW has a case of heartburn with LF because he cannot get LF to move off his base and agree with him
Good discussion.
In *John 6:36-45,* Lord Jesus surely does give a reason why God chooses to give a certain people to the Son.
*A question to consider is:* Who are the *"all"* whom the Father *gives* to the Son, and who will, therefore, *come* to the Son, whom the Son will not cast out? Lord Jesus explains as follows:
*John 6:38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.
*Question:* What is the will of the Father that Lord Jesus came down from heaven to fulfill? In "verse 39," Lord Jesus is now gives that reason:
*"John 6 verse 39 states:"* This now is *the will* of my Father who sent me, that of all he has *given to me* I should lose nothing, but should raise him up at the last day.
*A question to consider is:* Who are the *"all"* whom God *gives* to the Son? Does Lord Jesus tell us?
*John 6:40* *{{{For}}}* this is the will of the one who sent me, that everyone *who sees* the Son, *and believes* in him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
*Verse 40* starts with the word *"For,"* which in Greek is *"gar"* and is a conjunction that shows us that what follows is the *reason why* for what was previously stated.
*Question:* So, according to the context, who are the *"all"* whom the Father gives to the Son, and who will *come* to the Son, and whom the Son will not cast out, but will raise on the last day, giving them eternal life? Lord Jesus clearly gives us the *reason why* in verse 40: *"that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him."* - These are the ones the Father gives to the Son. That is God's Will.
*"John 6:44 states:"* No one *is able* to *come* to me unless the Father who sent me *draws* him, and I will raise him up in the last day.
*Question:* How does the Father *draw* people so that they are *able to* come to the Son? Lord Jesus explains this in *verse 45...*
*John 6:45 (WEB)* It is written in the prophets, ‘They will all be *taught by* God.’ Therefore everyone who has *heard* (active verb) from the Father and has *learned* (active verb) comes to me.
*According to John 6:45,* the *drawing* of God is *{{{his teaching,}}}* which is the *Gospel Word* of God accompanied *by the Spirit* about Lord Jesus according to the entire New Testament.
The words, *"heard"* and *"learned"* are *active past tense* verbs, showing us that the hearing and learning are *not passive* on the part of those being taught; rather, they are the ones who actively listen.
*So, the question I ask you is:* Are all those whom the Father *draws* by *His teaching* guaranteed to actively *hear* and *learn* from the Father? Not according to the Scriptures.
*Isaiah 30:9 states:* For this is a rebellious people, false sons, sons who *"refuse to listen"* to the *"instruction of the Lord."*
*Jeremiah 32:33 states:* They have turned their back to Me and not their face; though *"I taught them,"* teaching again and again, they would *not "listen"* and *"receive instruction."*
*“John 6:45”* is explaining *“John 6:44.”* The context itself states that God draws to His Son those who have *listened* and *learned* from Him - his teaching.
*Many refuse* the drawing by God's *Spirit (Acts 7:51-53)* and *Word (Matthew 22:3),* forfeiting salvation *(John 5:40)* out of pride and arrogance *(Romans 10:21).*
Those who *listened* and *believed* are the humble sinners: *Psalms 25:8-9.*
The *drawing* of the Gospel Word and the Spirit results in coming to Lord Jesus to be saved to those who do not resist *(Psalms 34:18; Luke 4:18-19; Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 18:9-14).*
Nice...
The problem with your interpretation is that Jesus doesn't only use the word "draw" to describe what the Father is doing. He uses the word "give" (in regards to giving these people to the Son) in verse 37, and he uses the word "grant" in verse 65.
For you to be consistent, you would have to translate these additional two words also as "teaching".
The other problem with your presentation is that it ignores the greater context of the text. The people in John 6 were taught by God! God Himself was with them, face to face, in Jesus Christ! The whole reason why they followed Him was because they saw Him raise the dead (John 6:2). They witnessed Him miraculously feed 5000 men! This miracle was compelling enough that they declared Him to be the messiah (John 5:14).
They crossed the sea to seek Him, that's how much they were coming to Him (John 6:25)!
Then what happens? Jesus declares that despite being taught of God (for Jesus is God, and the Son has always been the one communicating the Father, see John 6:46), they do not believe. Then Jesus explains why they do not believe, despite being taught.
The spiritual reality is that no one is able to come to the Son, unless the Father _grants_ it (v.65); unless the Father _gives_ those people to the Son (v.37); unless the Father _draws_ him (v.44). All of this, which is prerequisite for saving faith, are the work of the Father.
