Debating often becomes more about a test of skills rather than a discerning of truth... I have never denied the fact that James is a more experienced and skilled debater than I am, but that doesn’t necessarily mean his views are true. My hope is that we will look past our biases and skewed perceptions of “the other side” so as to make a more reasoned and objective decision about the intent of the Apostle’s original letter in its context. That will never happen if we resort to immature bullying and gaslighting tactics. th-cam.com/video/8IkxcNN78OQ/w-d-xo.html
The better argument would not to have argue over the sovereignty of God. Yes He is sovereign and the same God, who said I will have mercy on whom He will have mercy also said He would have mercy upon all. ) Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have MERCY UPON ALL. ( God in His sovereignty repented, afterwards in a thing He thought to do and even Esau remnants, become a part of the possessions of the Lord.) Amo 9:12 That they may POSSESS the remnant OF EDOM, AND of ALL the heathen, which ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, saith the LORD that DOETH THIS.
@@christianjamesguevarra6257, Also about Amos 9:12, you wrote: ( God in His sovereignty repented, afterwards in a thing He thought to do and even Esau remnants, become a part of the possessions of the Lord.) Amo 9:12 That they may POSSESS the remnant OF EDOM, AND of ALL the heathen, which ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, saith the LORD that DOETH THIS. God here is talking about the Restoration of Israel NOT Edom.. Israel will posses the remnant of Edom probably some places of Edom... ''ALL the heathen, which ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,'' are not associated with Edom... Amos 9:11-12 New Living Translation (NLT) A Promise of Restoration 11 “In that day I will restore the fallen house[a] of David. I will repair its damaged walls. From the ruins I will rebuild it and restore its former glory. 12 And Israel will possess what is left of Edom and all the nations I have called to be mine.[b]” The Lord has spoken, and he will do these things. NOTE: The footnote [b]'' reads: Greek version reads and restore its former glory, / so that the rest of humanity, including the Gentiles- / all those I have called to be mine-might seek me. Compare Acts 15:16-17.
Dr. Leighton Flowers, I am really thankful for your passion to clarify things in the Scriptures. You just don't know how glad I am to hear you defending the truth. Keep doing what you are doing. Been praying for you since the first time I heard you. Thank you! God bless you.
3:23 - Dr. White positive argument 25:00 - Dr. Flowers cross examines Dr. White 37:40 - Dr. Flowers positive argument 58:30 - Dr. White cross examines Dr. Flowers 1:11:30 - Dr. Flowers Rebuttal 1:24:00 - Dr. White cross examines Dr. Flowers 1:34:30 - Dr. White Rebuttal 1:44:10 - Dr. Flowers cross examines Dr. White 1:55:00 - Dr. White’s closing remarks 2:05:45 - Dr. Flower’s closing remarks 2:16:00 - Q&A
@@jeckbalaquiao4119you do realize that that is the most man-centered and selfish thing that you can say. "I can't accept because I". But what if the Bible teaches otherwise despite the fact that it cramps your style. The fact is that there is someone seated on the throne of your salvation: who is it? You or the Christ? If you "can't accept (anything) because [of you]" then you are God, you are the final authority.
God destining you to sin isn’t an excuse for you to choose to sin (your comment isn’t sin) And I’ll listen to arminians about their second birth once they convince me they chose to be born the first time.
@@alil6547 exactly, you had nothing to do with your first birth (John 3) why do you think you would be able to choose to be born again? Isn’t that akin to a deathbed Catholic confession?
I quite enjoy listening to Dr. White and I've learned a lot from him. However, I'm starting to realize he's a rather uptight individual. Normally in debates, Dr. White easily comes out on top. Here Professor Flowers actually brought some very interesting arguments from a humble place while Dr. White just seems rigid and irritated. It doesn't help his arguments.
@@ShepherdMinistry he self admitted that he did not exegesis in the way he would to NON BELIEVERS. Why does no one actually listen to the words people say?
@@brandondriver99 he was debated as fellow believer. He actually blindsided White. It's like we both agree that I would buy your spanking brand new Mercedes Benz for $80k only for me to see a used, rusty Honda in your parking lot.
@Kevin Evans they're both believers, so why does he have to stick to exegetical evangelism? James white doesn't use his gotten of exegesis to evangelize in any way. He doesn't go out and tell Muslims "you aren't elect so you will never be saved. Tough luck"
Dr Flowers, I discovered you a few months ago and listen everyday. I was denied membership at my church because I would not submit to Calvin’s teaching. I lost my joy for a season and was very confused. I attend a new church and have my joy back. Thank you Lord for Godly men like Dr flowers! He is my new favorite😇
Denied membership of their church but never denied membership of the Body of Christ into which the Father has adopted you. God sometimes moves us to where He wants us to be in painful ways; and will even use loveless believers to fulfill His plan for us.
@@latenitehvac868 i was speaking mainly to the original comment. But yes i too believe that’s the proper hermeneutic historic grammatico. These people are so full of straw man “reasons” to not just understand scripture and know your place as a created being. These people keep wanting to be a better God than God is because it makes more sense to them.
Wow!!! That was an excellent debate!!! I watched the whole thing. I usually don't watch these type of long debates but I am glad that I did. Thank you Dr. Flowers and Dr. White for working through this process together. It made me think and do extra research. Much appreciated!!
While I respect James White’s work his arrogance and rudeness is so off putting in this debate. Honestly Lejghton Flower might have less experience in debating but he brought Bible to this whole thing which is way more important then tactics
Just want to say this was so good to watch. While Mr. White came to debate, Flowers intention was clearly to present the Gospel message. Scripture is a whole. Flowers did as Paul does and appeals to the conscience by showing consistency and harmony of all Gods attributes from old test. To new test. If your goal was to watch a debate you may have been let down, but if your goal was to grow in Christ I think the meat was in the message.
I don’t agree that White never spoke gospel truth. But whatever side you land on, the point was to debate, and discover the truth of scripture. If we’ve been let down by their meeting to converse, that’s flowers fault.
@@eremiasranwolf3513. Yes. Calvinist tend to be arrogant. I guess they get that from their murdering founder, John Calvin, who banished and even consented to the death of those who did not conform to his theocracy in Geneva.
@@pbm8264 that’s a bit presumptuous. I’m not a Calvinist, but “Calvinism” predates him. Also, even if it did start with him, to attack White on that basis is nonsense. Hold White responsible for his thoughts and actions, not for someone who lived 500 years before him.
God bless your Dr Leighton your attitude demonstrates your a true Christian , yet I still believe Dr James White presentation very consistent . God bless you both😊
As a Calvinist myself saved out of the word of faith / new apostolic movement I have to say this is by far the best argument against Calvinism I’ve heard. As a huge fan of James White, I think he is wrong in that you did not explain your stance on Romans 9. and it was actually a very good point. For your first theological debate, you nailed it dude !God bless you and your ministry
Yes I agree Leighton did so well in proving it wrong that James had to try to wipe away everything that he said without addressing point by point. Also as a fan of both of them and debates I can tell you when James White debates anyone but Muslims he's usually a jerk. He has over 200 debates with Roman Catholics on youtube. I also learned his older sister became catholic and apparently James father used to sexually abuse her and James seems to act like it never happened. I believe James White's father was a pastor and he looked up to him greatly. The problem with debating Calvinist is they have turned words into buzz words when you hear election you think salvation and it doesn't mean that it means servant/ servitude. Otherwise all of Israel would be saved even as idolaters because they were Gods elect first. So Leighton has to go off course otherwise people will say I dont see that at all. Romans 9 election is the older will serve the younger as the Lords sovereign election that's why he tells Rebecca why they're in the womb. With that said notice their in the womb not before the foundation of the world like Ephesians 1:4 supposedly means? Calvinism is all messed up and I grew up word of faith myself that is a mess and I understand where your coming from that is most of the new Calvinist right now because of youtube. Stick with the word and watch beyond the fundamentals videos on predestination and election and Romans 9 You won't regret it.
I've been taking mental note of people who come out of WOF doctrine and most of them tend to end up in Calvinsm. It seems this may have to do with the confort and familiarity of viewing the bible through a systematic lens and having a man to refer back to and quote (Calvin now instead of hagin)
@@BEABEREAN10 I have been saying that for a few years now. I believe it has to do with Justin Peters. He shows them the word of faith and charismatic movement in America is not very biblical. Then they have nowhere to go but he recommends John MacArthur. John, MacArthur is an excellent preacher but the problem is he's not like most Calvinists even though he is at the end of the day at Calvinists.
I love how He mentioned vessel of wrath/vessel of mercy that God prepared beforehand. These would be Jews, the chosen. [Roman]'s was taught to gentiles about the Hebrews and why God does what He does to those whom He chose. If a gentile wishes to be God's chosen (grafted in). Christians must realize who God is. Christian's are not Jews, but He may deal with us as such, if we do not revere Him, as He called and ORDAINED the Jews to revere Him. Selah' Calvinism is replacement (reformed) theology
@@gregludwig3332 There is no need to condemn anyone for a belief they adhere to. Out of context it appears condemnation, in context it appears to be a discussion.
What you say is not true. Calvinists do believe in the biblical gospel. That's not the issue its how the gospel works or the implications of the gospel that are disputed.
If you notice, God didn't harden pharaoh until after he already rejected God several times, and it was just to increase the visibility of His power. Pharaoh didn't start hardened, but had freewill to decide. It was then he was made to be a vessel of dishonor based on his lack of faith. Quoting this hardening is not a great example for pro calvinism. :) It requires a lot of effort to make the bible friendly to calvinists.
Disagree. I notice that God said he would harden Pharaoh's heart even before Moses returned back to Egypt and mentioned the hardening at least once more before the first plague happened. Pharaoh had freewill to do what his heart desired which was evil. God simply removed His restraint on the evil that was already in Pharaohs heart so Gods purpose for Israel would be fulfilled. Bible is full of examples where God uses pagans and others for His specific purpose. Joseph's brothers is a good example. God restrains evil in the world generally or else we would all kill each other. I'm not Calvinist but think they have a compelling argument. God appears to be involved in everything from Genesis to Revelation. Keep in mind that if God touches one thing in history then the dominoes start falling. Where would it stop? Joseph said to his brothers "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good". The good there was saving them from starvation. What is not said is that this also set them up for slavery 400 years later and Moses to lead them out.
@@leadinged But God did not originate the evil in Pharaohs heart. And the first hardening was done by Pharaoh himself. God could/can plan things like this because He knows every possible outcome. He could plan to use Pharaoh like He did because He knew what sort of man Pharaoh was. The idea that we are all equal, isn't in scripture. The Bereans were more noble. David was better. Good soil, bad soil. Etc. etc. Not all unbelievers kill millions of people, but some do. God could orchestrate Christ's betrayal by Judas without forcing Judas because God knew what Judas was. He gave Judas the opportunity. John even said Judas did what he did because he was a thief.
@@brianmatthews4323 So you think you are better than others? When you are in heaving, do you plan to boast about how smarter you were than others that will be in hell? Because obviously you believe some are better than others? Anyway, all the examples you gave are just wrong. What makes a soil good or bad? Is it the soil itself or the One who makes the soil? What do the Bereans have to do with ones ability to choose salvation? Of course we're not all equal in the sense of behaving exactly the same? Who said that? However the Bible clearly there's no one who seeks God, all are sinners, and no one has the ability do come to Jesus unless the Father draws the person, were all born in Adam's sinful nature. I'm this sense, we're pretty equal, yes. You just have to understand the word in its context. Also, you clearly don't understand what Calvinism is and appeals to a common straw man, that is, that total depravity means all people are basically Hitler. No, Calvinists never said that man does the worst all the time. It's quite the opposite, i.e. God is the one restriciting evil so the man won't do whatever they want otherwise we would indeed be all killing each other. Reformed Theology does not denies man had a will. The difference is that man's will is subject to God's as the Bible clearly teaches in a lot of places. So Calvinists don't have to break basic interpretation principles or spiritualize passages in which God does not respect the concept of autonomous free will.
@@Luiz__Silva 1Sa 16:6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD'S anointed is before him. 1Sa 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 1Ki_2:32 And the LORD shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah. Joh 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. Joh 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, Joh 2:25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. The Bible doesn't say everyone is a would-be Hitler. It says everyone is a sinner, and no sinner can enter the Kingdom of God without Christ. I boast of nothing but Christ. Apart from Him I can do nothing, and am nothing. But you fail to recognize that people have (are) different personalities. Not every lost soul wants to do Hitler type things. That seems self evident to me. I don't think Christopher Hitchens was a mass murderer, or even desired to be, even though he hated the very idea of the existence of God. I think that the problem with some of Reformed doctrine is that it fails to account for individuality. We are all different. Now who made us different is not the point. The point is that we are different. God knows all these differences, even if we can't discern them. Some unbelievers are very belligerent, even violent, while some are meek, and mild. You cannot simply dismiss the parable of the soils just because it doesn't fit your theology. Yes, God made everybody, but who says He made them equal? BTW, I'm a member of a Presbyterian church, so I do have some familiarity with Reformed theology, since I hear it every Sunday.
@@brianmatthews4323 If you think accounting for personality differences is the issue with reformed theology you just didn't get it. This is actually an issue or confusion you have in your mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with Calvinism or Reformed Theology whatsoever. Like, did you ever read any of the puritans? Or even Pilgrim's Progress? John Bunyan, for instance, has several other books on top of the one I mentioned about the different types of people, christians and non-christians, all analyzed from a Biblical perspective. What you think you know about Reformed Theology is more like a personal prejudice based on perhaps some bad interactions with people or sources. "You cannot simply dismiss the parable of the soils just because it doesn't fit your theology." I didn't dismiss it, I made you a question: who or what makes the soil good or bad? Now, I can tell you the correct interpretation of the parable of the soils. It does not talk about man's free will. It was told for the disciplines to understand not everyone would be saved and what general patterns they would find among those who hear the word. It has nothing to do with the means of salvation but with some of its visible effects. In Reformed Theology, a good soil is a regenerated heart. We're all born spiritually dead in our sins. At some point in time God showed grace to us and we were born again. Or do you people are somehow born as good soil? Or while being unregenerated they make good choices and become a good soil with their own efforts? I don't intend to be rude but you quote verses of the bible without doing any exegesis and I think you are implying a meaning to some of the texts that are just not there. Seriously, you are seeing things in the text that are not there. Your tradition is filling the gaps for you. "Some unbelievers are very belligerent, even violent, while some are meek, and mild." That's what everybody calls common grace, not only reformed theologians. Again, you seem to assume total depravity means everybody is basically hitler and behaves the same. That's just a straw man you created in your mind. Now tell me about how those meek and mild people love God. Because Jesus said "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters". You fail to see even externally mild and meek people are still selfish and lovers of themselves. Humans are not and cannot be neutral towards God. You are either in the flash or in the Spirit, either in the kingdom of light or in darkness. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"
Rodrick Evans Ephesians 4: 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. Not everyone is called to be one thing. The body has many parts with different measures.
I think it’s VERY telling that the commenting is available on the Soteriology 101 page for this debate and while on Alpha and Omega Ministries this very same video has the comments turned off.
I think everyone has forgotten that it doesn’t matter who “wins”. They are no less brothers in Christ because they disagree here. They’re both men of God. It’s healthy to have these debates/talks. There’s value in each stance, each interpretation. Obviously. Many of us are in fact blessed this day to be a part of “the Reformation”.
I was saved 3 years ago and was pretty secure in my salvation until my church started teaching Calvinist doctrine. I’ve never questioned my faith until I started wondering if God actually chose me. Thank you for this presentation!
Maybe the two of you had reasons to question your faith did you ever think of that. Instead of thinking that it's a bad thing maybe it was God showing you that there was something in your thought process about your salvation that was unbiblical. Remember saying a prayer doesn't get you into heaven you can regurgitate a prayer after a pastor all you want but unless there is a change in your heart that brings about a change in your life you shouldn't be sure of your salvation and this could be the very thing that God uses to bring about your true conversion... Rather than looking at it like poor me my little feelers got hurt, instead you should look at it like God was loving you enough to show you something that needed to be changed so that you could spend eternity with him
Part of interpreting a text is considering the different contexts of scripture, immediate, cultural, NT, and OT. For Leighton to pull other texts in is to consider the totality of scripture. Dr white wants to stay in Romans 9 but to neglect other scripture, in my mind, is to ignore what God has revealed in the sum total of scripture. I listen to Dr white regularly and I appreciate his ministry and I've learned a lot from him especially about ministering to mormons but I have to disagree with him soteriologically.
Agreed. Calvinism only makes sense if you literally only read Romans. From there, predestination and all of the total depravity falls apart very quickly. Why would Paul be trembling and hoping for salvation if he believed he was one of the "elect?" It makes no sense and Christ continually taught that salvation can easily be lost; most of the parables fall apart as well if one takes a Reformed approach.
The thing is, White demanded Flowers should stay within Romans 9 and go nowhere else, but he did not himself to that same standard. There were numerous times he went outside of Romans 9 to make his argument. That said, one of the two debaters does not have the authority to set the rules for the debate in which they are a part. James White doesn't have the right to stand up _in the debate_ and declare what his opponent can and cannot do. The rules of engagement and the mode of the debate is established prior to the debate. But this is why James White always comes away thinking he is the victor and superior debater, because he always comes in setting new ground rules within the debate itself, which he has no right to do.
Although I agree with White, I wish he was more respectful to Flowers during the debate. It sounded like Dr. White missed lunch and was hangry throughout the debate.