@@Hez0 All of the context was given, and explained in detail. Regarding John 6:65, let us look at the context of that as well, and pay close attention to the following words:
*For this cause* in verse 64.
*John 6:64-65* (WEB) 64 But there are some of you who *don’t believe.* For Jesus *knew* from the beginning who they were who *didn’t believe,* and who it was *who would betray him.* 65 He said, *{{{For this cause}}}* _[the reason just given in verse 64 - cause and effect]_ I have said to you that no one can *come* to me, unless it is *given* to him by my Father.”
*In reply,* In *verse 64,* Lord Jesus does not say Lord Jesus *knew* those whom the Father didn’t *give faith* to, or that he knew the one whom the Father *formed* to betray him; rather, Lord Jesus’ “foreknowledge” is that he *“knew”* from the beginning who they were. God places the responsibility to believe or refusing to believe on each individual, although God foreknew who they were, and God can use even sinners to bring about his plans.
Then, in *verse 65,* Lord Jesus says that *“For this cause,”* which is the *"cause"* Lord Jesus just got done describing in *verse 64.* What did Lord Jesus describe in *"verse 64"* that was the *cause* _[For this cause]_ of God's action of *"giving"* to Lord Jesus? What is the *cause* that resulted in God not *giving* those to the Son in *verse 64?*
*The answer is:* _John 6:64 But there are some of you who _*_don’t believe._*_ For Jesus _*_knew_*_ from the beginning who they were who _*_didn’t believe,_*_ and who it was _*_who would betray_*_ him._
*Cause and Effect*
The *cause* always comes before the *effect.* The *cause* for which God did not *grant* them to come to the Son was because *they did not believe.* God only *grants* to come to the Son to have life to those *who believe* in him. God does not grant unbelievers to come to the Son and have life. That is God's will: See again *John 6:40,* which plainly states: *_that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him._*
Now let us address *John 6:66-71.*
*John 6:66-71* (WEB) 66 At this, many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Jesus said therefore to the twelve, “You don’t also want to go away, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 *We have come to believe* and *know* that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 Now he spoke of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, for it was he who would betray him, being one of the twelve.
*In reply:* Whom did God choose? And whom did Lord Jesus know would betray him, according to the context? Was it not in the foreknowledge of Lord Jesus to know who would not believe or believe in him? And was it not in the foreknowledge of Lord Jesus to know Judas’ heart, that he was a pawn of the devil? I have given you the actual context of “John 6:32-71;” and there exist no teaching in those verses, or in all of *John 6* that God elected to *give faith* to anyone so they can believe by an act of regeneration. *In fact,* no spiritually dead person can have spiritual life except by first believing - he who believes:
*John 5:24* (WEB) 24 “Most certainly I tell you, he who hears my word *and believes* him who sent me *has eternal life,* and doesn’t come into judgment, but has *passed out of death into life.*
@@steventhompson8130 Regarding John 6:64-65: Firstly, I believe that the sinner is responsible for his unbelief. Therefore, you are attacking a straw-man by assuming I don't believe that.
Secondly, regarding the "for this cause" aspect of those two verses, Jesus is merely saying in those verses that because of their unbelief, He therefore tells them _why_ they don't believe: which is that no one can come to the Father unless granted by Him.
Regarding the "Cause and Effect" section, you say the following:
_"God only grants to come to the Son to have life to those who believe in him."_
But the only ones who believe in Him are the ones who are _granted_ to believe by the Father.
It seems that you've put yourself into an infinite loop, as follows:
"Only those who are drawn believe (Jesus' teaching); but only those who believe are drawn (your assertion); yet in order to believe, you must be drawn (Jesus' teaching); but only those who believe are drawn (your assertion)...", etc.
_That is God's will: See again John 6:40, which plainly states: that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him._
Verse 40 should be seen in the light of the immediate context.
Verse 39 says "that I should lose nothing of *all that he has given me,"*
Verse 38 says that Jesus is doing the _Father's_ will.
Verse 37 says *"All that the Father gives me* will come to me,"
Only those who are given to the Son (v.37, v.39), or are granted to believe (v.65), or are drawn by the Father (v.44) result in someone coming to Christ. Therefore, the "everyone who looks on the Son" in verse 40 are those who have been given, granted and drawn by the Father.