First of all, I disagree with Professor Flower's conclusions on Romans 9, and on soteriology as a whole. However, I must say, I am deeply grieved by the amount of snub-nosed, dismissive critiques of Flowers' methodology in presenting his argument. Flowers has never pretended to be an expert debater, nor has he, in my opinion, lacked humility in his presentation. It is one thing to critique a man's beliefs, but to dismiss him based on his approach to the debate is, in my opinion, unfair. I believe the Reformed camp is steeped in prideful presuppositions of scholastic superiority, especially when it comes to soteriological issues. In no way am I discounting academics/education; I believe academics play a major role in the edification of the saints. I strive to learn as much as I possibly can. However, if we have not love, then our knowledge is in vain. I feel that many Reformed believers are in danger of "missing the mark" by placing so much pride in our methodologies.
White did the same thing to the Catholic fellow he debated on OSAS. What I found most disturbing was White's eisegesis of Hebrews 10:24-26. He is an expert in building his systematic theology before everything else which is a big no no as proven in this debate. It should always be the last thing you do. Exegesis leads to Biblical Theology (meta-narrative/key themes) and then you shift to Systematic Theology (breaking things down further). I laughed when White said you needed to go back to chapter 8 to understand 9. That could not be further from the truth as one really needs to look at 1-8 and 10-11 to understand Romans 9. If White comprehended that Romans 7 was actually an indictment to all those still under the law. Things would be much simpler to follow as Paul is indicting some of his listeners in Rome (yes his intended audience which seems so oft lost by our Reformed friends) namely those still under the law and not yet under grace. Once one comprehends this then one can see the election at hand is the nation of Israel. On top of this one really needs to read the source material too like Exodus to see that for example Pharoah also hardened his heart as did God in response. etc etc. Anyhow, if White is the best Calvinists have then God help them. He is a cunning fool who needs to see the text without his Calvinist spectacles on all the time (again check out his take on Heb 10:24-26).
@@KingjamesAV1611 yeah love the way even the Bible is interpreted in English due to Luther/Calvin's influence. Take Romans 9:16 for example. In the Greek it actually reads:'So then it is not the will nor the run but God who shows mercy.' There is no mention of man in the singular. Clearly this is referencing God's salvation of Israel from His wrath through the intercession of Moses in the preceding verse (they don't bother looking up the references) in Exodus 33. I could go on and on here but if I type this and one Calvinist is turned away from what is at best a sub par understanding of God and at worst which I lean toward, another gospel then this post was well worth it :)
@@omnitheus5442 ....good stuff brother. Contend for the faith and May God continue to bless and keep you in your studies of His Word. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11 KJV
Dr Flowers did an excellent job of laying a foundation in order to interpret Romans 9. It wasn’t line by line but he used Scripture to interpret Scripture. And he proved his point in how he interprets Romans 9. James White just seemed upset with how he did it and at the end of the day- he didn’t convince me of his Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9, but actually seemed like kinda a jerk. Leighton was gracious and kind even when met with insults.
In all fairness Flowers really jammed a narrative into the text of Scripture and would jump from book to book and verse to verse to shoehorn it in. Proper exegesis can let the passage stand on its own and from that alone draw out the meaning. If the church at Rome needed the letters to the church at Ephesus and vice versa to understand what Paul is writing to them, then there's a problem with the preacher.
@@robgibbs216 Jeremiah 19:5 says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it." So, while God is not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance and be saved, most are not. This is irrefutable proof that God’s will is NOT always being done. God clearly says, He did NOT command the people to burn their children to Baal.
@@robgibbs216Stand alone? The scripture never stands alone, it is one! It is together. Both old and new. Was Paul jumping and not allowing his own interpretation of Romans 9 to stand alone by quoting old testament references? Esau and Jacob is another book. Moses and Pharaoah is another book. Potter and clay is in Jeremiah. You have to go to the PROPHETS for his secrets was with them. Repent of your heresey or your gonna perish.
@@colinpierre2048 Your comment demonstrated that you don’t know what exegesis is. Exegesis is about letting the PASSAGE speak for ITSELF. It’s not about trading hopping through the entire Bible to shoehorn and read meaning into the text from your train ride. 🙄
@@colinpierre2048 Ummm. Paul was under the authority of the Holy Spirit when he wrote that. Everything necessary for the interpretation of the passage was provided by God Himself. I don’t thing God needs man’s help to comb through the Bible and change the exegesis of the passage.
For the record, Dr. Flowers honors Dr. White in his closing by including him in his esteemed list of pastors and theologians that stand against seeker sensitive, easy believism. A testament to your character, well done Dr. Flowers.
Amen! Shows humility. Also Flowers has passion because he knows those who left Christianity coming out of Calvinism. I asked a Presbyterian Pastor what happened to aborted babies or babies who died. He said those predestined for Heaven went there as well as those predestined for Hell went there. I told him I couldn't join his church though I liked the liturgy.
@@matthewmanuccithat is a common rebuttal but very rarely do those making the claim explain what Flower’s should have added. Can you elaborate on your understanding of how to properly exegete the passage?
@@prodriley The definition of exegesis is the critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture. Put simply, it is the process of discovering the original and intended meaning of a passage of scripture. Are you saying Flowers didn't do this?
As much as I respect dr White, I think professor Flowers did a very good job showing how misguided in Romans 9 Calvinistic interpretation. God does not want and not want the same thing at the same time therefore it is us who we have to look to find error in how we read scriptures. Congratulations professor Flowers.
I mean, if at least Dr. Flowers had given an actual interpretation of Romans 9 instead of jumping all over the place to override its clear meaning... "God does not want and not want the same thing at the same time" The problem is that is a straw man and a false contradiction. A very simple answer to that is: a loving father does not want their children to suffer yet he inflicts pain in them with the rod of discipline make them wiser. The thing is: love and discipline are not absolute but complementary. God's attributes such as His Love, Grace, Mercy, and Wrath are complementary and they are demonstrated in different ways that, according to your fault logic, would be contradictory, yet they are not. A biblical example of apparent contradictions is God commanding "do not murder" and yet He commands Israel to kill many people, including women, children, and animals. That's how He choses to show His Love and His Judgment. Another false assumption in your position is that, if God has a will, it automatically means it has to be equally applied to every individual, every time. This is clearly not how things work. You just have to think more about it.
Powerful closing remark Bto. Leighton that truly presents the Christ of the bible the sincere, the straight forward not having 2 wills, the God who truly wants to express His love to the world through the death of His Son.
Thank you Lord for you love and your presence! Thank you for the joy that is in your presence and for lifting is up when we are in prayer and praise! Lord touch these hardened hearts and blind eyes of those caught in calvinism! In Jesus mighty name, amen.
@@Luiz__Silva No. Nobody but God can exercise unfettered unaffected free will. Everyone else, including Angels, experience limited and relative free will due to the fact that we are all influenced by interactions with persons/ideas/events outside ourselves. We don't make choices in a vacuum. Your questions understanding of free will is not accurate, the free will choices of man (given by our being in the image of God) is not a trump card above God's exercise of his free will or his sovereignty. God's own free will choice of grace allows mankind to choose to be with God or without him.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus You did not address the core of the question and you assume too much. I didn't say anything about people making decisions in a vacuum or things like that sort. However, if you pray that God would save a sinner, are you asking God to do what? A little more influence? Or would you be asking God to change the will of the person from unwillingness to willingness? Note I'm not talking about prayer to make someone just make a different choice (chocolate over vanilla) but prayer for salvation, which is a very special case of change.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus Also, the idea that God willed that salvation would come through man's free choice may look smart and all but it's just not biblical. It's a philosophical assertion from a system that tries to read autonomous free will in the Bible. But the Bible is very clear in that individual salvation of a particular people comes from God's free choice before creation.
@@Luiz__Silva I directly answered the question. It's NO. I don't care that you didn't say anything about people's choice in a vacuum, it's my choice and my explanation. Reread it and learn.
I always enjoy watching these debates. I'm very thankful for Dr.Whites ministry, it has cemented for me what I believe and why I believe it. God bless!!
I'm with Dr. Flowers's interpretation here. It's clear that the bible teaches both (people have free will and the ability to respond) and God is sovereign (and uses his powers for his purpose, i.e. judicial hardening, the election of certain individuals, people etc.). I agree with William Lane Craig in the idea of Molinism (middle knowledge). For example, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I give my kid a PS5 today with all the games available, he'll smile, be overcome by joy and say thanks as he's giving me a big hug. But my son still has the free will and ability to not respond in that way. I believe God allows for this free will so that love is genuine and not robotic. This is not rocket science. Where Clavinist's get it wrong IMO is having this one-way approach to things and not even open to the possibility of reasoning with these issues that clearly should be discussed. It's similar to young-earth creationists. They stick to one interpretation of the text, and are unwilling to listen to what might be a more plausible explanation. Also, in being apart of the debate community for almost 15 years now, whenever someone scoffs and comes off as condescending during a debate, there is always an un-easy tingly feeling in my stomach every time to further question that individuals point of view. McCarthur, White, Washer, almost EVERY Calvinist I come across are some of the most arrogant, entitled people on the planet. Something ain't right with that view if their view is the correct one :) - I'm good!
As a young earth creationist, I must point out that many of us are not “sticking” to some wooden interpretation of the text, but have come to see how the theory of evolution undercuts the core message of the gospel (ie denying a historical Adam, God declaring millions of years of death and suffering “good” etc) It’s the harm the other views do to the gospel itself that turn me off from the other views.
Right. But if you're God and you want someone's free will choice to fit into your sovereign plan, what then? Does God "abort" people who's free will go AGAINST His plan? Also, hardening hearts would seem to be removing free will but it could just be removing His sovereign Grace to overcome our sinful free will desires.
Are you suggesting Jesus and Moses were both wrong on creation? To reject creationism is to reject God. Your whole premise of an old earth falls apart when you read the Sabbath commandment. If the world was millions/billions of year gaps that means the Sabbath would be kept once every couple billions years. It's insane to me how someone can call themselves a Christian and say "nah Jesus and Moses didn't really mean that, it was an allegory or metaphor or something!" A metaphor to what you may ask? Idk but I just know it was a metaphor bc the earth has to be billions of years old!
Molinism is incoherent, though. I listened to Craig ang White discuss it, and even separate from White's critique it fell apart. I'm also a young earth creationist, oddly enough. ...... You consider Paul Washer to be arrogant and entitled. How. No really, how? White I can get, even if I think you're wrong (He can be sharp-tongued, at times).
Watching this in 2022 in hopes that I may be able to contend for the Word of God and defend God’s character to several members of my church family (including the pastor and several elders). Leighton is not only laying this chapter out clearly, but I really sensed the Holy Spirit stirring up in my own heart while listening to the truth of Gods Word being spoken. It is amazing what the Word of God can do. I pray that all those being deceived by ANY heresy, including Calvinism, that the Spirit would lead them and guide them into ALL of the truth. It is not Gods will for his sheep to be confused, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. It is His will that we obey and act upon his words according the doctrine of all His apostles. In the same way, it is His will that NONE should perish, but all to become saved by coming to the knowledge of the Truth. Glory to God. And I pray that he blesses all who read this. I love you, family!
Isaiah 55:11 [11]So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Psalms 115:3 [3]But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. If God wanted every person who ever lived saved, they would be saved.
I'm only 1 hour and 54 minutes in. I gotta say this so far. I am thankful that Leighton did not treat White like White treated Leighton. Leighton, Thank you for being humble and not taking offense when White tried to act superior. You crossed him up a few times, and he continued to mention that you deviated from Romans 9 when I think you actually stuck with Romans 9 more than he did. Leighton- you are a gifted preacher!
I was annoyed just like Dr White in that Flowers did not walk through Romans 9, or barely give a connected presentation to it. It’s annoying when you are expecting someone to follow the rules, but only one side does.
@Vince Kinney the outside passages you need are the ones referenced by Paul. Flowers wants to reference passages not referenced by Paul, and Flowers cannot walk through the chapter verse by verse and produce a unified message. Instead, he has to jump out constantly and stitch together a frankenstein monster of an interpretation. I’ve been following Dr White since my early 20s. This is the constant theme I’ve seen. If you want to simply read a passage and come out with a sensible message that makes sense from what you just read, you have to be a Calvinist.
@Vince Kinney that is uncalled for in the same way White mistreats Flowers. I understand that you are frustrated and have likely been mistreated by Calvinists, but you are condescending and should apologize.
I found it difficult to understand Flowers position when he did not 'anchor' in Romans 9 but focused on other texts mainly rather then the other way around (which was the rule). Needed to start with Romans 9 and bring other texts in to confirm and explain. Kept having to look for Romans 9 connections. I am not Calvinist. My thinking is that the main issue in all this is our interpretation of God's sovereignty. White makes compelling points but RC Sproul is better than any of them for clarity.
I agree with Professor Flowers. The passage isn't about one group being selected to go to heaven and the other to Hell. It's about one group being given over to an earthly judgement vs. the other being spared through Christ for a purpose to help usher in the kingdom.
James White assumes his interpretive lense true without defending it, and provides exegesis from it, while Flowers explains his interpretive lense, defends it, and provides exegesis.
I cannot trust Christians that believe you can lose salvation 1. It implies you're more powerful than God 2. It implies God gives up on you. 3. It's not biblical
Professor Flowers, your positive presentation was SPOT ON! So many miss the point of the law and the Jews/Greek conflict, which is the basis of Paul's entire justification doctrine. Awesome job!
I've been watching the comments for this video now for a few months, and have sometimes myself responded. I'm interested in the discussion, and reasons why people believe one way or the other. Here's my impression so far of the responses in favor of Flowers' doctrine he calls "Provisionism." Probably 90% of those who approve of Flowers' doctrine have the same criticism of White: "White is cold"; "he's mean"; "he's arrogant"; "he turns me off"; etc. The standard of truth is not how it makes us feel! The standard of truth is whether it conforms to reality, in this case, the reality of God's Word! (Probably 95% of commenters in favor of Flowers' doctrine don't even mention one Scripture verse or part of a verse to support that view.) The Truth is the Truth even if it's being delivered by a hostile messenger. I don't believe White is hostile, but even if he were, that wouldn't let you off the hook for considering the truth of his message. Have we forgotten that God sent a hostile messenger to deliver his message of grace to the Ninevites? He could have chosen a more willing messenger, but he didn't. And consider the Ninevites; they repented despite Jonah's hateful attitude towards them. Who says you catch more flies with sugar! Of course, Jonah was at fault for his attitude, and God did deal with that, but if the Ninevites had waited until Jonah was sweeter, they would have perished. Or perhaps you don't realize that when you give no thoughtful reasons (and especially no Scripture) to deny White's message, then it really comes across as if you're saying, "I can't find any fault with White's logic, so I'll fault him for his delivery." It's tantamount to saying that White's right, but he's not expressing it well enough. Can we get past our feelings long enough to have a reasonable thought or two? I'm beginning to wonder whether the comments here are from a bot rather than live people. The comments are usually some version of: "White's a skilled debater, but he's arrogant and mean." What are the biblical reasons why he's right or why he's wrong? What's the Truth? I don't care about his manner; i care about the substance.
Peter 3:15-16 NIV But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
To be frank with you, Calvinists are not fruitful people to talk to in the best of times. Although you must judge each person individually, the perceptive individual frequently notices a pronounced pride and vitriol coming from Calvinists. TH-cam comments are, as a rule, not places for rigorous debate. They are an emotive place. If you look at the comments under most debates, or even music videos, you'll see the same thing. Exclamations, not offers of proof and reasoned arguments. If James acts badly, that will stick out to people, and they will comment about it. Arguing the points of the theologies is what the debate we are watching is for. But usually, taking to the comments is fruitless. Regardless, God bless you.
@@delance3721 It's all in what you make of it. Your responses are as reasonable or as emotional as you make them. As thoughtful or as disparaging as you choose. The platform or venue is irrelevant, it's how you use it that matters. And it's how we use it that God will judge.
@michaelpfleegor6453 I agree Michael. If I had my way we'd all discuss things very thoroughly, very patiently, and very kindly. You seem like a good egg.
@@michaelpfleegor6453 So for my part, I am not a Calvinist. I know a few personally, and we've had very good conversations, and many more very fruitless ones. My point of view is that Calvinist Theology cannot be taken from the Bible upon a face value reading. I find many Calvinist answers to verses which counter their claims to be lacking. An example: God repented the choices he made in the Bible. The text gives no clue that this was not repentance in the usual sense of the word. Exodus 32:14, Genesis 6:6. To repent, God cannot have full knowledge of the future, because to repent is to be sorry you did something, and then to work to undo it. Obviously, when we repent, we mean that we would not do the same thing again, given a second chance. I think at this point in my argument, the Calvinist usually brings up another verse, Samuel 15:29, or Numbers 23:19. But this is where they lose me. Because I can read, I realize that if God is not actually repenting in Exodus and Genesis, there is no impetus for the action of those stories. If God did not actually repent of making man, he would not have tried to undo that action with the flood. If God had not actually repented of destroying the Israelites, no one would have credited Moses for saving them, as latter biblical writers do. So, in my mind at least, the two verses where God repents look quite solid. But I have to deal with the two where he says he does not repent. This I think is much easier. In Numbers 23:19, Balaam is speaking. Balaam is a false prophet who is latter killed because of his wickedness, and 2 Peter 2:15 compares him to a false teacher. So, not a good bases for a theology. Samuel 15:29 is likewise a very weak verse. Here, Samuel is not saying, in context, God never repents, but that God is not going to change his mind again, because he has already decided to change his mind once, when he took the throne away from Saul. Those four verses are fairly convincing to me. They're not the whole of my case of course, but I am not trying to write a book, only I wanted to give you something of what you asked for, even if it wasn't actually related to the White-Flowers debate.
I enjoyed this. In my opinion, Dr. White thoroughly proved that Romans 9 is dealing with unconditional election in a general sense and not simply Israel. It's hard to stay consistent through Romans 9 and deny unconditional election. However, I have a lot of respect for Flowers.
The beginning and end of Romans 9 speaks of groups; first Israel and then both Israel and Gentiles at the end. 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.[n] 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.[o] For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” This is Paul's conclusion to Romans. A conclusion ought to summarize the main points, and no where do we see a mention of unconditional election. Romans 9 is the weakest support for that doctrine when looked upon properly.
I agree. Calvinists never think how the Jewish themes and verse 1-8 flow with the core of Romans 9 (verse 9-30) and it's conclusion (verse 30-33). They completely isolate the core from it's build-up and it's conclusion.
To me it is clear that all of God's creation is now under a new covenant and if y ou accept Jesus you can be saved. Whether this is predetermination or election doesn't really matter. Jews and Gentiles have a way to be saved. Jesus.
Dr. Flowers absolutely crushed this, especially as a first time debate. What a beautiful presentation, and kept a ton of respect for White throughout. I don’t know why, but White gives off elitist vibes. He’s a brilliant guy, but I feel like I sniff arrogance. I could be incorrect. I was just super annoyed that White started attacking the delivery and not what Flowers was proposing.
Hello Dr. flowers! I just watched this debate for the first time and I noticed that James White did in this debate the same thing that he does in all of his debates. When he cannot respond to sound logic, and better explanations, he accuses his opponent of either not understanding the text,Not providing competent exegesis, or of not understanding the concept or concepts. This is his usual tactic. It is also why I have always said that James White is a dishonest debater. I would never waste my time with him.
Dr. White is an incredibly distasteful man. Even when he makes sense, his feelings of superiority produces an odious quality which alone makes me want to discount his positions. I think the qualities of Calvinism (that salvation is outside of our free will, only by God's arbitrary decision) attracts a certain person (James White)
I have to agree with Dr. White here. This didn't even seem like a debate at all. There was little to know exegesis going on here by Dr. Flowers. It felt like flowers was giving a sermon and then finding a few supporting verses sprinkled here and there to support his position. But there was no deep analysis of any text on his part. And worst Dr. White had nothing to rebut during his time because there was nothing given in this format. There really needs to be greater controls in these debates to make sure they follow a given format. In saying that... I respect Dr. Flowers and he was very honorable and respectful.
Flowers mentioned in the description of, why blaming him on the basis of exegesis is wrong. Go read the description of this video. Also, it was his first debate and he was not a debater like white, who was calmly leaning back on his chair, because he's done debating many times.
Dr. Flower has made it clear that he is not a debater. Even before this and after. Dr. White has been debating on subjects like this. Hence it doesn't lead me to lean towards Dr. White. Not to get political here but it was the same for Trump and Hillary. Hillary was the better debater but I didn't agree with her.
Imagine thinking you won a debate but sending majority of people to Hell because you've shipwrecked people's faith due to Calvinism. I can do this all day and prove to you the statistics behind this absolutely horrendous teaching of Calvinism. It is an ideology after all. Tell the people that are burning in Hell for believing in Calvinism and thinking either A "God never chose them" or B. "They are chosen and can live however they want because they believed they're elect." Idc about who won debate, who is saying the TRUTH? You can win a debate and be an absolute coward. In this case, James White isn't a Dr. nor is does he hold to the truth. He teaches "another gospel" and Jesus Christ says, "If anyone teaches another gospel; let him be accursed. If anyone adds or removes from this Book their part should be in the Lake of Fire; along with all the plagues." Leighton Flowers won the debate BY A FAR MARGIN, because he held to the truth of scripture. Calvinism isn't true nor is it biblical. Stop believing the lie and repent. Same reason why an "evolutionist" loses to a "creationist." The truth Holds itself...PERIOD!
It is slander to say that those who agree with Calvin's view of God's sovereignty believe that the elect may live how they choose. To the contrary, we believe that they will live in accordance with God's will specifically because He chose us and sanctified us continually until glorification. You are either misunderstanding the doctrine or willfully misrepresenting it.
We are to interpret scripture with other relevant scripture. It appears that White's objection is basically that Flowers did not completely silo Romans 9 and instead placed it in context. In what other case would James White seek to isolate a passage in order to understand it, and refuse to consider any other relevant texts? Love James White, but he's as inconsistent as anyone else when he wants to deflect a good point from a debate opponent.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
You hit the nail squarely on its head. You generally know that a person has hit a nerve when personal attacks are directed at them vs the position that they hold. There's an old saying "let the issue be the issue". A lot of so-called believers seem to be missing this point.
I'm purely convinced that Calvinists have to willfully ignore the painfully obvious judicial hardening found all throughout the Gospels to hold on to their systematic view of scripture. If they would just see judicial hardening for what it is, it would open their eyes to the truth of Romans 9.
It's quite possible we agree on judicial hardening without any problems. But active judicial hardening is not the same thing as 1 Cor 2:14. Man is passively dead and cannot love God without being made alive first. Flowers conflates the two.
It's not one passage, just to name a few outside Romans 9: John 6:44, Ephesians 1:11, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Timothy 2:25, 2 Samuel 24:1, Acts 13:48, 2 Timothy 2:25
It sounds like James White is reprimanding Flowers for attempting to show Romans 9 in light of the entire Word. I think it would indeed be easier for White's argument to prevail if all encompassing context is not allowed. I thought Flower's first argument was extraordinarily powerful and showed a need for consistency in God's plan.
Professor Flowers put up a big projection of Acts 28:27-28 during this discourse. Dr. White exegeted Romans 9 using only the text of Romans 9. Professor Flowers on the other hand was all over the Bible. The fallacy here is Romans was written in 57 AD and Acts in the early sixties AD. So since Acts wasn’t written yet, Paul most likely wrote words inspired by the Holy Spirit not Luke. Six or so years later Luke did likewise and probably never read Romans but just listened to the Holy Spirit. If there’s a conflict here it seems to me it’s either Professor Flowers or the Holy Spirit who erred. Choose Wisely.
@@vaughntexas I don't think there is a conflict, just a misinterpretation of Romans 9 by James White.. If you prefer to stay within a chapter and not look at other inspired scripture to understand context, perhaps you'd prefer to look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13. A Calvinist proof text. Then read 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. Same kind of explanation but much closer if that matters.
@@vaughntexas because that not the way to debate, Flowers knows that Romania 9 will be a disaster for him, it explains completely the seventy of God...
@@Solideogloria00 hey- maybe you can save us with your heightened self righteousness. Good luck when you're ready to give up the Christian religion because you had something to do with saving yourself and you can forsake it just as easily. No one believes that- not even you
@@Solideogloria00 I swear, you people who are on this channel are the most miserable and mean hearted people 😑😄. Flowers isn't doing very well with teaching you all in your incredible love for God and brother, how to walk in the fruits of the spirit, huh "Solid"? God saved me. You saved yourself😉
@@jody2873 I have some questions for you: am I miserable for being thankful to God that he rescued me from Calvinism? I was a miserable Calvinist though, with no peace. Are you really saying I am miserable for doing what God predestined me to do? Are you questioning God for predestining people to reject Calvinism? I guess I can’t blame you for being predestined to get mad at God making people reject what he predestined you to believe is correct. Are we even having a real conversation or is this just God making us talk like puppets and making us “think” we are actually really thinking? If Calvinism is true, don’t get mad at me, well you can’t really do that but play the script that was written for you, ala gnostic gods. See how ridiculous Calvinism is? You really believe people Can save themselves? Are you a Pelagian?
@@Solideogloria00 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him". John 6:44 And you proved my point. I am so thankful that it wasn't up to me to save myself. Your human corruption isn't that bad, mine is.
I think what non-calvinists don't understand is that there's a difference between inability and inability from desire. I am physically able to get on my knees and pray. Sure. But I'm unable to invent the desire to do so. You can choose FROM your desires, you can't choose WHAT you desire. Because the works of the flesh are flesh, they cannot do what pleases God. Only after being reborn can we then finally desire reconciliation with God. The Spirit, who is external to me, starts that process, not the flesh.
By that logic no saved person has ever prayed. If you watched this 3 hour debate and come away still reciting those same fallacies Dr. Flowers dismantled multiple times throughout this debate you are truly a sign of God's most everloving grace.
@Infinite Adriannn no, the reconciliation is inevitable. That's why it's often called the effectual grace of God. The Holy Spirit changes the inclination and disposition of our wills.
God calls everyone through His Word. When you hear it, and believe it as truth, understand just how lost you are, and except Christ into your heart that, that is when you begin to be reconciled to God and spend the rest of your life fighting Satan and sin, empowered by the Spirit and not the flesh. That call through the word is for everyone, not just a few predestined before the foundation of the world.
If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined without free will? That would be such an unjust God!
Clearly, the comment section is filled with Dr. Flowers supporters. I am a Dr. White supporter. I was able to follow his discussion which was done in a calm manner. Dr. Flowers seemed desperately angry in his tone and style. And, yes, it does matter when you do not follow what the debate is all about, Romans 9. I came to Christ at the age of 25. I grew up in a liberal Methodist church in the 1950s and early 60s. I was taught Jesus was just an excellent example for us to follow: the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man. Even today my old church does not speak of salvation or teach the saving grace of Christ. In my 20s I did not understand salvation or why Christ died on the cross. Even when it was explained to me I did not understand it. However, when I finally went into the Bible itself and read John 14:6 I saw that Jesus is God, and no man comes to God except through Him. I realized that I was a sinner and condemned, but the Holy Spirit was wooing me to Christ. What happened? It was God the Holy Spirit regenerating me through the Word, the Sword of the Spirit. Coming to Him was instantaneous. Before reading the Word I was spiritually dead but the Word changed me. When later I read about Calvinism I immediately understood the truth of it because I experienced it.
Jesus told certain Judeans in John 8 that they were the children of the wicked one, they were responsible for all the shed blood of the righteous, said they came from another father, and that they could not hear his words because they weren't his sheep, yet we're told they believed. How do you explain that?
@@doxholiday1372 I can't and won't explain it. But instead, I will let God explain it to you on Judgment day. I trust in Jesus and the things I cant answer I dont. But instead I have faith that all that I cant know will oneday be revealed to me when my day comes to leave this body. I leave ALL things up to God. Perhaps you should do the same as well.
@@doxholiday1372 would the modern day Judeans be anyone who tries to do harm to another? Especially if those who are harmed are Christians? Maybe just maybe some of the ppl being "knocked out" on your play lists are Christians? Do you promote violence or the word of God? Are you a Christian? Or are you something else? How do you explain that?
I believe that I'll just look up a sermon of brother Flowers. I cannot deal with the arrogant continuing interruptions of J. White. I even get distracted by it.
'who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, ' II Timothy 1:9 'But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, ' Galatians 1:15
EXEGESIS VERSUS EISEGESIS Published: February 16, 2017 The terms “exegesis” and “eisegesis” refer to how you read the Bible. At the most basic level, exegesis relies on the original context of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning, while eisegesis uses things other than the original context of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning. Exegesis tries to listen to the text, and let meaning come from the text itself in its original, historical context. Exegesis tries to listen to the text, and let meaning come from the text itself in its original, historical context. Eisegesis brings meaning to the text, and does not concern itself with the original historical context of a biblical passage. If course White uses proper exegesis.
James White attacked Leighton's form of exegesis and basically said it wasn't exegesis. Wrong. Leighton took a common theme found throughout the New Testament, throughout the Bible as a whole, and applied it to what the Jews were facing at the time that Romans 9 was written. He took into account the audience that Paul was addressing, the Jews problems with their entitlement mentality and their hatred for salvation going to the Gentiles, their being judicially hardened for their own rebellion of God, etc. all into account. James White took his own presupposed views of man's fallen condition into the text and eisegeted it and then tried to deny this and say that Leighton did the very same thing. James White has to ignore the common theme of judicial hardening found ALL THROUGHOUT the bible and rely on obscure texts about man's condition to lay his foundation for Romans 9. Leighton's foundation is much more Biblically sound. Why people think that Romans 9 is such a hard thing to debate is beyond me. If you have a proper understanding of the Old Testament, the types and shadows, the judicial hardening of the Jews, their issues with the Gentiles, etc. then you have no problem seeing Romans 9 for what it is, non-Calvinistic.
@@Michael-uk3pj, and to fully understand Romans 9 you need to know the common themes in scripture, especially the scriptures that Paul references, which are a lot. This is proper hermeneutics. Taking a bird's eye view of scripture and letting that help you determine what Romans 9 is saying.
"so you really think the method of exegesis parellels that we would use to prove the deity of Christ or the resurrection?" "Ah no..." Leyton himself said it how he jumped around and couldn't walk through the text is not how he would interpret scripture in other contexts. He couldn't stick to the text because what the text says refutes him... That's why it's hard for non Calvinists to debate they simply cannot let the text say what it says...
@@Michael-uk3pj, I'm sorry, but if you really think that disregarding the overall theme we find in the Bible or even just the New Testament when interpreting Romans 9 is proper exegesis, then I'm not sure anything I say is going to change such ignorance. Looking at the overall context and theme of the Jews in the New Testament and looking at the multiple Old Testament scripture references that Paul uses is not "jumping around." All White did was read the passage and say what he thought Paul's "interpretation" was. That's not proper exegesis by any stretch of the imagination. Leighton literally let the text say what it said by looking at the scriptures that Paul cited.
@@Michael-uk3pj, honestly, I know a lot of non-Calvinists are afraid to even engage with a Calvinist on Romans 9 but I'm not and that's because when you truly understand the theme found throughout the new testament with the Jews and you look at the old testament passages that Paul cites the text ends up being less and less Calvinistic as you walk through it. The Calvinist has to basically believe that Paul just comes out of nowhere with an "apostolic interpretation" of Romans 9 where he starts arguing for Calvinism. It's quite silly really. The very texts that Calvinists think are the best for their view are actually the best in refuting their view when those texts are properly exegeted. I get that people think that James White is a good exegete but when you actually understand the theme of the new testament Jews and the comparison that Paul is making of them and Pharaoh to bring the first passover and the second passover you start to see that Paul's not arguing for unconditional election to salvation at all but about God's plan to use the nation of Israel in their rebellion to bring salvation to the world. His choice to use them was unconditional, meaning that He chose Israel not based on anything they had done but for His own purpose and even in their rebellion He accomplished what He desired to accomplish. And where the Jews failed in trying to attain righteousness through the works of the law the Gentiles attained it by faith. Paul is correcting the Jews misunderstanding of the truth by showing them how they failed in attaining righteousness because they failed to understand how it was attained in the first place and that in their failure God used them to bring about righteousness, the second passover, the death of Christ. The Jews hardened their hearts, this is exactly what we see in Acts 28, and due to this they rejected their Messiah whereas the Gentiles had not because they were not calloused, hardened. It's a beautiful picture of God's sovereignty in action but it has nothing to do with this idea of unconditional election to salvation but about God's unconditional election of people or a nation to accomplish His plan, which was to bless the whole world through them by using them to bring the Messiah. The presupposed view of total depravity is the foundation of the Calvinist's view of scripture and it causes the Calvinist to build from that, using eisegesis, instead of actually using proper exegesis to determine their total depravity view in the first place. Many are just too ignorant to see it.
Calvinism Debate Video: Romans 9, James White vs Leighton Flowers: 42:57 “In essence, what Calvinists teach, is that all people are born Judicially Hardened…” It is because of Adam’s sin that we are born slaves to sin, because that is the power of sin, passed down through mortal human existence through Adam’s seed. That is what the bible and Calvinists teach. God does nothing to put man in a sinful state. 43:14 Speaking to the nature of man: “According to Calvinists, they are in this condition, ultimately, because God so decreed it.” This is a reiteration, but in lesser terms. He actually means “According to Calvinists, they are in this condition, ultimately, because God put man in this condition.” That would be a more accurate and consistent statement given the previous statement about Judicially hardened and the following statement below. 44:13 Speaking as God through the Calvinist perspective: “If I want to damn them to Hell before they’re even born, that’s My decision, I can do what I want, you don’t question me…” He is now speaking of double election, which no Calvinist affirms. He illogically assumes that if the Calvinists believe God elected some for salvation, then Calvinists must also believe that God (actively) elected some for destruction. He completely throws original sin and human responsibility out the window, and tries to make it sound that Calvinists believe that God is the author of sin. What happened to original sin? What happened to personal sin? What happened to sin in general? Flowers would have you believe that the Calvinist doesn’t care about sin at all, it’s all God’s choice period. But in reality, this is a projection onto Calvinists, because it’s actually Flowers belief that sin doesn’t matter. This is a misrepresentation of what Calvinists believe and teach. His opponent finally catches on as well, and questioned him about it. 1:24:20 “What if your understanding, of what “Calvinists believe” about Judicial hardening is false? Would that not completely, undercut, everything you’ve presented this evening?” Flowers response: 1:24:34 - 1:26:00 Flowers “excuse” for disregarding the Calvinists explanation on the difference of being born in a fallen state because of original sin (sound biblical doctrine) and the act of God hardening someone’s heart, is simply that he “…never understood the difference”! And why is that? Firstly, because he inserts his interpretation of "Judicial hardening" onto the Calvinists belief, but Calvinists reject Flowers understanding of "Judicial hardening". Secondly, Calvinists deny that anyone is born hardened by God. This is intellectual dishonesty and misrepresenting your opponent. Also known in logic as a strawman. And this is the crux of the matter. Flowers rejects the classical understanding and biblical doctrine of original sin. At least he rejects the biblical teaching that because of Adam’s sin that man is born a slave to sin, and in so doing rejects quite number of scripture passages on this matter, old and new testament. Unlike Flowers, I'll restate his argument since I just learned how he sees original sin. I'll use Flowers own words from this debate back at him. He makes a distinction without a difference. He says that we respond to God's calling while being dead in sin. Well, if he is talking about the general call to all, then he is wrong and goes against many scripture passages, but if he's talking about God's effectual call, then we are in agreement. But this is the problem. Flowers doesn't know enough about Calvinism to understand that's what Calvinism teaches, and if he does, then he "conveniently" leaves that bit out. He conflates God's general calling, and desire that all turn to Him, with effectual calling. He's actually talked on this many times, but doesn't know what Calvinists actually teach or believe on this topic. Whether he knows it or not, he is, once again, misrepresenting his opponents beliefs, and using strawman arguments. This is Flower’s understanding of Calvinism, which, if true, would be horrific. But that’s not what Calvinists believe or teach, and never have. Man is born as a slave to sin, because of the fall. Not because of anything God did, but through what Adam failed to do, which is obey God. Because sin is so powerful, it not only affected the corporeal world, but it also affected all of Adam’s offspring, being born into a sinful state, a slave to sin. Trying to give Dr. Flowers the benefit of the doubt, what he is doing is taking his belief of "hardened Israel" and fallaciously incorporating it to include all men in the Calvinist explanation. While Calvinist would agree that the corporate meaning would include hardened Israel, they would reject the notion that God put any of them into a state of sin. Where Flowers comes up with that idea, I have no clue, and I haven't found any explanation given by him why he believes that "hardening" must mean that God put them into a sinful state. (Edit) (Video: Pharaoh's Hardened Heart Disproves Free Will?) Just heard Flowers describe "hardening" as 12:01 "God removes the light from him (Pharaoh), strengthens him in his already rebellious resolve...". That would imply that Flowers, not the Calvinist, believe that God is the author of sin. Again, Calvinists absolutely deny this understanding of God hardening someone's heart. Flowers should be able to have a civil discussion with a Calvinist about the differences in their beliefs and interpretation of scripture, but that's not what Flowers does, and that's not what he does in any of the debates I've seen thus far. He misrepresents the beliefs of Calvinists and then attacks these strawman arguments that he has setup. Why not just talk about where we differ and how we got there?