_Now let us address John 6:66-71._
Those verses were not brought up by me, and you don't appear to present a point of difference for me to address regarding these verses.
@@Hez0 *You write:* _Regarding John 6:64-65: Firstly, I believe that the sinner is responsible for his unbelief. Therefore, you are attacking a straw-man by assuming I don't believe that._
*My RE:* I assumed nothing, and in no way attacked a straw-man. All I did was explain *John 6:64-65,* covering all bases. No need to be paranoid.
*You write:* _Secondly, regarding the "for this cause" aspect of those two verses, Jesus is merely saying in those verses that because of their unbelief, He therefore tells them why they don't believe: which is that no one can come to the Father unless granted by Him._
*My RE:* No, that is not how communication works. There is no reason given for *why* they don't believe in "John 6:64-45." Rather, Lord Jesus plainly states that because they don't believe _(for this cause)_ is why he said to them _'that no one can come to him, unless it is _*_given_*_ to him by his Father.'_ That is objective reading.
*John 6:64-65* (WEB) 64 *But there are some of you who don’t believe.* For Jesus *knew* from the beginning who they were who *didn’t believe,* and who it was *who would betray him.* 65 He said, *{{{For this cause}}}* _[the reason just given in verse 64 - cause and effect]_ I have said to you that no one can *come* to me, unless it is *given* to him by my Father.”
*You write:* _Regarding the "Cause and Effect" section, you say the following:_
"God only grants to come to the Son to have life to those who believe in him."
_But the only ones who believe in Him are the ones who are granted to believe by the Father._
*My RE:* That is your belief; in that, God grants to a select number of people, as a gift, faith to be saved. However, that is nowhere found in the immediate context, nor is such a teaching found anywhere in the Bible. You are reading your belief into the text.
If you are going to use *"Philippians 1:29"* as your proof-text, as so many Reformists and Calvinists do, then you are in error.
*Philippians 1:29* (WEB) 29 Because *it has been granted* _[5483 echaristhē: verb orist indicative _*_passive_*_ 3rd person singular]_ *to you* [4771 hymin: personal possessive pronoun, dative 2nd person plural] on behalf of Christ, not only *to believe* in him, but also *to suffer* on his behalf
God is not giving [1435 dṓron] you faith and suffering as a gift; rather, *it has been* graciously bestowed [5483 echaristhē] *to you* personally not only to believe in His Son, but also to suffer for him as well.
The people themselves *[to you]* are being granted the gracious privilege to believe and suffer for their Lord. So, although (through the Gospel) *all* are granted to *believe* in Christ and to *suffer* for him, many will refuse the gracious initiation, and not everyone who believes will remain in the faith. Even so, it was granted *to you* to believe and suffer for Christ just the same.
*The Passage states:* "It has been granted [passive, 3rd person] *to you* to believe and to suffer for Christ's sake."
*The Passage does not state:* God is *giving* [1435 dṓron] *you* faith and suffering as a gift for Christ's sake.
We are not only freely granted the gracious opportunity to believe in Jesus, but also to suffer for His sake, so that we may also share in His glory.
God grants *to you* to believe in and suffer for His Son, but it is still up to you to believe, of which was freely granted to you to do.
*You write:* _It seems that you've put yourself into an infinite loop, as follows:_
_"Only those who are drawn believe (Jesus' teaching); but only those who believe are drawn (your assertion); yet in order to believe, you must be drawn (Jesus' teaching); but only those who believe are drawn (your assertion)...", etc._
*My RE:* No infinite loop is possible if you read the context. The drawing of the Father is for *all,* but the *everyone* who are the ones actually drawn are those who *listen to* and *learn* from the Father. They *all* heard the Gospel message *(Romans 10:17-18),* but they refused to listen and learn; and so, they are not drawn.
*For instance,* salvation is offered to all through the Gospel, but not everyone hearing the Gospel are saved because they refuse to believe.
Likewise, redemption by the blood of Christ purchased is for all, but the only ones redeemed are those who believe *(John 3:16).*
*You write:*
_Verse 40 should be seen in the light of the immediate context._
_Verse 39 says "that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me,"_
_Verse 38 says that Jesus is doing the Father's will._
_Verse 37 says "All that the Father gives me will come to me,"_
*My RE:* you are reading backwards, and you are omitting the word *For* so you can twist what Christ actually stated to fit your doctrine. Just read it the way Lord Jesus intended, including *"For."* Be objective, because you do not want to misrepresent Lord Jesus or His Words.