Leighton, God is using you. Your humility and knowledge attract us to God. James may or may not be a more seasoned debater, but his arrogance is repulsive, as is so common among Calvinists. They remind me of the Pharisees, impressed by themselves and exuding arrogance and false humility. God bless you...keep speaking Truth.
I’m of the persuasion Dr. White pointed out Professor Flower’s error in exegesis technique. Dr. White exegeted Romans 9 using only Romans 9. Professor Flowers on the other hand at one point put up a big projection of Acts 28:27-28 using this to argue that Paul could not possibly have meant in Romans 9 because Acts 28 says had a blah etcetera. Well most theologians date the writing of Romans in 57 AD. They place the writing of Acts in the early sixties AD. It’s not likely Paul was driven by a text not written yet. Proper exegesis of scripture is paramount to understanding it. A second error Flowers says that no where in scripture does it say man cannot repent. Wow! Romans 3:10 no one seeks God. That quotes Psalm 53 so Paul agrees with the Psalmist but in John 6:44 Jesus Christ says No one can come to him unless the father draws him. Can éludes to ability. Jesus doubles down in 6:65 with the father having to grant the ability. I’m with Dr. White.
@@vaughntexas romans 3:10 referencing Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 , is poetic hyperbole. You want to take the entire thing literal? It says there is no one who is righteous. Jesus is not righteous? In Matthew 10:41 Jesus says a righteous man will not receive a righteous mans rewards …. why did Jesus say that if none are righteous. Psalm 37:29 says the righteous will inherit the land and dwell the land forever. Guess this is not correct because none are righteous. 1 John 3:7 says he who practices what is right is righteous, guess John was wrong cause no one is righteous. Every single time the Bible calls a man righteous it must be a scribal error cause no man is righteous. Romans 3:10 is not a passage supporting total depravity , no where in scripture does it say you cannot repent at all.
@@missinsanelogic read it again, the fool says there is no God. This is talking about the fool not the righteous, you might want to read it again, not everyone is a sinner, many people were and are righteous. Even today
I listened to James white and I still don't think he's right. The issue of limited atonement is so important to me that without it, I think the world is not worth living in. Not because I want to cling to my free will, but it means there are loved ones who may not be 'selected' and there's nothing anyone or God can do. That does not sound like God. Also, the way James white debated also convinced me to not listen to him anymore. So condescending and self important.
I’m so glad I’m not the only one who realizes this. He comes into a debate about Roman’s 9 to disingenuously give an entire sermon about how Calvinism as a whole is wrong, then proceeds to play the part of loving and accepting of his brothers in disagreement. Only the mindset of a wolf does that.
He made the argument thay whites argument for chapter 9 requires a very specific interpretive lens, if you put flowers interpretive lens to the chapter in the context of the whole letter I think you will find it makes more sense. That is my experience anyway. That is a normal hermeneutic exercise.
@@thegoodshepherd8212 The fallacy here is called a false dichotomy.. you either believe in free will or you believe in Gods glory... there is no such thing as an in between. Calvanists constantly misrepresent views in between with this attack. And this is so sad because as Christians we ought to be better in how we portray Christ. Honesfly seeking to understand an opposing postitions viewpoint rather than thinking with a pompous attitude that the other person obviously interpreted the bible wrong because they didnt arrive at the same conclusion you did. Paul said to Timothy in 1st Timothy "the goal of our instruction is love, from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith. Some have turned aside from these to fruitless discussions. Wishing to be teachers of the law and yet not understanding either the things wich they are saying, or the matters about which they make confident assertions." Are calvanists really humble? Or is it a facade .... do calvanists look at other brethren in the faith as fools for not believing predestination... do calvanists misrepresent other lines of thought in order to dissuade views by attributing labels, like palagian, onto other brothers of the faith?
Maybe. To me he was talking a lot of nonsense and not being focused. All I hear is that Jews are hardened but the promise is they can Accept Jesus and be saved and shown mercy. There isn't anything else going on.
Why is it Calvinists think God cannot be glorified in showing His wrath and judgment against people who freely choose to reject Him and His provision for their sins? They think He can only be glorified judging and pouring out His wrath on mankind if He determines them to be damned when He created them?
James White asks questions with hardcore presuppositions, yet always says the opposing side doesn't understand his view. It's clear when Dr White asks Dr Flowers something like "are you aware Clement of Rome spoke of the elect", that he has no idea of the traditionalist view. His style of cross examination is just dishonest, asking irrelevant questions to try to undermine credibility rather than tackling it.
I don’t say this to be rude, but I have always believed that James White was very full of himself. His general mocking of those he disagrees with, laughing at others apparent in his eyes stupidity, shows his extreme pride and self satisfaction. His worship of scholarship is its own roadblock to true spirituality.
@ransche1 You’ve described 95% of all 5-Point Calvinists and a significant majority of 4-Point Calvinists. Notice when you get to those who say “I’m a 3-Point Calvinist” (or less), you’re dealing with people who aren’t nearly as arrogant and mean-spirited. At that “level’ of Calvinism, the person doesn’t truly comprehend this man-made philosophy. They don’t understand that Calvinism, with its tenet of divine determinism, makes God the author of all evil, that it teaches innocent little babies who die in their infancy will go to hell if they aren’t among the “elect” due to their inherited guilt of Adam’s sin, and, worse yet, when God sends to hell “the reprobate” whom he made unable to positively respond to the gospel, it somehow brings him glory. It’s no surprise to me people who believe such things as are as unappealing as they are.
@@jlettizard6465 so you’re saying that Leighton Flowers is rude, mocking, proud, and worships scholarship? Show me one example of this. I see Leighton Flowers go out of his way to be kind and humble. He sticks to the subject. James White goes after the person. Show me one example. I can practically cut a snippet off of any James White talk and he’s showing off his intellect. Leighton Flowers goal is to expose error and contradictions in that horrific unbiblical theology.
@@myinternetname5911 that’s all true! The 5 pointers elevate Calvinism to essential doctrine. Those that call themselves 3 pointers generally don’t slip in that doctrine in every conversation.
@@ransche1 my first experience of Leighton Flowers was on remnant radio and he was most definitely discussing Calvinism in a mocking and dismissive tone.
I took the time to watch this again recently and here's a breakdown. 1. James White started his "exegesis" off at the end of Romans 8. The issue is that he concludes that Romans 8:28-30 is about God's unconditional election of men to salvation. But contextually Romans 8 is not about conversion or election unto salvation. The calling, justifying, glorifying, etc. are all predicated on one loving God. God predestined those who love God to be called, justified, etc. These are post-conversion blessings, much like Ephesians 1:4, chosen IN HIM for spiritual blessings. Calvinists like White read Romans 8 as those loving God BECAUSE they are called. But the text doesn't say that and the context doesn't support it. So, he walks into Romans 9 with an already flawed view in place and that is what drives how he understands Romans 9. 2. Leighton didn't go line by line but looked at the overall context of Romans, the Gospels, Acts, etc. and what was going on with the Jews at that time to understand what Paul was conveying. Leighton practiced proper hermeneutics in understanding Paul's message in Romans 9. James White did not. 3. James White also critiqued Leighton Flowers for his methodology in interpretation and not the actual interpretation. This is fallacious on James White's part as he knew that Leighton would do what he did. They agreed to it before the debate. Now, maybe James White forgot this but he's been corrected since and refuses to admit it and even blocked and censored Leighton when he brought it up on Facebook after the debate. That's telling and it tells us White knew he wasn't mistaken but instead was intellectually dishonest. 4. Multiple times James White claimed that Leighton Flowers didn't understand Calvinism but never showed any distinctions with a difference to how Leighton was misunderstanding Calvinism. Walking Calvinism to it's logical ends even though it's not palatable is NOT misunderstanding it. And James White knows this and should stop saying as such. 5. White essentially just begged the question for his interpretation and when given a solid and perfectly plausible opposing view of Romans 9 instead of engaging with it he just labeled it as not "proper exegesis." This is sophomoric, especially for someone as knowledgeable as White. But unfortunately even after all these years he's still making the same fallacious arguments. This means that it's not a lack of knowledge but willful ignorance and it's intellectually dishonest. I've watched this debate maybe 4-5 times now and each time I'm more convinced that Leighton deals much more with the overall context of scripture and White just begs the question. He just read through the text and told us what his opinion was, chalking it up to an "apostolic interpretation" of Paul while completely missing Paul's entire argument. I hope more and more people will see that what James White presented was shallow and unbiblical and not how we are to properly handle God's word.
I just finished listening to the debate. What an excellent job you did Leighton Flowers. I thank God for men like you who hold to the truth and yet show love for those like White who oppose themselves. I am glad to have listened to this debate because you have exposed the heresy of Calvinism very well. Again great job!!!!!!
If God predetermined us why does He command us to spread the Gospel? This is the thing that prevents me from pitching my tent in either camp. I lean in favour of Flowers and the Romans 9 or any scripture needs to be brought in to context. I believe scripture needs to be in harmony with the entire word of God not just a granular perspective contained to one place in order to support a perspective.
@@ShepherdMinistry so what if you’re one of the elect and don’t hear, or does every elect hear in which case what’s the point? And how does free will enter into to this perspective?
@@dwainmcbain5263 God shows mercy to whom he wants to show mercy to. He softens whoever He wants to soften and when He chooses to do so. I believe those God wants to hear will eventually hear, as Gods will always comes to pass. Our will is influenced/determined by our nature. Without God intervening we will never choose Him due to our sinful flesh and the enemy keeping us in bondage. Humans are sinful and not God fearing naturally. It’s up to Gods Holy Spirit to draw us to Him. When he regenerates us (reborn) then we will have the Holy Spirit changing us within and leading us to do His will. Someone truly Spirit filled will want to do the will of the Father. His will is to spread the gospel. God bless, SM
Dr White did an excellent Job sticking to the text of Romans 9. I can not same the same for Dr Flowers, he was all over the place jumping in and out of the text running to different verses to try and prove his point. He seemed to appeal to emotion quite a bit and his responses seemed like he giving a emotionally charged sermon then actual rebuttals.
Scholar4Truth What is the gospel ??? John 3:16 ? So God loved the few lucky chosen ones that gave his only begotten Son so that that asion as the pre wired ones heard about him they will begin to have their eternal life?? I’m. It being sarcastic,
@@albusai if you wanna be accurate, more like "So God loved the few lucky chosen ones that gave his only begotten Son so that that the pre wired ones hearing or not hearing (doesn't matter much since they're prewired) about him they will have their eternal life"
@@jakesarms8996 maybe because Calvin'ist God loves and free willers he hated. don't b so hard on freewillers. just give God the glory for everything he has ordained. robots can't help it
@@jakesarms8996 "Most people will reject it because most people go the wide path". Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you knocking free will while simultaneously admitting that there's free will? Do you know the definition of the word reject?
I don't think Dr White is or would consider himself to be the arbiter of what makes one a calvinist. However the term does have a historic meaning and, if one knows what that is, then one can determine if someone is a calvinist regardless how they choose to self-identify.
There are no "standards" for being a calvinist. If you simply believe in the 5 biblical points you are considered a calvinist. In this debate they mostly discussed one point; total depravity. So I don't think you are fully able to follow these debates. Maybe someone can watch it with you and help you understand.
Wow Dr. Fowler is laying it out like we used to say down south, like a cat eating a ground squirrel starting to head and any ending at the tail, he is laying this thing out with such clarity that is irrefutable, thank God for these words because these are the words of life
It really boggles my mind why Calvinists ALWAYS use the excuse that their views are misrepresented, but meanwhile EVERY calvinistic book i read represents it actually pretty much the way brother Flowers did, especially the 5 points of tulip. And by the way, pretty assumptous from a doubleminded hypocrite like Brother White to accuse someone of bad form of exegesis, meanwhile calvinists twisted the simple meaning of the words "all", " everyone", "the world", " whosoever", etc... Just so that they can fit into their entire theology. As for "handling" the word of God. White may pretend to handle it well, however he fails miserably in rightly dividing it, the result is obviously a perverted understanding of the simplest basic doctrines of the scriptures. The ultimate fallacy however is, to not distinguish Israel from the church. In his subtility he may not admit it, but in the end its the main problem when encountering Calvinism. MANY are called Mr. White, but FEW are chosen.
I think to say that the Church has replaced Israel is an incoherent position: Given that the Chruch is comprised of individuals who have attained righteousness by faith and not by the works of the law, to say that the Church replaced Israel is to say that it has replaced the Old Testament means of attaining righteousness through the pursuit of the law. The problem, of course, is obvious upon reflection; the law was always only a shadow of things to come, a tutor to lead us to Christ. In light of this, in what way does the "replacement" of Israel by the Church maintain consistency in its transfer of the concept of the MEANS of sanctification and righteousness? It's a DEAD metaphor! Only a remnant of Israel has ever been truly the TRUE, spiritual Israel. I'm not arguing against the blessings promised to Physical Israel, as the Bible is clear about those promises. I'm just arguing that Replacement theology doesn't even make sense, so how could it be theologically sound?
About your comment saying Calvinist twisted the text "all", "whatsoever". I asked you this very question that changed me from Arminian to non-Arminian: Have you ever thought about people living in Tibet on 100AD? They got absolutely 0% chance of receiving the Gospel. None of them believe in Jesus since they havent listened to Gospel. So, where do you think they will end after they die? When i was Arminian, i debate my Calvinism lecturer over Soteriology, and he checkmated me with that question. Not literally ALL human receives free will, dude
You are caught up on the linguistical dichotomies and leaving out the logical communication being driven in the entire Word of God. It is the Context of scripture in whole that reveals the usage (exegesis) of words in individual passages. With your slandering above calling James a doubleminded hypocrite, you are doing a disservice to the Master that purchased you. Romans 2:24. Repent, that God may forgive and use you for His Glory.
Gods message is definitely confusing 😐..even though God is apparently (not ) the author of confusion ? Christian against Christian debates happen all the time ..even in pauls days ?? But everyone forgets that we are arguing about the message from a deity that is okay with genocide..sending out lying spirits..killing of children..and giving young girls to use as sex slaves to isrealite soldiers as reward ?? Yet we are to believe in a loving mercifull God ?? And worse ..he has created ppl just to watch them burn eternally.. Thats confusion 😕
Thank you so much for this. Dr white has clarified so much for me. I have been unable to reconcile the Calvinist positions with the entirety of scripture. He has clearly made the case for rejecting his options in whole. He can not openly debate-his arrogance and professorial legalism and condescension has made it clearly open for anyone to reject Calvinism. He quits because his argument collapses. Thank you for this clarity. McArthur has always been difficult but I’ve spent 64 years as a believer and student of scripture accepting him uncomfortably. Today, in this exposition, dr white has show. That his self-promotion, in step with McAuthur, blaspheme the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world and the call to “Go” and make believers of all the world. There is no choice and no reason to go. Fates are sealed. Faith and acceptance are useless “works. Dr. White would turn a student or listener to atheism. Thank you for showing the tare in the grain.
One of these men is preaching rehearsed sermons, one of these men has shown up to a debate. One of these men wants to talk about Romans 9, one of these men wants to avoid Romans 9.
I love the part about there being a "HIGHER VIEW" of God in that he was able to provide salvation to all..... by giving us free will....while still defeating the Devil.....while still being able to execute justice on those who reject him....while still remaining 100% "perfectly Holy"...........and getting the victory and glory!!!! Now THAT I believe....is who God is!!! Calvinism tries to claim that they see a "higher view" of God...........but in reality I believe they restrict his sovereignty and paint him into a corner!!! How else can you logically explain his decree to save some and not others. And while White says that God's plan of salvation was Purely for his Glory and we only play a role in it.......... is likewise making God out to simply be a "Glory seeker".....and we are merely Pawns. Now God can do anything he wants.....but I think his main purpose for creating us was because........ He desired to display HIS LOVE!!! And he couldn't display his Love for us if he didn't allow us to have the freedom to Love him back!! How can White claim that God can't get all the Glory unless he is in full control. I think he will get MORE glory in Heaven when all the saved ultimately realize that he made a way for ALL men to choose him and therefore is 100% just and 100% loving!! And why do Calvinists believe that God's "sovereign decree" can't incorporate free will? Doesn't make sense to me. IT HAS TOO!!!! Doesn't it?????????? The only thing God Decreed....... was the "OUTCOME" of his plan of salvation (great multitudes sharing eternity with him). Not the "forced" manipulation of the saved....in order to achieve this victory. I think both sides of the debate (as ALL of us are) are skittish of the fact that some will ultimately parish in hell. But it's obvious that some would have anyway if God forced some of us to be saved.....or gave us all free will. Either way........ God gets the glory....but which way makes more sense? Free-will..........is the only way God could be fully JUST!!! Right? Lastly.....Why do Calvinists believe "those he foreknew".......to mean he "chose" them? Why couldn't God simply have seen into the future and all those that chose him............. are the ones he foreknew? I don't get Calvinism at all!!!
From an apologetical model, I would offer: your hamartiology must inform your epistemology, and your theology must inform your apologetics. Holes in hamartiology give rise to holes elsewhere. This comes down to the Notetic effects of sin on the mind. This also has a HUGE impact on your counseling model and thus, how to parent your kids and relate. The Calvinist largely subscribes to the Nouthetic counseling model. This is a serious debate because it impacts practical daily living. In the end, it is grace upon grace because there is sinful hangover--pride in the pulpit and pride in the pew. We all have our inner "bents" that create presuppositions which is why we need a counsel of others or "the body" to keep us in balance. Humility is the only cure to our pride (that which gives us a false sense of control).
I am an ex-Calvanist after sitting in that camp for 20 years. If Salvation is rigged, then why all the commands? Why all the appeal to make good and righteous choices? If God finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then is God really love?
Wow..... Flowers seriously wiped the floor with White. Wow. wow. wow. I loved how James White asked the question of "Was this a proper exegesis of the text? Do you feel you did a good job interpreting the text for us?" I am over here like, ummmmm absolutely! Where you listening? lol. I have only seen him squirm like this a handful of times (Somewhat of a ad hominem tactic a little bit by Mr. White). I just bought your book Potters Promise and subscribed. Great Job. I am going to go to Southern Evangelical Seminary, however, I sincerely would love to learn underneath you.
You’re definition of exegesis needs correction. That aside- this debate was ridiculous. One side was anti-Calvinist sermons, the other was waiting for a meaningful discussion on Romans 9. Leighton was the standard, emotionally charged typical Baptist preacher. Obvious it was his first debate, knew who he was debating and knew he had to pivot away from normal debate practices and do the Baptist thing- appeal to emotion.
Dr. White won the debate and his view is technically the most Scriptural and correct. However, Prof. Flowers exhibited the greater marks of a Pauline Christian through humility, brotherly kindness, and grace. I don't think I've ever seen a more gracious debate opponent. It was very appreciated.
Flowers posses this "Dr" title as well. Also I appreciate the comment on his humility, but I wish you would explain why you think Dr. White seemed to have objectively won this debate.
My Brother, your making a great assumption to make a statement such as that. I fully understand reformed theology I just don't believe it. I am a follower of Jesus Christ not John Calvin
@@CBALLEN are Armenians the only other option ? And as a Calvinist you should know that whatever I am was predetermined for me. So you should not really be worried
Debating often becomes more about a test of skills rather than a discerning of truth... I have never denied the fact that James is a more experienced and skilled debater than I am, but that doesn’t necessarily mean his views are true. My hope is that we will look past our biases and skewed perceptions of “the other side” so as to make a more reasoned and objective decision about the intent of the Apostle’s original letter in its context. That will never happen if we resort to immature bullying and gaslighting tactics.
th-cam.com/video/8IkxcNN78OQ/w-d-xo.html
This debate was pure fire from Leighton! He has the power of the Holy Spirit upon him in this debate! He has that fire burning!
The better argument would not to have argue over the sovereignty of God. Yes He is sovereign and the same God, who said I will have mercy on whom He will have mercy also said He would have mercy upon all. ) Rom 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have MERCY UPON ALL. ( God in His sovereignty repented, afterwards in a thing He thought to do and even Esau remnants, become a part of the possessions of the Lord.) Amo 9:12
That they may POSSESS the remnant OF EDOM, AND of ALL the heathen, which ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, saith the LORD that DOETH THIS.
Amen.
Perhaps there is no 'we'. Calvinists are of a 'strange' ilk of 2 Cor.11:4 altogether!
@@christianjamesguevarra6257, Also about Amos 9:12, you wrote: ( God in His sovereignty repented, afterwards in a thing He thought to do and even Esau remnants, become a part of the possessions of the Lord.) Amo 9:12
That they may POSSESS the remnant OF EDOM, AND of ALL the heathen, which ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, saith the LORD that DOETH THIS. God here is talking about the Restoration of Israel NOT Edom.. Israel will posses the remnant of Edom probably some places of Edom... ''ALL the heathen, which ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,'' are not associated with Edom... Amos 9:11-12 New Living Translation (NLT)
A Promise of Restoration
11 “In that day I will restore the fallen house[a] of David.
I will repair its damaged walls.
From the ruins I will rebuild it
and restore its former glory.
12 And Israel will possess what is left of Edom
and all the nations I have called to be mine.[b]”
The Lord has spoken,
and he will do these things. NOTE: The footnote [b]'' reads: Greek version reads and restore its former glory, / so that the rest of humanity, including the Gentiles- / all those I have called to be mine-might seek me. Compare Acts 15:16-17.
Dr. Leighton Flowers, I am really thankful for your passion to clarify things in the Scriptures. You just don't know how glad I am to hear you defending the truth. Keep doing what you are doing. Been praying for you since the first time I heard you. Thank you! God bless you.
3:23 - Dr. White positive argument
25:00 - Dr. Flowers cross examines Dr. White
37:40 - Dr. Flowers positive argument
58:30 - Dr. White cross examines Dr. Flowers
1:11:30 - Dr. Flowers Rebuttal
1:24:00 - Dr. White cross examines Dr. Flowers
1:34:30 - Dr. White Rebuttal
1:44:10 - Dr. Flowers cross examines Dr. White
1:55:00 - Dr. White’s closing remarks
2:05:45 - Dr. Flower’s closing remarks
2:16:00 - Q&A
Thank you very much! :)
Thank you
I can't accept the teaching of Calvinism because they rejects the free will of man.
@@jeckbalaquiao4119you do realize that that is the most man-centered and selfish thing that you can say. "I can't accept because I". But what if the Bible teaches otherwise despite the fact that it cramps your style. The fact is that there is someone seated on the throne of your salvation: who is it? You or the Christ?
If you "can't accept (anything) because [of you]" then you are God, you are the final authority.
@@rupertmedford3901God sovereignly demands that we must respond to the gospel unto salvation!!!
I am glad that I was predestined to listen to this debate, and to write this exceptionally clever comment. Praise God.
True, and god played a great deal in bringing you to this point by working out his decree
Your comment is not exceptional or clever, its mentioned in every debate involving Calvinism.
Your arrogant and a parrot hence unexceptional and dumb
😆, clever CHOICE of words!
God destining you to sin isn’t an excuse for you to choose to sin (your comment isn’t sin)
And I’ll listen to arminians about their second birth once they convince me they chose to be born the first time.
@@alil6547 exactly, you had nothing to do with your first birth (John 3) why do you think you would be able to choose to be born again? Isn’t that akin to a deathbed Catholic confession?
Most convincing part of this debate was when the Word of God was being read.
I quite enjoy listening to Dr. White and I've learned a lot from him. However, I'm starting to realize he's a rather uptight individual. Normally in debates, Dr. White easily comes out on top. Here Professor Flowers actually brought some very interesting arguments from a humble place while Dr. White just seems rigid and irritated. It doesn't help his arguments.
You become " uptight" when you are teaching FALSE DOCTRINE!
It seems he was irritated due to Flowers not sticking to Romans 9 and then self admitting he did not use exegesis properly.
@@ShepherdMinistry he self admitted that he did not exegesis in the way he would to NON BELIEVERS. Why does no one actually listen to the words people say?
@@brandondriver99 he was debated as fellow believer. He actually blindsided White. It's like we both agree that I would buy your spanking brand new Mercedes Benz for $80k only for me to see a used, rusty Honda in your parking lot.
@Kevin Evans they're both believers, so why does he have to stick to exegetical evangelism? James white doesn't use his gotten of exegesis to evangelize in any way. He doesn't go out and tell Muslims "you aren't elect so you will never be saved. Tough luck"
Dr Flowers, I discovered you a few months ago and listen everyday. I was denied membership at my church because I would not submit to Calvin’s teaching. I lost my joy for a season and was very confused. I attend a new church and have my joy back. Thank you Lord for Godly men like Dr flowers! He is my new favorite😇
Denied membership of their church but never denied membership of the Body of Christ into which the Father has adopted you. God sometimes moves us to where He wants us to be in painful ways; and will even use loveless believers to fulfill His plan for us.
What teachings of reformed theology do you deny?
Calvin isn’t scripture, it’s annoying you people keep using Calvin as the label for understanding scripture. What is your hermeneutic?
@@joshyingling literal grammatical historical
@@latenitehvac868 i was speaking mainly to the original comment. But yes i too believe that’s the proper hermeneutic historic grammatico. These people are so full of straw man “reasons” to not just understand scripture and know your place as a created being. These people keep wanting to be a better God than God is because it makes more sense to them.
Wow!!! That was an excellent debate!!! I watched the whole thing. I usually don't watch these type of long debates but I am glad that I did. Thank you Dr. Flowers and Dr. White for working through this process together. It made me think and do extra research. Much appreciated!!
While I respect James White’s work his arrogance and rudeness is so off putting in this debate. Honestly Lejghton Flower might have less experience in debating but he brought Bible to this whole thing which is way more important then tactics
Considering this debate was 7 years old, Flowers has increased in debating and White has increased in his quasi ad-hominem denigration.
Can’t find flaws in Dr. White’s arguments so you insult his character?
Nice..
Just want to say this was so good to watch. While Mr. White came to debate, Flowers intention was clearly to present the Gospel message. Scripture is a whole. Flowers did as Paul does and appeals to the conscience by showing consistency and harmony of all Gods attributes from old test. To new test. If your goal was to watch a debate you may have been let down, but if your goal was to grow in Christ I think the meat was in the message.
I don’t agree that White never spoke gospel truth. But whatever side you land on, the point was to debate, and discover the truth of scripture. If we’ve been let down by their meeting to converse, that’s flowers fault.
@@eremiasranwolf3513. Yes. Calvinist tend to be arrogant. I guess they get that from their murdering founder, John Calvin, who banished and even consented to the death of those who did not conform to his theocracy in Geneva.
@@pbm8264 that’s a bit presumptuous. I’m not a Calvinist, but “Calvinism” predates him. Also, even if it did start with him, to attack White on that basis is nonsense. Hold White responsible for his thoughts and actions, not for someone who lived 500 years before him.
Ah, yeah, this is a debate. What else would Dr. White come to do? Debating the text and presenting the Gospel are not mutually exclusive activities.
God bless your Dr Leighton your attitude demonstrates your a true Christian , yet I still believe Dr James White presentation very consistent . God bless you both😊
Bless both of these speakers. Praying for every brother and sister struggling with temptations; including me.
As a Calvinist myself saved out of the word of faith / new apostolic movement I have to say this is by far the best argument against Calvinism I’ve heard. As a huge fan of James White, I think he is wrong in that you did not explain your stance on Romans 9. and it was actually a very good point. For your first theological debate, you nailed it dude !God bless you and your ministry
Yes I agree Leighton did so well in proving it wrong that James had to try to wipe away everything that he said without addressing point by point. Also as a fan of both of them and debates I can tell you when James White debates anyone but Muslims he's usually a jerk. He has over 200 debates with Roman Catholics on youtube. I also learned his older sister became catholic and apparently James father used to sexually abuse her and James seems to act like it never happened. I believe James White's father was a pastor and he looked up to him greatly. The problem with debating Calvinist is they have turned words into buzz words when you hear election you think salvation and it doesn't mean that it means servant/ servitude. Otherwise all of Israel would be saved even as idolaters because they were Gods elect first. So Leighton has to go off course otherwise people will say I dont see that at all. Romans 9 election is the older will serve the younger as the Lords sovereign election that's why he tells Rebecca why they're in the womb. With that said notice their in the womb not before the foundation of the world like Ephesians 1:4 supposedly means? Calvinism is all messed up and I grew up word of faith myself that is a mess and I understand where your coming from that is most of the new Calvinist right now because of youtube. Stick with the word and watch beyond the fundamentals videos on predestination and election and Romans 9 You won't regret it.
Couldn't agree more! I think trying to hold someone to debate (1) chapter without harmonizing other scriptures is a bad faith debate tactic
I've been taking mental note of people who come out of WOF doctrine and most of them tend to end up in Calvinsm. It seems this may have to do with the confort and familiarity of viewing the bible through a systematic lens and having a man to refer back to and quote (Calvin now instead of hagin)
@@BEABEREAN10 I have been saying that for a few years now. I believe it has to do with Justin Peters. He shows them the word of faith and charismatic movement in America is not very biblical. Then they have nowhere to go but he recommends John MacArthur. John, MacArthur is an excellent preacher but the problem is he's not like most Calvinists even though he is at the end of the day at Calvinists.
I feel like you went from one side to the other. There is a middle ground.
Still watching and benefiting from this 8 years later!
Yes, mine says 3 years later. I wondered how both seemed to age so much in 3 years! Haha!
Mr. Flowers is truly a disciple of Jesus. Keep preaching the gospel brother.
@@jakesarms8996 White’s burner account?
@@jakesarms8996 his “emotion” doesn’t take away from the facts that he clearly stated from the Bible.
@@jakesarms8996 I don't have an issue with his emotion but I do wish he'd stay on topic which is Romans 9...
it's funny that you are the Judge of a "true disciple". ...
You better watch your attitude or you might not make it
Are you saying that Dr. Whyte IS NOT?
First time I see dr. Flowers preach:) love his passion.
He is Preaching not merely Debating because he loves his friends to know the truth not just his opinion 🙏🙏🙏
Praise God
I love how He mentioned vessel of wrath/vessel of mercy that God prepared beforehand. These would be Jews, the chosen. [Roman]'s was taught to gentiles about the Hebrews and why God does what He does to those whom He chose. If a gentile wishes to be God's chosen (grafted in). Christians must realize who God is. Christian's are not Jews, but He may deal with us as such, if we do not revere Him, as He called and ORDAINED the Jews to revere Him. Selah'
Calvinism is replacement (reformed) theology
@@gregludwig3332 There is no need to condemn anyone for a belief they adhere to. Out of context it appears condemnation, in context it appears to be a discussion.
@HillDueceua I agree, therefore I equates Calvinism with a false theology. Calvinism equals Replaced theology. A different Gospel.
What you say is not true. Calvinists do believe in the biblical gospel. That's not the issue its how the gospel works or the implications of the gospel that are disputed.
If you notice, God didn't harden pharaoh until after he already rejected God several times, and it was just to increase the visibility of His power. Pharaoh didn't start hardened, but had freewill to decide. It was then he was made to be a vessel of dishonor based on his lack of faith. Quoting this hardening is not a great example for pro calvinism. :)
It requires a lot of effort to make the bible friendly to calvinists.
Disagree. I notice that God said he would harden Pharaoh's heart even before Moses returned back to Egypt and mentioned the hardening at least once more before the first plague happened. Pharaoh had freewill to do what his heart desired which was evil. God simply removed His restraint on the evil that was already in Pharaohs heart so Gods purpose for Israel would be fulfilled. Bible is full of examples where God uses pagans and others for His specific purpose. Joseph's brothers is a good example. God restrains evil in the world generally or else we would all kill each other.
I'm not Calvinist but think they have a compelling argument. God appears to be involved in everything from Genesis to Revelation. Keep in mind that if God touches one thing in history then the dominoes start falling. Where would it stop? Joseph said to his brothers "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good". The good there was saving them from starvation. What is not said is that this also set them up for slavery 400 years later and Moses to lead them out.
@@leadinged But God did not originate the evil in Pharaohs heart. And the first hardening was done by Pharaoh himself.
God could/can plan things like this because He knows every possible outcome. He could plan to use Pharaoh like He did because He knew what sort of man Pharaoh was.
The idea that we are all equal, isn't in scripture. The Bereans were more noble. David was better. Good soil, bad soil. Etc. etc.
Not all unbelievers kill millions of people, but some do.
God could orchestrate Christ's betrayal by Judas without forcing Judas because God knew what Judas was. He gave Judas the opportunity. John even said Judas did what he did because he was a thief.
@@brianmatthews4323 So you think you are better than others? When you are in heaving, do you plan to boast about how smarter you were than others that will be in hell? Because obviously you believe some are better than others?
Anyway, all the examples you gave are just wrong. What makes a soil good or bad? Is it the soil itself or the One who makes the soil? What do the Bereans have to do with ones ability to choose salvation? Of course we're not all equal in the sense of behaving exactly the same? Who said that? However the Bible clearly there's no one who seeks God, all are sinners, and no one has the ability do come to Jesus unless the Father draws the person, were all born in Adam's sinful nature. I'm this sense, we're pretty equal, yes. You just have to understand the word in its context.
Also, you clearly don't understand what Calvinism is and appeals to a common straw man, that is, that total depravity means all people are basically Hitler. No, Calvinists never said that man does the worst all the time. It's quite the opposite, i.e. God is the one restriciting evil so the man won't do whatever they want otherwise we would indeed be all killing each other.
Reformed Theology does not denies man had a will. The difference is that man's will is subject to God's as the Bible clearly teaches in a lot of places. So Calvinists don't have to break basic interpretation principles or spiritualize passages in which God does not respect the concept of autonomous free will.