At my viewing, Joel is just about to 300 subscribers.
I had diarrhea yesterday.
700+ now
I love these discussions and I did watch the debate - thank you for posting. Here is my situation - I know nothing about Greek nor anything about Calvin and Calvinism. What I DO know is as follows: My Sovereign Creator God decided to create me, and did so nearly 83 years ago. God did not ask me if I wanted to be created (im happy I didn't have a choice), instead He did exactly what only a Sovereign Creator would and could do, He created me. After birth, He saved me Sovereignly by mercifully and graciously giving me His Faith to believe in His sacrifice for my sins, and giving me the promise of Eternal life when His appointed time for me to leave here, is reached - absence from this body is to be present with the Lord. Does anyone doubt that the Creator has no earthly rules that He has to follow, and that He has, can, and will chose for Salvation, whomever He wills, on ANY basis known only to Him, in the vastness of His universe? Speculating about the whys and hows of Creator God's methodologies, is pointless in my view, because of our finite inability to understand compared to His infinite, unfathomable Sovereignty beyond our understanding. I guess spiritual discussions like this are more profitable and wholesome, than Sports or other secular topics, but let God be God. Amen!
@lbamusic Your submissions sound good sir; however, we have to go with what the text says. The text allows God to be God.
We can't tell others to allow God to be God outside of the text. Shalom!
@@Godssboy Forgive me, are you implying that what the original commenter said goes beyond the text?
@@Hez0 No, rather the original commenter, by his stated position, implies determinism when he responds to the video above by saying, "Let God be God"
This is often the response of reformers when pressed on the meaning of the text. They somewhat infer that since God is all powerful, he can chose whomsoever he wishes to save from before the foundation of the world and then they read that into the text. However, when a scholar such as the fellow in the video above comes out to say that the text does not preach determinism, they still respond with, "Let God be God"
It's for the reason above that I wrote what I wrote. I may be wrong about the original commenter though. If that's the case, I will not hesitate to apologise.
@@Godssboy I'm still not following. I'm not seeing anything egregious from what the original commenter said. The Father decreeing what He wills is not determinism, so I'm also not understanding that aspect of your comment. Could you please show me from John 6 f(since that is the topic surrounding the video), that the commenter is incorrect?
@@Hez0 Friend, I hope you are being sincere and not pulling my legs because that would not be in the spirit of this discussion.
First, I never claimed the original commenter said anything egregious. I said his comments sounded good, but in the Spirit of the video, there was nothing the gentlemen said that should have warranted the common calvinistic response of, "Let God be God." I do not see a basis for that response. Also, I said, in my initial response to you, that if the original commenter were to respond that I misunderstood him, I will gladly apologise.
Now regarding John 6:44-45, the Greek scholar in the video claimed that James White's translation and, subsequently his interpretation, of the Greek tense of the hearing and learning from the Father was erroneous and as such, the passage doesn't affirm determinism as some are inclined to believe. I did not say that God isn't sovereign and that he hasn't determined anything at all. All I insinuated in my original comment was that the purpose of the video was to show that JW's translation of the text was erroneous and pple should not respond to textual critique by stating, "Let God be God" as though it is not God that inspired the text itself. In a nutshell, I didn't see a basis for the original comment I responded to if it means what I think it means.
I sincerely hope that I am clear.
Good advised for him Flowers
I love academic and he has inspired me … hope he do something
This is really neat thinking on "who is your Father?". Thank you for this discussion of father in the book of John. Tell me where to read more on this!!!!!
James White always drips with self-superiority and contempt for others. Do we imagine Jesus teaching this way?
The fundamental point of John is the deity of Jesus, which was being attacked by Gnostics heavily already in John’s day. It makes perfect sense that he has a continuing pattern that the belief in the Son and not be separated from belief in the Father.
That was really interesting, thank you!
About John 6:44-45
No one can understand the passage unless thinking biblically. Everyone who has heard and learned will understand. He will be greatly rewarded and their understanding will increase. It is written in the curriculum.
In the big picture John uses this type of chiastic structuring all throughout his gospel and I see no reason why it couldn't be the case in micro also. So..
No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.
Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father will come to Me.
And I will raise him up on the last day.
And they shall all be taught of God.
It is written in the prophets.