@@Luiz__Silva 1Sa 16:6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD'S anointed is before him.
1Sa 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
1Ki_2:32 And the LORD shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah.
Joh 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
Joh 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
Joh 2:25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
The Bible doesn't say everyone is a would-be Hitler. It says everyone is a sinner, and no sinner can enter the Kingdom of God without Christ.
I boast of nothing but Christ. Apart from Him I can do nothing, and am nothing.
But you fail to recognize that people have (are) different personalities. Not every lost soul wants to do Hitler type things. That seems self evident to me.
I don't think Christopher Hitchens was a mass murderer, or even desired to be, even though he hated the very idea of the existence of God.
I think that the problem with some of Reformed doctrine is that it fails to account for individuality. We are all different.
Now who made us different is not the point. The point is that we are different.
God knows all these differences, even if we can't discern them.
Some unbelievers are very belligerent, even violent, while some are meek, and mild.
You cannot simply dismiss the parable of the soils just because it doesn't fit your theology.
Yes, God made everybody, but who says He made them equal?
BTW, I'm a member of a Presbyterian church, so I do have some familiarity with Reformed theology, since I hear it every Sunday.
@@brianmatthews4323 If you think accounting for personality differences is the issue with reformed theology you just didn't get it. This is actually an issue or confusion you have in your mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with Calvinism or Reformed Theology whatsoever.
Like, did you ever read any of the puritans? Or even Pilgrim's Progress? John Bunyan, for instance, has several other books on top of the one I mentioned about the different types of people, christians and non-christians, all analyzed from a Biblical perspective.
What you think you know about Reformed Theology is more like a personal prejudice based on perhaps some bad interactions with people or sources.
"You cannot simply dismiss the parable of the soils just because it doesn't fit your theology."
I didn't dismiss it, I made you a question: who or what makes the soil good or bad?
Now, I can tell you the correct interpretation of the parable of the soils. It does not talk about man's free will. It was told for the disciplines to understand not everyone would be saved and what general patterns they would find among those who hear the word. It has nothing to do with the means of salvation but with some of its visible effects.
In Reformed Theology, a good soil is a regenerated heart. We're all born spiritually dead in our sins. At some point in time God showed grace to us and we were born again. Or do you people are somehow born as good soil? Or while being unregenerated they make good choices and become a good soil with their own efforts?
I don't intend to be rude but you quote verses of the bible without doing any exegesis and I think you are implying a meaning to some of the texts that are just not there.
Seriously, you are seeing things in the text that are not there. Your tradition is filling the gaps for you.
"Some unbelievers are very belligerent, even violent, while some are meek, and mild."
That's what everybody calls common grace, not only reformed theologians. Again, you seem to assume total depravity means everybody is basically hitler and behaves the same. That's just a straw man you created in your mind.
Now tell me about how those meek and mild people love God. Because Jesus said "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters". You fail to see even externally mild and meek people are still selfish and lovers of themselves. Humans are not and cannot be neutral towards God. You are either in the flash or in the Spirit, either in the kingdom of light or in darkness.
"The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?"
Dr. Flowers, that was awesome. Great job, thank you for being a powerful voice for the truth.
Creep
Is that you on the picture ? You look cool!
My whole theology can be wrapped up in 4 words.
Jesus died for me..
John Templer, Amen! 👏💯
Is that really your name?
John👍
Rodrick Evans Ephesians 4: 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
Not everyone is called to be one thing. The body has many parts with different measures.
@Rodrick Evans thats correct if you like adding things like works
I think it’s VERY telling that the commenting is available on the Soteriology 101 page for this debate and while on Alpha and Omega Ministries this very same video has the comments turned off.
That's what I see in most Calvinist channels here on TH-cam. In their debates they usually turn off the comments section.
Lol he might be afraid of how mean calvanists can be 😂
Leighton, you are helping me tremendously in my walk with Christ. Just thought you should know.
Hopefully CT you’ve started looking elsewhere for biblically sound leadership in your walk with Christ.
@@ducci00
How unsurprising, a Calvinist keyboard warrior :(
@@gavinhurlimann2910 (banging away just for you Gavin). Point after point after point after point after point.
@@gavinhurlimann2910 How unsurprising, another arminian with a hazy look in his eyes.
My favorite debate of all time! I'm a 5 point Calvy and I want to say that I appreciate Flowers keeping me sharp.
1 Cor 10:12
@@romeomk510 And your point is? Spell it out.
I think everyone has forgotten that it doesn’t matter who “wins”. They are no less brothers in Christ because they disagree here. They’re both men of God. It’s healthy to have these debates/talks. There’s value in each stance, each interpretation. Obviously. Many of us are in fact blessed this day to be a part of “the Reformation”.
Well said!
I think it does matter. Calvinism offers no peace, and affects how people live. Both positions have practical implications.
I was saved 3 years ago and was pretty secure in my salvation until my church started teaching Calvinist doctrine. I’ve never questioned my faith until I started wondering if God actually chose me. Thank you for this presentation!
I relate to this so much. Definitely only starting questioning my salvation after seeing Calvinism and reading Romans 9.
Maybe the two of you had reasons to question your faith did you ever think of that. Instead of thinking that it's a bad thing maybe it was God showing you that there was something in your thought process about your salvation that was unbiblical. Remember saying a prayer doesn't get you into heaven you can regurgitate a prayer after a pastor all you want but unless there is a change in your heart that brings about a change in your life you shouldn't be sure of your salvation and this could be the very thing that God uses to bring about your true conversion... Rather than looking at it like poor me my little feelers got hurt, instead you should look at it like God was loving you enough to show you something that needed to be changed so that you could spend eternity with him
@@BenDeRaps1 I think you’re exactly right. The Holy Spirit was guiding me and showed me that TULIP is unbiblical.
The only way to doubt your salvation in Calvanism is to doubt God. I think you’re good.
You find more assurance in your choosing then Gods? Couldnt be me.
Really blessed with the Word. Praise God for Jesus! God bless you Leighton
Part of interpreting a text is considering the different contexts of scripture, immediate, cultural, NT, and OT. For Leighton to pull other texts in is to consider the totality of scripture. Dr white wants to stay in Romans 9 but to neglect other scripture, in my mind, is to ignore what God has revealed in the sum total of scripture. I listen to Dr white regularly and I appreciate his ministry and I've learned a lot from him especially about ministering to mormons but I have to disagree with him soteriologically.
Agreed. Calvinism only makes sense if you literally only read Romans. From there, predestination and all of the total depravity falls apart very quickly. Why would Paul be trembling and hoping for salvation if he believed he was one of the "elect?" It makes no sense and Christ continually taught that salvation can easily be lost; most of the parables fall apart as well if one takes a Reformed approach.
The thing is, White demanded Flowers should stay within Romans 9 and go nowhere else, but he did not himself to that same standard. There were numerous times he went outside of Romans 9 to make his argument.
That said, one of the two debaters does not have the authority to set the rules for the debate in which they are a part. James White doesn't have the right to stand up _in the debate_ and declare what his opponent can and cannot do. The rules of engagement and the mode of the debate is established prior to the debate. But this is why James White always comes away thinking he is the victor and superior debater, because he always comes in setting new ground rules within the debate itself, which he has no right to do.
Jorge Anido
Agree
Tanner Nielsen predestination and total depravity are throughout the entire Bible.
@@jackgtx440 True, but it's how the Bible presents these truths and how we interpret then exegetically.
Although I agree with White, I wish he was more respectful to Flowers during the debate. It sounded like Dr. White missed lunch and was hangry throughout the debate.
True
James was consistent, Flowers was loving and passionate, Either way they are brothers in Christ.
First of all, I disagree with Professor Flower's conclusions on Romans 9, and on soteriology as a whole. However, I must say, I am deeply grieved by the amount of snub-nosed, dismissive critiques of Flowers' methodology in presenting his argument. Flowers has never pretended to be an expert debater, nor has he, in my opinion, lacked humility in his presentation. It is one thing to critique a man's beliefs, but to dismiss him based on his approach to the debate is, in my opinion, unfair. I believe the Reformed camp is steeped in prideful presuppositions of scholastic superiority, especially when it comes to soteriological issues. In no way am I discounting academics/education; I believe academics play a major role in the edification of the saints. I strive to learn as much as I possibly can. However, if we have not love, then our knowledge is in vain. I feel that many Reformed believers are in danger of "missing the mark" by placing so much pride in our methodologies.
Struggle....You're giving Calvinists a pass for being prideful. Come on.
White did the same thing to the Catholic fellow he debated on OSAS. What I found most disturbing was White's eisegesis of Hebrews 10:24-26. He is an expert in building his systematic theology before everything else which is a big no no as proven in this debate. It should always be the last thing you do. Exegesis leads to Biblical Theology (meta-narrative/key themes) and then you shift to Systematic Theology (breaking things down further). I laughed when White said you needed to go back to chapter 8 to understand 9. That could not be further from the truth as one really needs to look at 1-8 and 10-11 to understand Romans 9. If White comprehended that Romans 7 was actually an indictment to all those still under the law. Things would be much simpler to follow as Paul is indicting some of his listeners in Rome (yes his intended audience which seems so oft lost by our Reformed friends) namely those still under the law and not yet under grace. Once one comprehends this then one can see the election at hand is the nation of Israel. On top of this one really needs to read the source material too like Exodus to see that for example Pharoah also hardened his heart as did God in response. etc etc. Anyhow, if White is the best Calvinists have then God help them. He is a cunning fool who needs to see the text without his Calvinist spectacles on all the time (again check out his take on Heb 10:24-26).
@@omnitheus5442 .....100% agree!!! I wish more people could see through the arrogance and errors of his "camp". Just terrible
@@KingjamesAV1611 yeah love the way even the Bible is interpreted in English due to Luther/Calvin's influence. Take Romans 9:16 for example. In the Greek it actually reads:'So then it is not the will nor the run but God who shows mercy.' There is no mention of man in the singular. Clearly this is referencing God's salvation of Israel from His wrath through the intercession of Moses in the preceding verse (they don't bother looking up the references) in Exodus 33. I could go on and on here but if I type this and one Calvinist is turned away from what is at best a sub par understanding of God and at worst which I lean toward, another gospel then this post was well worth it :)
@@omnitheus5442 ....good stuff brother. Contend for the faith and May God continue to bless and keep you in your studies of His Word.
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
Isaiah 55:11 KJV
Dr Flowers did an excellent job of laying a foundation in order to interpret Romans 9. It wasn’t line by line but he used Scripture to interpret Scripture. And he proved his point in how he interprets Romans 9. James White just seemed upset with how he did it and at the end of the day- he didn’t convince me of his Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9, but actually seemed like kinda a jerk. Leighton was gracious and kind even when met with insults.
In all fairness Flowers really jammed a narrative into the text of Scripture and would jump from book to book and verse to verse to shoehorn it in.
Proper exegesis can let the passage stand on its own and from that alone draw out the meaning.
If the church at Rome needed the letters to the church at Ephesus and vice versa to understand what Paul is writing to them, then there's a problem with the preacher.
@@robgibbs216 Jeremiah 19:5 says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it." So, while God is not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance and be saved, most are not. This is irrefutable proof that God’s will is NOT always being done. God clearly says, He did NOT command the people to burn their children to Baal.
@@robgibbs216Stand alone? The scripture never stands alone, it is one! It is together. Both old and new.
Was Paul jumping and not allowing his own interpretation of Romans 9 to stand alone by quoting old testament references? Esau and Jacob is another book. Moses and Pharaoah is another book. Potter and clay is in Jeremiah. You have to go to the PROPHETS for his secrets was with them.
Repent of your heresey or your gonna perish.
@@colinpierre2048 Your comment demonstrated that you don’t know what exegesis is. Exegesis is about letting the PASSAGE speak for ITSELF. It’s not about trading hopping through the entire Bible to shoehorn and read meaning into the text from your train ride. 🙄
@@colinpierre2048 Ummm. Paul was under the authority of the Holy Spirit when he wrote that. Everything necessary for the interpretation of the passage was provided by God Himself. I don’t thing God needs man’s help to comb through the Bible and change the exegesis of the passage.
For the record, Dr. Flowers honors Dr. White in his closing by including him in his esteemed list of pastors and theologians that stand against seeker sensitive, easy believism.
A testament to your character, well done Dr. Flowers.
Amen! Shows humility. Also Flowers has passion because he knows those who left Christianity coming out of Calvinism. I asked a Presbyterian Pastor what happened to aborted babies or babies who died. He said those predestined for Heaven went there as well as those predestined for Hell went there. I told him I couldn't join his church though I liked the liturgy.
Yes. He very humbly and very respectfully did not exegete Romans 9.
@@matthewmanuccithat is a common rebuttal but very rarely do those making the claim explain what Flower’s should have added.
Can you elaborate on your understanding of how to properly exegete the passage?
@@DrVarnerhe could have exegeted the passage by actually exegeting the passage
@@prodriley The definition of exegesis is the critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture. Put simply, it is the process of discovering the original and intended meaning of a passage of scripture.
Are you saying Flowers didn't do this?
"Faith is an empty hand stretched out towards God with nothing to offer and everything to receive"
As much as I respect dr White, I think professor Flowers did a very good job showing how misguided in Romans 9 Calvinistic interpretation. God does not want and not want the same thing at the same time therefore it is us who we have to look to find error in how we read scriptures. Congratulations professor Flowers.
I mean, if at least Dr. Flowers had given an actual interpretation of Romans 9 instead of jumping all over the place to override its clear meaning...
"God does not want and not want the same thing at the same time"
The problem is that is a straw man and a false contradiction. A very simple answer to that is: a loving father does not want their children to suffer yet he inflicts pain in them with the rod of discipline make them wiser. The thing is: love and discipline are not absolute but complementary. God's attributes such as His Love, Grace, Mercy, and Wrath are complementary and they are demonstrated in different ways that, according to your fault logic, would be contradictory, yet they are not.
A biblical example of apparent contradictions is God commanding "do not murder" and yet He commands Israel to kill many people, including women, children, and animals. That's how He choses to show His Love and His Judgment.
Another false assumption in your position is that, if God has a will, it automatically means it has to be equally applied to every individual, every time. This is clearly not how things work. You just have to think more about it.
@@Luiz__Silva Well said
Powerful closing remark Bto. Leighton that truly presents the Christ of the bible the sincere, the straight forward not having 2 wills, the God who truly wants to express His love to the world through the death of His Son.
Thanks for being respectful to Calvinists Mr Flowers
Thank you Lord for you love and your presence! Thank you for the joy that is in your presence and for lifting is up when we are in prayer and praise! Lord touch these hardened hearts and blind eyes of those caught in calvinism! In Jesus mighty name, amen.
So you pray that God would change hearts? But would not that violate the free will of others?
@@Luiz__Silva No.
Nobody but God can exercise unfettered unaffected free will. Everyone else, including Angels, experience limited and relative free will due to the fact that we are all influenced by interactions with persons/ideas/events outside ourselves. We don't make choices in a vacuum.
Your questions understanding of free will is not accurate, the free will choices of man (given by our being in the image of God) is not a trump card above God's exercise of his free will or his sovereignty. God's own free will choice of grace allows mankind to choose to be with God or without him.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus You did not address the core of the question and you assume too much. I didn't say anything about people making decisions in a vacuum or things like that sort.
However, if you pray that God would save a sinner, are you asking God to do what? A little more influence? Or would you be asking God to change the will of the person from unwillingness to willingness? Note I'm not talking about prayer to make someone just make a different choice (chocolate over vanilla) but prayer for salvation, which is a very special case of change.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus Also, the idea that God willed that salvation would come through man's free choice may look smart and all but it's just not biblical. It's a philosophical assertion from a system that tries to read autonomous free will in the Bible. But the Bible is very clear in that individual salvation of a particular people comes from God's free choice before creation.
@@Luiz__Silva I directly answered the question. It's NO.
I don't care that you didn't say anything about people's choice in a vacuum, it's my choice and my explanation. Reread it and learn.
I always enjoy watching these debates. I'm very thankful for Dr.Whites ministry, it has cemented for me what I believe and why I believe it. God bless!!
@@eremiasranwolf3513 grim? Calvinism is narcissistic and not biblical at all!
I'm with Dr. Flowers's interpretation here. It's clear that the bible teaches both (people have free will and the ability to respond) and God is sovereign (and uses his powers for his purpose, i.e. judicial hardening, the election of certain individuals, people etc.). I agree with William Lane Craig in the idea of Molinism (middle knowledge). For example, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I give my kid a PS5 today with all the games available, he'll smile, be overcome by joy and say thanks as he's giving me a big hug. But my son still has the free will and ability to not respond in that way. I believe God allows for this free will so that love is genuine and not robotic. This is not rocket science. Where Clavinist's get it wrong IMO is having this one-way approach to things and not even open to the possibility of reasoning with these issues that clearly should be discussed. It's similar to young-earth creationists. They stick to one interpretation of the text, and are unwilling to listen to what might be a more plausible explanation. Also, in being apart of the debate community for almost 15 years now, whenever someone scoffs and comes off as condescending during a debate, there is always an un-easy tingly feeling in my stomach every time to further question that individuals point of view. McCarthur, White, Washer, almost EVERY Calvinist I come across are some of the most arrogant, entitled people on the planet. Something ain't right with that view if their view is the correct one :) - I'm good!
As a young earth creationist, I must point out that many of us are not “sticking” to some wooden interpretation of the text, but have come to see how the theory of evolution undercuts the core message of the gospel (ie denying a historical Adam, God declaring millions of years of death and suffering “good” etc) It’s the harm the other views do to the gospel itself that turn me off from the other views.
Right. But if you're God and you want someone's free will choice to fit into your sovereign plan, what then? Does God "abort" people who's free will go AGAINST His plan? Also, hardening hearts would seem to be removing free will but it could just be removing His sovereign Grace to overcome our sinful free will desires.
Are you suggesting Jesus and Moses were both wrong on creation? To reject creationism is to reject God. Your whole premise of an old earth falls apart when you read the Sabbath commandment. If the world was millions/billions of year gaps that means the Sabbath would be kept once every couple billions years. It's insane to me how someone can call themselves a Christian and say "nah Jesus and Moses didn't really mean that, it was an allegory or metaphor or something!" A metaphor to what you may ask? Idk but I just know it was a metaphor bc the earth has to be billions of years old!
Absolutely brother the prodigal son had to get to the hog food before he came to himself and realized its time to go back home
Molinism is incoherent, though. I listened to Craig ang White discuss it, and even separate from White's critique it fell apart.
I'm also a young earth creationist, oddly enough.
...... You consider Paul Washer to be arrogant and entitled. How. No really, how?
White I can get, even if I think you're wrong (He can be sharp-tongued, at times).
Watching this in 2022 in hopes that I may be able to contend for the Word of God and defend God’s character to several members of my church family (including the pastor and several elders). Leighton is not only laying this chapter out clearly, but I really sensed the Holy Spirit stirring up in my own heart while listening to the truth of Gods Word being spoken. It is amazing what the Word of God can do. I pray that all those being deceived by ANY heresy, including Calvinism, that the Spirit would lead them and guide them into ALL of the truth. It is not Gods will for his sheep to be confused, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. It is His will that we obey and act upon his words according the doctrine of all His apostles. In the same way, it is His will that NONE should perish, but all to become saved by coming to the knowledge of the Truth. Glory to God. And I pray that he blesses all who read this. I love you, family!
Isaiah 55:11
[11]So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Psalms 115:3
[3]But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
If God wanted every person who ever lived saved, they would be saved.
If you’re in a reformed church, why? Leave and join an Arminian one.
@@karigross why would I do that? I’m not Arminian
I'm only 1 hour and 54 minutes in. I gotta say this so far. I am thankful that Leighton did not treat White like White treated Leighton. Leighton, Thank you for being humble and not taking offense when White tried to act superior. You crossed him up a few times, and he continued to mention that you deviated from Romans 9 when I think you actually stuck with Romans 9 more than he did.
Leighton- you are a gifted preacher!
It was very obvious which man had God's Spirit, wasn't it? God loves a humble man and hates the proud
I was annoyed just like Dr White in that Flowers did not walk through Romans 9, or barely give a connected presentation to it. It’s annoying when you are expecting someone to follow the rules, but only one side does.
@Vince Kinney the outside passages you need are the ones referenced by Paul. Flowers wants to reference passages not referenced by Paul, and Flowers cannot walk through the chapter verse by verse and produce a unified message. Instead, he has to jump out constantly and stitch together a frankenstein monster of an interpretation. I’ve been following Dr White since my early 20s. This is the constant theme I’ve seen. If you want to simply read a passage and come out with a sensible message that makes sense from what you just read, you have to be a Calvinist.
@Vince Kinney that is uncalled for in the same way White mistreats Flowers. I understand that you are frustrated and have likely been mistreated by Calvinists, but you are condescending and should apologize.
I found it difficult to understand Flowers position when he did not 'anchor' in Romans 9 but focused on other texts mainly rather then the other way around (which was the rule). Needed to start with Romans 9 and bring other texts in to confirm and explain. Kept having to look for Romans 9 connections. I am not Calvinist. My thinking is that the main issue in all this is our interpretation of God's sovereignty. White makes compelling points but RC Sproul is better than any of them for clarity.
I agree with Professor Flowers. The passage isn't about one group being selected to go to heaven and the other to Hell. It's about one group being given over to an earthly judgement vs. the other being spared through Christ for a purpose to help usher in the kingdom.
It’s both
You agree with Dr flowers even though he admits that he is using a different way of exegesis than he would on other passages?
Romans 8-10 pertain to salvation not just general electing purpose...
James White assumes his interpretive lense true without defending it, and provides exegesis from it, while Flowers explains his interpretive lense, defends it, and provides exegesis.
I cannot trust Christians that believe you can lose salvation
1. It implies you're more powerful than God
2. It implies God gives up on you.
3. It's not biblical
Professor Flowers, your positive presentation was SPOT ON! So many miss the point of the law and the Jews/Greek conflict, which is the basis of Paul's entire justification doctrine. Awesome job!
I've been watching the comments for this video now for a few months, and have sometimes myself responded. I'm interested in the discussion, and reasons why people believe one way or the other. Here's my impression so far of the responses in favor of Flowers' doctrine he calls "Provisionism."
Probably 90% of those who approve of Flowers' doctrine have the same criticism of White: "White is cold"; "he's mean"; "he's arrogant"; "he turns me off"; etc. The standard of truth is not how it makes us feel! The standard of truth is whether it conforms to reality, in this case, the reality of God's Word! (Probably 95% of commenters in favor of Flowers' doctrine don't even mention one Scripture verse or part of a verse to support that view.) The Truth is the Truth even if it's being delivered by a hostile messenger. I don't believe White is hostile, but even if he were, that wouldn't let you off the hook for considering the truth of his message.
Have we forgotten that God sent a hostile messenger to deliver his message of grace to the Ninevites? He could have chosen a more willing messenger, but he didn't. And consider the Ninevites; they repented despite Jonah's hateful attitude towards them. Who says you catch more flies with sugar! Of course, Jonah was at fault for his attitude, and God did deal with that, but if the Ninevites had waited until Jonah was sweeter, they would have perished.
Or perhaps you don't realize that when you give no thoughtful reasons (and especially no Scripture) to deny White's message, then it really comes across as if you're saying, "I can't find any fault with White's logic, so I'll fault him for his delivery." It's tantamount to saying that White's right, but he's not expressing it well enough.
Can we get past our feelings long enough to have a reasonable thought or two? I'm beginning to wonder whether the comments here are from a bot rather than live people. The comments are usually some version of: "White's a skilled debater, but he's arrogant and mean." What are the biblical reasons why he's right or why he's wrong? What's the Truth? I don't care about his manner; i care about the substance.
Peter 3:15-16 NIV
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
To be frank with you, Calvinists are not fruitful people to talk to in the best of times. Although you must judge each person individually, the perceptive individual frequently notices a pronounced pride and vitriol coming from Calvinists.
TH-cam comments are, as a rule, not places for rigorous debate. They are an emotive place. If you look at the comments under most debates, or even music videos, you'll see the same thing. Exclamations, not offers of proof and reasoned arguments. If James acts badly, that will stick out to people, and they will comment about it. Arguing the points of the theologies is what the debate we are watching is for. But usually, taking to the comments is fruitless.
Regardless, God bless you.
@@delance3721 It's all in what you make of it. Your responses are as reasonable or as emotional as you make them. As thoughtful or as disparaging as you choose. The platform or venue is irrelevant, it's how you use it that matters. And it's how we use it that God will judge.
@michaelpfleegor6453 I agree Michael. If I had my way we'd all discuss things very thoroughly, very patiently, and very kindly.
You seem like a good egg.
@@michaelpfleegor6453
So for my part, I am not a Calvinist. I know a few personally, and we've had very good conversations, and many more very fruitless ones. My point of view is that Calvinist Theology cannot be taken from the Bible upon a face value reading. I find many Calvinist answers to verses which counter their claims to be lacking.
An example: God repented the choices he made in the Bible. The text gives no clue that this was not repentance in the usual sense of the word. Exodus 32:14, Genesis 6:6.
To repent, God cannot have full knowledge of the future, because to repent is to be sorry you did something, and then to work to undo it. Obviously, when we repent, we mean that we would not do the same thing again, given a second chance.
I think at this point in my argument, the Calvinist usually brings up another verse, Samuel 15:29, or Numbers 23:19. But this is where they lose me. Because I can read, I realize that if God is not actually repenting in Exodus and Genesis, there is no impetus for the action of those stories. If God did not actually repent of making man, he would not have tried to undo that action with the flood. If God had not actually repented of destroying the Israelites, no one would have credited Moses for saving them, as latter biblical writers do.
So, in my mind at least, the two verses where God repents look quite solid. But I have to deal with the two where he says he does not repent. This I think is much easier.
In Numbers 23:19, Balaam is speaking. Balaam is a false prophet who is latter killed because of his wickedness, and 2 Peter 2:15 compares him to a false teacher. So, not a good bases for a theology.
Samuel 15:29 is likewise a very weak verse. Here, Samuel is not saying, in context, God never repents, but that God is not going to change his mind again, because he has already decided to change his mind once, when he took the throne away from Saul.
Those four verses are fairly convincing to me. They're not the whole of my case of course, but I am not trying to write a book, only I wanted to give you something of what you asked for, even if it wasn't actually related to the White-Flowers debate.
I enjoyed this. In my opinion, Dr. White thoroughly proved that Romans 9 is dealing with unconditional election in a general sense and not simply Israel. It's hard to stay consistent through Romans 9 and deny unconditional election.
However, I have a lot of respect for Flowers.
The beginning and end of Romans 9 speaks of groups; first Israel and then both Israel and Gentiles at the end.
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.[n] 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.[o] For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
This is Paul's conclusion to Romans. A conclusion ought to summarize the main points, and no where do we see a mention of unconditional election. Romans 9 is the weakest support for that doctrine when looked upon properly.
I agree. Calvinists never think how the Jewish themes and verse 1-8 flow with the core of Romans 9 (verse 9-30) and it's conclusion (verse 30-33). They completely isolate the core from it's build-up and it's conclusion.
To me it is clear that all of God's creation is now under a new covenant and if y ou accept Jesus you can be saved. Whether this is predetermination or election doesn't really matter.
Jews and Gentiles have a way to be saved. Jesus.
Dr. Flowers absolutely crushed this, especially as a first time debate.
What a beautiful presentation, and kept a ton of respect for White throughout.
I don’t know why, but White gives off elitist vibes. He’s a brilliant guy, but I feel like I sniff arrogance. I could be incorrect. I was just super annoyed that White started attacking the delivery and not what Flowers was proposing.
Hello Dr. flowers! I just watched this debate for the first time and I noticed that James White did in this debate the same thing that he does in all of his debates. When he cannot respond to sound logic, and better explanations, he accuses his opponent of either not understanding the text,Not providing competent exegesis, or of not understanding the concept or concepts. This is his usual tactic. It is also why I have always said that James White is a dishonest debater. I would never waste my time with him.
Dr. White is an incredibly distasteful man. Even when he makes sense, his feelings of superiority produces an odious quality which alone makes me want to discount his positions.
I think the qualities of Calvinism (that salvation is outside of our free will, only by God's arbitrary decision) attracts a certain person (James White)
Aka..Ego!
I have to agree with Dr. White here. This didn't even seem like a debate at all. There was little to know exegesis going on here by Dr. Flowers. It felt like flowers was giving a sermon and then finding a few supporting verses sprinkled here and there to support his position. But there was no deep analysis of any text on his part. And worst Dr. White had nothing to rebut during his time because there was nothing given in this format.
There really needs to be greater controls in these debates to make sure they follow a given format.
In saying that... I respect Dr. Flowers and he was very honorable and respectful.
Dr. White seems to be relying on technicalities to argue that he is winning the debate rather than addressing the passage itself.
Flowers mentioned in the description of, why blaming him on the basis of exegesis is wrong. Go read the description of this video.
Also, it was his first debate and he was not a debater like white, who was calmly leaning back on his chair, because he's done debating many times.
Dr. Flower has made it clear that he is not a debater. Even before this and after. Dr. White has been debating on subjects like this. Hence it doesn't lead me to lean towards Dr. White. Not to get political here but it was the same for Trump and Hillary. Hillary was the better debater but I didn't agree with her.
Imagine thinking you won a debate but sending majority of people to Hell because you've shipwrecked people's faith due to Calvinism. I can do this all day and prove to you the statistics behind this absolutely horrendous teaching of Calvinism. It is an ideology after all. Tell the people that are burning in Hell for believing in Calvinism and thinking either A "God never chose them" or B. "They are chosen and can live however they want because they believed they're elect." Idc about who won debate, who is saying the TRUTH? You can win a debate and be an absolute coward. In this case, James White isn't a Dr. nor is does he hold to the truth. He teaches "another gospel" and Jesus Christ says, "If anyone teaches another gospel; let him be accursed. If anyone adds or removes from this Book their part should be in the Lake of Fire; along with all the plagues." Leighton Flowers won the debate BY A FAR MARGIN, because he held to the truth of scripture. Calvinism isn't true nor is it biblical. Stop believing the lie and repent. Same reason why an "evolutionist" loses to a "creationist." The truth Holds itself...PERIOD!
It is slander to say that those who agree with Calvin's view of God's sovereignty believe that the elect may live how they choose. To the contrary, we believe that they will live in accordance with God's will specifically because He chose us and sanctified us continually until glorification. You are either misunderstanding the doctrine or willfully misrepresenting it.
Great preaching brother Flowers!
Great job Leighton. Thank you for your work.
We are to interpret scripture with other relevant scripture. It appears that White's objection is basically that Flowers did not completely silo Romans 9 and instead placed it in context. In what other case would James White seek to isolate a passage in order to understand it, and refuse to consider any other relevant texts? Love James White, but he's as inconsistent as anyone else when he wants to deflect a good point from a debate opponent.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
non calvinists need to prove their points using the text and refrain from attacking the man.
You hit the nail squarely on its head. You generally know that a person has hit a nerve when personal attacks are directed at them vs the position that they hold. There's an old saying "let the issue be the issue". A lot of so-called believers seem to be missing this point.
I'm purely convinced that Calvinists have to willfully ignore the painfully obvious judicial hardening found all throughout the Gospels to hold on to their systematic view of scripture. If they would just see judicial hardening for what it is, it would open their eyes to the truth of Romans 9.
It's quite possible we agree on judicial hardening without any problems. But active judicial hardening is not the same thing as 1 Cor 2:14. Man is passively dead and cannot love God without being made alive first. Flowers conflates the two.
Well done, Professor Flowers. You seemed quite prepared for this debate and it was evident. Every blessing.
If your dogma is based entirely on one passage or one chapter of the Bible, it's a weak dogma.
Precisely.
It's not one passage, just to name a few outside Romans 9:
John 6:44, Ephesians 1:11, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Timothy 2:25, 2 Samuel 24:1, Acts 13:48, 2 Timothy 2:25
It sounds like James White is reprimanding Flowers for attempting to show Romans 9 in light of the entire Word. I think it would indeed be easier for White's argument to prevail if all encompassing context is not allowed. I thought Flower's first argument was extraordinarily powerful and showed a need for consistency in God's plan.
Professor Flowers put up a big projection of Acts 28:27-28 during this discourse. Dr. White exegeted Romans 9 using only the text of Romans 9. Professor Flowers on the other hand was all over the Bible. The fallacy here is Romans was written in 57 AD and Acts in the early sixties AD. So since Acts wasn’t written yet, Paul most likely wrote words inspired by the Holy Spirit not Luke. Six or so years later Luke did likewise and probably never read Romans but just listened to the Holy Spirit. If there’s a conflict here it seems to me it’s either Professor Flowers or the Holy Spirit who erred. Choose Wisely.
@@vaughntexas I don't think there is a conflict, just a misinterpretation of Romans 9 by James White.. If you prefer to stay within a chapter and not look at other inspired scripture to understand context, perhaps you'd prefer to look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13. A Calvinist proof text. Then read 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. Same kind of explanation but much closer if that matters.
@@vaughntexas because that not the way to debate, Flowers knows that Romania 9 will be a disaster for him, it explains completely the seventy of God...
@@jessejimenez1793 God doesn't promise you 'seventy' virgins dude. Not biblical...
What passage was the topic of the debate?
I'm just glad that it wasn't up to me to save myself
No one believes that lol. Great straw man though.
I’m glad I was predestined to think Calvinism is ridiculous and antibiblical.
@@Solideogloria00 hey- maybe you can save us with your heightened self righteousness. Good luck when you're ready to give up the Christian religion because you had something to do with saving yourself and you can forsake it just as easily.
No one believes that- not even you
@@Solideogloria00 I swear, you people who are on this channel are the most miserable and mean hearted people 😑😄. Flowers isn't doing very well with teaching you all in your incredible love for God and brother, how to walk in the fruits of the spirit, huh "Solid"?
God saved me. You saved yourself😉
@@jody2873
I have some questions for you:
am I miserable for being thankful to God that he rescued me from Calvinism? I was a miserable Calvinist though, with no peace.
Are you really saying I am miserable for doing what God predestined me to do? Are you questioning God for predestining people to reject Calvinism? I guess I can’t blame you for being predestined to get mad at God making people reject what he predestined you to believe is correct. Are we even having a real conversation or is this just God making us talk like puppets and making us “think” we are actually really thinking? If Calvinism is true, don’t get mad at me, well you can’t really do that but play the script that was written for you, ala gnostic gods. See how ridiculous Calvinism is?
You really believe people Can save themselves? Are you a Pelagian?
@@Solideogloria00 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him". John 6:44
And you proved my point.
I am so thankful that it wasn't up to me to save myself.
Your human corruption isn't that bad, mine is.
I think what non-calvinists don't understand is that there's a difference between inability and inability from desire. I am physically able to get on my knees and pray. Sure. But I'm unable to invent the desire to do so. You can choose FROM your desires, you can't choose WHAT you desire. Because the works of the flesh are flesh, they cannot do what pleases God. Only after being reborn can we then finally desire reconciliation with God. The Spirit, who is external to me, starts that process, not the flesh.
I could not have said it any better
You got it. Amen.
By that logic no saved person has ever prayed. If you watched this 3 hour debate and come away still reciting those same fallacies Dr. Flowers dismantled multiple times throughout this debate you are truly a sign of God's most everloving grace.