I don't think if Christ himself told Jimmy he was wrong, he would accept it 🙄👊✌️
I would love to read from the scholar that Dr. Joel quoted about the Father-Son relationship. But I have 0 idea of how to write the name, in order to look for him hehe
I managed to find the details for you: The Son-Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John by Adesola Joan Akala
Awesome stream Dr. Flowers ‘God’s love for all people’, that’s what I think of when I think of your ministry. Keep killing it! Subscribed to Joel BTW.
Isn't it deliciously ironic that Romans 9 was Joel's proof that Calvinism is false? 😆
10:01 flowers is the most unpretentious person w/ in the entire debating sphere
18:01 theology/biblical studies
1:39:01 excellent breakdowns
1:45:01 powerful testimony
2:05:35 cognitive frames; exmp being "cancelled"
2:08:20 matt bates allegiance book
I'm not not sure how James' point about the aorst would even be a defeater for Leighton if true.
So James white believes if the scriptures say someone believed but it’s in aorist tense that means they didn’t really believe?
Enjoying learned a lot
A kind humanistic philosopher is Dr. Flowers 🌸
Dr. Joel, at 1:12:00 and prior is urging Flowers to abandon his historical narrative perspective of the 1st century Jews coming to the Son from the Father as an historically unique scenario, for a broader theological emphasis (true for all time) of John’s emphasis that the Father and the Son are united (you don’t get one without the other).
However, while the second is surely true, it is actually John 6 (along with John 17) that establishes this reality. (John 17 from an eternal perspective, and John 6 revealing how this happened in time.)
So, I disagree with Joel’s assertion that the theological argument is a stronger one (and his recommendation then to drop the historical narrative). Rather, both are true, and two witnesses are always better than one.
Putting them together: In time (as revealed in John 6), those who have belonged to the Father (I.e. what Acts calls God-fearing Jews) will be drawn to the Son and none will be lost in this transition (from the fold of God’s kingdom to the sheepfold of those who are now “in Christ”). This should be encouragement to know that those living in the time of transition will not fall thru cracks and be lost!
Meanwhile, the theological point is also true, that as to hear Moses is to hear from God; even moreso to hear from the Son is to hear the same voice as the Father. So anyone coming to the Father also gets the Son (and the critically important textually relevant converse: those who reject the Son have proved to reject the Father!)
Combined, this is a profoundly strong two-fer for Calvinists to reckon with. (And also highlights White’s silliness in trying to put coming to the Father and Son in different lanes).
The point is not to teach Calvinism. Thepoint is to teach about God and Christ.
Even I, as a layman, get the feeling White doesn't understand how languages work. For example he reads, "All whom the Father gives me will come to me," and comes away with they all come BECAUSE they are given. He thinks the "being given" RESULTS in coming to Jesus.
You have to be incredibly ignorant to think that. If I'm assigning you a group of people to teach and I say, "All the students I'm giving you will need help with reading" that doesn't mean their needing help with reading is the result of me giving them to you. It could simply be that I'm setting aside people who need help with reading to give to you.
This is basic reading comprehension and he doesn't get it.
What you say is right. Nevertheless it is possible to be arrogant and right, and humble and wrong. Arrogance/Humility is not a measure of truth.
James White is such a great advocate for provisionalism. This type of conversation and break down is perfect example of Iron sharpening iron.
James White is the snake oil salesman of Greek grammar. And debates in general. I’m so glad more light is being shed on his practices.
Gotta be honest, James White's pronunciation of Greek is....cringey 😅
My ears want to commit suicide when I hear him try to say “oikonomia.”
😂
I can't pick on him, mine is terrible. Although I just gave up entirely on Erasmian pronounciation and switched to modern Greek pronunciation, since it makes koine way easier to study for me. But even my modern Greek pronunciation is terrible --- so I'm not gonna cast stones. 😅
About Joel's testimony regarding Romans 9 - I had once mentioned to a Calvinistic small group leader/teacher that Romans 9 is specifically addressing Jews, and he responded "well, Christian Jews", thinking that dismissed my point, which caused me to pause briefly enough to where the moment was lost. I have some thoughts on what I would say to that now, but I wish that I had been ready to respond to it at the time! Just curious as to how some people here would respond to that rebuttal?
@@matthewsouthwell3500 Please understand (as I didn't clarify this very well to the small group leader with whom I originally had this conversation, and I think hence his response) that I'm not saying that Romans was written to Jews only, but that Romans 9 is specifically addressing the problem of Israel's unbelief. Yes, Paul mentions the Gentiles in verses 24-26 and 30 as he is revealing God's greater plan (and OT prophecy) in light of Israel's unbelief, but the overall context of this chapter (and chapter 10 and most of 11) is to answer the question "what about Israel?".
Paul's audience knows that Israel by and large rejected Jesus, and the resounding question is "why/how did this happen?". Paul is explaining that it is because "not all Israel is Israel"; i.e. God's promise to Abraham was not to all of Abraham's children (by blood) but of the promise (through faithfulness). Paul clarifies this by pointing out Jacob and Esau, and that it has been part of God's sovereign choice from the beginning to bless some - not all - of Abraham's blood descendants to inherit the promise made to Abraham. To someone who had been a Jew and took pride in tracing their bloodline back to Abraham as an inheritor of the same promise, Paul's words would especially seem unfair.
The interlocuter that Paul is portraying in verse 19 is that of an indignant Jew who is questioning how Israel could be blamed if God through his sovereign will is using Israel's unbelief in the same way that he used Pharoah's so as to "display his power" and so that "his name would be proclaimed in all the earth" (verse 17).
Chapters 9, 10, and most of 11 are Paul's explanation of how things came to be with Israel's unbelief, as well as God's plan to bring Israel back into the fold:
Rom 11:11: Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
This was enlightening to hear Joel’s nuanced perspective on John 6:45 that I had not considered before, and the fact that leighton conceded that he was right and that he needs to revise his book is funny. Not that the conclusions are wrong but some of the points were wrong
James is just so condescending. He illustrates no spiritual fruit in how he interacts with actual scholars. He has a fake Ph.D and consistently shows he is outmatched in conversations with people or interacting with videos of people who know what they are talking about (NT Wright, William Lane Craig, Ken Wilson, now Joel). Despite this...he treats these scholars like they are total morons. He mocks them over and over again. He brings reproach to the Name.
@@corydittman4639 Lots of false prophets build up large churches. That's not evidence of good theology and it's not what spritual fruit refers to. One cannot listen to White for any length of time and come away with the impression that he is exhibiting kindness, gentleness, patience, or humility.
@@corydittman4639 So "fruit of the spirit" is now church growth? Interesting...I guess Joel Olsteen shows more fruit than James.
@corydittman4639 He didn't debate any of those people I mentioned...he has had "conversations" where he attempts to assert his nonsense and then is proved to be outmatched by actual scholars, of which he is not.
He is a false preacher that leads many astray. We must mark and avoid, let him be accursed as Paul warned about and instructed us to do.
@@mbritton837 i think he does! A lot of people talk about how osteen is all milk and no meat but if meat is going to lead to determinism and teaching that God determines all rapes, adultry and teaches that our God doesn’t love then some may need milk for the duration!! I will take milk with feeding tube before I choke on the meat of James White or Matt Slick or that other guy that said his wife could not even read a book before he read it because he was ahead of her!! God bless his wife!! Hope she doesn’t stay beat down!! I believe in submitting and honoring my husband but he honors me as well!!
Absolutely loved the last part of the broadcast! Joel's story is so cool.
If you are interested in learning the contextual overview of: 1:53:48
Romans 9= Israel Elected
Romans 10= Israel rejected
Romans 11=Isreal Accepted
Please visit either Duluth Bible Church Romans 9, 10 & 11 study or Andy Woods Romans 9-10 study! It is soooo fun to learn the dispensational program of Israel.
The hearer of the Gospel and Him who learns from the Father, which is God teaching him are the same. Heard and believed on the Son.
We must believe that God raised Him from the grave so that we may be saved and that eternal life draws us to the Son.
I love that every time you play White, Joel is listening to him very intently.
I am (more or less) a Calvinist, and I would appreciate an explanation from Joel of John 6 from a non-Calvinist perspective. His points about the passage being about a commonality or continuity between the work of the Father and the work of the Son is one of the most reasonable alternative interpretations I've heard. But the passage is clearly about an ability to come to the Son (not just that those who would come to the Father would naturally also come to the Son). The passage seems clearly to be about "election" - that the only ones who will come to the Son are those given by the Father, and precisely these are the ones to be raised on the last day. The only reasonable question is what are the criteria of election - is it that God finds something in some people which he doesn't see in other people (which I think we'd have to call some kind of virtue), or is it that he sees their willingness to believe? When you take into account other passages - of being chosen before the foundation of the world, and where being chosen is for the sake of God's praise only and not because of something we did, to me it becomes clear that this is describing an election that is unconditional with regard to anything about ourselves.
If you'll read the entire chapter you can see those spoken of in vs 44 45 are the 12.
No way around this because they were the only ones left after His, "drink My blood" statement.
And at His arrest they were let go.
John says this was to fulfill what He said (in ch 6)
"..that of all the Father has given Me (the 12) I should lose none." Which is >contextually < the point of 6:44,45.
Jesus was not laying out a universal mechanism for how men are drawn throughout the future, during the Age of Grace.
Neither men understand this.
Thus the debate was a pointless waste of everyone's time.
Take care
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi If v.44 and 45 are only about the 12, then either you are a disciple, or you are not in the new covenant; for Jesus in verse 45 alludes to Jeremiah 31:31-34, which describes the new covenant.
Here is Jer 31:31-34 described:
Verse 31 says there will be a new covenant.
Verse 32 says that unlike the old covenant, this one cannot be broken.
Verse 33 says that God will make a people for himself by changing their hearts, making them able to respond to his law.
Verse 34 says that these people will have their sins atoned for, and that they therefore will listen and know God.
Therefore, Jer 31:31-34 is describing new testament Christians; people who have had their sins atoned for (v.34), who have had their hearts changed to respond to God (v.33), and who will remain believers (v.32).
With the above in mind, does it not meld rather well with what Jesus has been saying throughout the whole chapter (as characterised by the original poster, as opposed to your view)? Otherwise, you would have to say that Jesus is describing the new covenant, which is only for the 12, and then after the cross there is a "new new covenant", which differs in name and substance, for it applies to all men, and people can fall away from the covenant, and the atonement applies not just to those coming to God, but also to those who have fallen away.
@Matthew-eu4ps Joel knows way more than I do, and perhaps your question has already been answered, Matthew. But let me offer my take on your questions, if I may.
"What are the criteria of election - is it that God finds something in some people which he doesn't see in other people (which I think we'd have to call some kind of virtue), or is it that he sees their willingness to believe?" - A couple months ago, I discovered in a word search on Bible Gateway that "elect" shows up eighteen times in the ESV, including "election." And not one of these uses is a verb, but rather a descriptive noun. So then I sought to understand what "the elect" constituted. My question was no longer, "who is elected?" but "who is the elect?"
Pertinent to this conversation, we read in Ephesians 1:4-6, "Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." I recommend you watch Dr. Flowers' 10-minute video on this chapter for a clear explanation. In agreement with Dr. Flowers, I assert "the elect" or "the chosen," who are the corporate Bride and Body of Christ (i.e. the Church), are predestined for adoption, blessing, an inheritance (v. 11), etc. That is, whoever enters the Body via repentance and faith "gets in Christ," who was chosen from before the foundation of the world to accomplish His plan, and joins the predestined outcome promised for the Church. So the Church is "the elect," and all who repent and believe become part of "the elect."
Thus, the criteria for election is to "get in Christ." God has graciously extended the gift of the Gospel-the complete work of Christ in His perfect life, death, and resurrection. He has also made us responsible to receive Him and believe in His name (John 1:12). This implies we are able to respond to His drawing (wooing).
This maintains "saved by grace through faith," as God has extended His grace and we receive His free gift through faith. So *election* is corporate and unconditional-the Body of Christ will indeed be raised to life on the last day (John 6:39). But the condition for our *salvation* is repentance and belief. Hence the call to repent and believe throughout the New Testament, and in fact in this chapter: "Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God [i.e. the action God requires], that you believe in him whom he has sent'" (John 6:29). We are called/drawn/wooed to believe in the Gospel, and those who believe will join the elect Bride of Christ.
Imagine believing yourself to be an expert, a scholar, a teacher of babes. To have written books (s) plural, to debate regularly, to come on TH-cam regularly to correct everyone who disagrees with you. Just to be PROVEN WRONG about everything you say by people who are true experts (unlike pretend experts). Then you would be James White.
Excellently constructed comment! But will you admit to being stylistically influenced--even if only subconciously--by Rod Serling's Twilight Zone? 😂
@@pontificusmaximus6716 nice try James, but science fiction is your realm, not mine. (And you're about as good a comedian as you are a scholar 🤣)