@Infinite Adriannn no, the reconciliation is inevitable. That's why it's often called the effectual grace of God. The Holy Spirit changes the inclination and disposition of our wills.
God calls everyone through His Word. When you hear it, and believe it as truth, understand just how lost you are, and except Christ into your heart that, that is when you begin to be reconciled to God and spend the rest of your life fighting Satan and sin, empowered by the Spirit and not the flesh. That call through the word is for everyone, not just a few predestined before the foundation of the world.
If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined without free will? That would be such an unjust God!
I had a very Calvinist-inspired professor at seminary, it was Dr Flowers work that kept me sane through those lectures.
Clearly, the comment section is filled with Dr. Flowers supporters. I am a Dr. White supporter. I was able to follow his discussion which was done in a calm manner. Dr. Flowers seemed desperately angry in his tone and style. And, yes, it does matter when you do not follow what the debate is all about, Romans 9.
I came to Christ at the age of 25. I grew up in a liberal Methodist church in the 1950s and early 60s. I was taught Jesus was just an excellent example for us to follow: the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man. Even today my old church does not speak of salvation or teach the saving grace of Christ. In my 20s I did not understand salvation or why Christ died on the cross. Even when it was explained to me I did not understand it. However, when I finally went into the Bible itself and read John 14:6 I saw that Jesus is God, and no man comes to God except through Him. I realized that I was a sinner and condemned, but the Holy Spirit was wooing me to Christ. What happened? It was God the Holy Spirit regenerating me through the Word, the Sword of the Spirit. Coming to Him was instantaneous. Before reading the Word I was spiritually dead but the Word changed me. When later I read about Calvinism I immediately understood the truth of it because I experienced it.
Mr flowers doesn't understand that ALL of us have stoney hearts. We were born with stoney hearts towards God
I'm a non Calvinists disciple of Jesus Christ. Jesus Saves All who believe❤
Jesus told certain Judeans in John 8 that they were the children of the wicked one, they were responsible for all the shed blood of the righteous, said they came from another father, and that they could not hear his words because they weren't his sheep, yet we're told they believed. How do you explain that?
@@doxholiday1372 I can't and won't explain it. But instead, I will let God explain it to you on Judgment day. I trust in Jesus and the things I cant answer I dont. But instead I have faith that all that I cant know will oneday be revealed to me when my day comes to leave this body.
I leave ALL things up to God. Perhaps you should do the same as well.
@@doxholiday1372 would the modern day Judeans be anyone who tries to do harm to another? Especially if those who are harmed are Christians? Maybe just maybe some of the ppl being "knocked out" on your play lists are Christians? Do you promote violence or the word of God?
Are you a Christian? Or are you something else? How do you explain that?
Dox, if someone who sinned against God fell on his knees, and begged for mercy, humbly, would God not forgive him? And raise him up on the last day?
@@theccc8318 amen brother
I believe that I'll just look up a sermon of brother Flowers. I cannot deal with the arrogant continuing interruptions of J. White. I even get distracted by it.
You don’t need to look up a sermon- Leighton gave three of them in this “debate”.
I appreciate both of these brothers and certainly their honesty and forthrightness.
'who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, '
II Timothy 1:9
'But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, '
Galatians 1:15
EXEGESIS VERSUS EISEGESIS
Published: February 16, 2017
The terms “exegesis” and “eisegesis” refer to how you read the Bible.
At the most basic level, exegesis relies on the original context of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning, while eisegesis uses things other than the original context of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning.
Exegesis tries to listen to the text, and let meaning come from the text itself in its original, historical context.
Exegesis tries to listen to the text, and let meaning come from the text itself in its original, historical context.
Eisegesis brings meaning to the text, and does not concern itself with the original historical context of a biblical passage.
If course White uses proper exegesis.
James White attacked Leighton's form of exegesis and basically said it wasn't exegesis. Wrong. Leighton took a common theme found throughout the New Testament, throughout the Bible as a whole, and applied it to what the Jews were facing at the time that Romans 9 was written. He took into account the audience that Paul was addressing, the Jews problems with their entitlement mentality and their hatred for salvation going to the Gentiles, their being judicially hardened for their own rebellion of God, etc. all into account. James White took his own presupposed views of man's fallen condition into the text and eisegeted it and then tried to deny this and say that Leighton did the very same thing. James White has to ignore the common theme of judicial hardening found ALL THROUGHOUT the bible and rely on obscure texts about man's condition to lay his foundation for Romans 9. Leighton's foundation is much more Biblically sound. Why people think that Romans 9 is such a hard thing to debate is beyond me. If you have a proper understanding of the Old Testament, the types and shadows, the judicial hardening of the Jews, their issues with the Gentiles, etc. then you have no problem seeing Romans 9 for what it is, non-Calvinistic.
The debate topic was not common threads in scripture
It was Romans 9...
@@Michael-uk3pj, and to fully understand Romans 9 you need to know the common themes in scripture, especially the scriptures that Paul references, which are a lot. This is proper hermeneutics. Taking a bird's eye view of scripture and letting that help you determine what Romans 9 is saying.
"so you really think the method of exegesis parellels that we would use to prove the deity of Christ or the resurrection?"
"Ah no..."
Leyton himself said it how he jumped around and couldn't walk through the text is not how he would interpret scripture in other contexts. He couldn't stick to the text because what the text says refutes him...
That's why it's hard for non Calvinists to debate they simply cannot let the text say what it says...
@@Michael-uk3pj, I'm sorry, but if you really think that disregarding the overall theme we find in the Bible or even just the New Testament when interpreting Romans 9 is proper exegesis, then I'm not sure anything I say is going to change such ignorance.
Looking at the overall context and theme of the Jews in the New Testament and looking at the multiple Old Testament scripture references that Paul uses is not "jumping around." All White did was read the passage and say what he thought Paul's "interpretation" was. That's not proper exegesis by any stretch of the imagination.
Leighton literally let the text say what it said by looking at the scriptures that Paul cited.
@@Michael-uk3pj, honestly, I know a lot of non-Calvinists are afraid to even engage with a Calvinist on Romans 9 but I'm not and that's because when you truly understand the theme found throughout the new testament with the Jews and you look at the old testament passages that Paul cites the text ends up being less and less Calvinistic as you walk through it. The Calvinist has to basically believe that Paul just comes out of nowhere with an "apostolic interpretation" of Romans 9 where he starts arguing for Calvinism. It's quite silly really. The very texts that Calvinists think are the best for their view are actually the best in refuting their view when those texts are properly exegeted. I get that people think that James White is a good exegete but when you actually understand the theme of the new testament Jews and the comparison that Paul is making of them and Pharaoh to bring the first passover and the second passover you start to see that Paul's not arguing for unconditional election to salvation at all but about God's plan to use the nation of Israel in their rebellion to bring salvation to the world. His choice to use them was unconditional, meaning that He chose Israel not based on anything they had done but for His own purpose and even in their rebellion He accomplished what He desired to accomplish. And where the Jews failed in trying to attain righteousness through the works of the law the Gentiles attained it by faith. Paul is correcting the Jews misunderstanding of the truth by showing them how they failed in attaining righteousness because they failed to understand how it was attained in the first place and that in their failure God used them to bring about righteousness, the second passover, the death of Christ. The Jews hardened their hearts, this is exactly what we see in Acts 28, and due to this they rejected their Messiah whereas the Gentiles had not because they were not calloused, hardened. It's a beautiful picture of God's sovereignty in action but it has nothing to do with this idea of unconditional election to salvation but about God's unconditional election of people or a nation to accomplish His plan, which was to bless the whole world through them by using them to bring the Messiah. The presupposed view of total depravity is the foundation of the Calvinist's view of scripture and it causes the Calvinist to build from that, using eisegesis, instead of actually using proper exegesis to determine their total depravity view in the first place. Many are just too ignorant to see it.
Calvinism Debate Video: Romans 9, James White vs Leighton Flowers:
42:57 “In essence, what Calvinists teach, is that all people are born Judicially Hardened…”
It is because of Adam’s sin that we are born slaves to sin, because that is the power of sin, passed down through mortal human existence through Adam’s seed. That is what the bible and Calvinists teach. God does nothing to put man in a sinful state.
43:14 Speaking to the nature of man: “According to Calvinists, they are in this condition, ultimately, because God so decreed it.”
This is a reiteration, but in lesser terms. He actually means “According to Calvinists, they are in this condition, ultimately, because God put man in this condition.” That would be a more accurate and consistent statement given the previous statement about Judicially hardened and the following statement below.
44:13 Speaking as God through the Calvinist perspective: “If I want to damn them to Hell before they’re even born, that’s My decision, I can do what I want, you don’t question me…”
He is now speaking of double election, which no Calvinist affirms. He illogically assumes that if the Calvinists believe God elected some for salvation, then Calvinists must also believe that God (actively) elected some for destruction. He completely throws original sin and human responsibility out the window, and tries to make it sound that Calvinists believe that God is the author of sin. What happened to original sin? What happened to personal sin? What happened to sin in general? Flowers would have you believe that the Calvinist doesn’t care about sin at all, it’s all God’s choice period. But in reality, this is a projection onto Calvinists, because it’s actually Flowers belief that sin doesn’t matter. This is a misrepresentation of what Calvinists believe and teach.
His opponent finally catches on as well, and questioned him about it.
1:24:20 “What if your understanding, of what “Calvinists believe” about Judicial hardening is false? Would that not completely, undercut, everything you’ve presented this evening?”
Flowers response: 1:24:34 - 1:26:00
Flowers “excuse” for disregarding the Calvinists explanation on the difference of being born in a fallen state because of original sin (sound biblical doctrine) and the act of God hardening someone’s heart, is simply that he “…never understood the difference”! And why is that? Firstly, because he inserts his interpretation of "Judicial hardening" onto the Calvinists belief, but Calvinists reject Flowers understanding of "Judicial hardening". Secondly, Calvinists deny that anyone is born hardened by God. This is intellectual dishonesty and misrepresenting your opponent. Also known in logic as a strawman.
And this is the crux of the matter. Flowers rejects the classical understanding and biblical doctrine of original sin. At least he rejects the biblical teaching that because of Adam’s sin that man is born a slave to sin, and in so doing rejects quite number of scripture passages on this matter, old and new testament. Unlike Flowers, I'll restate his argument since I just learned how he sees original sin. I'll use Flowers own words from this debate back at him. He makes a distinction without a difference. He says that we respond to God's calling while being dead in sin. Well, if he is talking about the general call to all, then he is wrong and goes against many scripture passages, but if he's talking about God's effectual call, then we are in agreement. But this is the problem. Flowers doesn't know enough about Calvinism to understand that's what Calvinism teaches, and if he does, then he "conveniently" leaves that bit out. He conflates God's general calling, and desire that all turn to Him, with effectual calling. He's actually talked on this many times, but doesn't know what Calvinists actually teach or believe on this topic. Whether he knows it or not, he is, once again, misrepresenting his opponents beliefs, and using strawman arguments.
This is Flower’s understanding of Calvinism, which, if true, would be horrific. But that’s not what Calvinists believe or teach, and never have.
Man is born as a slave to sin, because of the fall. Not because of anything God did, but through what Adam failed to do, which is obey God. Because sin is so powerful, it not only affected the corporeal world, but it also affected all of Adam’s offspring, being born into a sinful state, a slave to sin.
Trying to give Dr. Flowers the benefit of the doubt, what he is doing is taking his belief of "hardened Israel" and fallaciously incorporating it to include all men in the Calvinist explanation. While Calvinist would agree that the corporate meaning would include hardened Israel, they would reject the notion that God put any of them into a state of sin. Where Flowers comes up with that idea, I have no clue, and I haven't found any explanation given by him why he believes that "hardening" must mean that God put them into a sinful state. (Edit) (Video: Pharaoh's Hardened Heart Disproves Free Will?) Just heard Flowers describe "hardening" as 12:01 "God removes the light from him (Pharaoh), strengthens him in his already rebellious resolve...". That would imply that Flowers, not the Calvinist, believe that God is the author of sin. Again, Calvinists absolutely deny this understanding of God hardening someone's heart.
Flowers should be able to have a civil discussion with a Calvinist about the differences in their beliefs and interpretation of scripture, but that's not what Flowers does, and that's not what he does in any of the debates I've seen thus far. He misrepresents the beliefs of Calvinists and then attacks these strawman arguments that he has setup. Why not just talk about where we differ and how we got there?
Finally someone has sense here
Thank you for a kind reply.
Leighton, God is using you. Your humility and knowledge attract us to God. James may or may not be a more seasoned debater, but his arrogance is repulsive, as is so common among Calvinists. They remind me of the Pharisees, impressed by themselves and exuding arrogance and false humility. God bless you...keep speaking Truth.
I’m of the persuasion Dr. White pointed out Professor Flower’s error in exegesis technique. Dr. White exegeted Romans 9 using only Romans 9. Professor Flowers on the other hand at one point put up a big projection of Acts 28:27-28 using this to argue that Paul could not possibly have meant in Romans 9 because Acts 28 says had a blah etcetera. Well most theologians date the writing of Romans in 57 AD. They place the writing of Acts in the early sixties AD. It’s not likely Paul was driven by a text not written yet. Proper exegesis of scripture is paramount to understanding it. A second error Flowers says that no where in scripture does it say man cannot repent. Wow! Romans 3:10 no one seeks God. That quotes Psalm 53 so Paul agrees with the Psalmist but in John 6:44 Jesus Christ says No one can come to him unless the father draws him. Can éludes to ability. Jesus doubles down in 6:65 with the father having to grant the ability. I’m with Dr. White.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Dr. Flowers was always in the spirit of the text while Dr. White was quibbling over its stark letter.
@@vaughntexas romans 3:10 referencing Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 , is poetic hyperbole. You want to take the entire thing literal?
It says there is no one who is righteous.
Jesus is not righteous?
In Matthew 10:41 Jesus says a righteous man will not receive a righteous mans rewards …. why did Jesus say that if none are righteous.
Psalm 37:29 says the righteous will inherit the land and dwell the land forever. Guess this is not correct because none are righteous.
1 John 3:7 says he who practices what is right is righteous, guess John was wrong cause no one is righteous.
Every single time the Bible calls a man righteous it must be a scribal error cause no man is righteous.
Romans 3:10 is not a passage supporting total depravity , no where in scripture does it say you cannot repent at all.
He also is a heretic.
@@missinsanelogic read it again, the fool says there is no God. This is talking about the fool not the righteous, you might want to read it again, not everyone is a sinner, many people were and are righteous. Even today
I listened to James white and I still don't think he's right. The issue of limited atonement is so important to me that without it, I think the world is not worth living in. Not because I want to cling to my free will, but it means there are loved ones who may not be 'selected' and there's nothing anyone or God can do. That does not sound like God. Also, the way James white debated also convinced me to not listen to him anymore. So condescending and self important.
Flowers didn’t debate Romans 9. He preached a sermon against TULIP without using the Bible.
I’m so glad I’m not the only one who realizes this. He comes into a debate about Roman’s 9 to disingenuously give an entire sermon about how Calvinism as a whole is wrong, then proceeds to play the part of loving and accepting of his brothers in disagreement. Only the mindset of a wolf does that.
@@soldier7332 but I came to Calvinism by reading my Bible. I could make that strawman about any doctrine I didn’t like, but that’s just a false claim.
@@soldier7332
I used to believe in a autonomous free will. You want to take a guess at how I became a Calvinist? I read my Bible.
that's exactly how I saw it too. Calvinism is hated.. and so is Romans 9
He made the argument thay whites argument for chapter 9 requires a very specific interpretive lens, if you put flowers interpretive lens to the chapter in the context of the whole letter I think you will find it makes more sense. That is my experience anyway. That is a normal hermeneutic exercise.
Praise the Lord for giving me free will to not have to be a calvinist, thank the Lord for those who had been set free from the bondage of calvinism!
Blood Bought Ministries, So if you are not a Calvinist what do you believe now?
@@josephdurraz8574 that his free will is more important than God’s glory
@@thegoodshepherd8212
The fallacy here is called a false dichotomy.. you either believe in free will or you believe in Gods glory... there is no such thing as an in between. Calvanists constantly misrepresent views in between with this attack. And this is so sad because as Christians we ought to be better in how we portray Christ. Honesfly seeking to understand an opposing postitions viewpoint rather than thinking with a pompous attitude that the other person obviously interpreted the bible wrong because they didnt arrive at the same conclusion you did.
Paul said to Timothy in 1st Timothy "the goal of our instruction is love, from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith. Some have turned aside from these to fruitless discussions. Wishing to be teachers of the law and yet not understanding either the things wich they are saying, or the matters about which they make confident assertions."
Are calvanists really humble? Or is it a facade .... do calvanists look at other brethren in the faith as fools for not believing predestination... do calvanists misrepresent other lines of thought in order to dissuade views by attributing labels, like palagian, onto other brothers of the faith?
Dr Flowers, your closing statements were a slam dunk. Praise the Lord!
Love how clear and simple bro Leighton makes it. Arguing for Calvinism is hard, confusing, and hardly good news at all
Maybe. To me he was talking a lot of nonsense and not being focused. All I hear is that Jews are hardened but the promise is they can Accept Jesus and be saved and shown mercy. There isn't anything else going on.
Why is it Calvinists think God cannot be glorified in showing His wrath and judgment against people who freely choose to reject Him and His provision for their sins? They think He can only be glorified judging and pouring out His wrath on mankind if He determines them to be damned when He created them?
James White asks questions with hardcore presuppositions, yet always says the opposing side doesn't understand his view. It's clear when Dr White asks Dr Flowers something like "are you aware Clement of Rome spoke of the elect", that he has no idea of the traditionalist view. His style of cross examination is just dishonest, asking irrelevant questions to try to undermine credibility rather than tackling it.
I don’t say this to be rude, but I have always believed that James White was very full of himself. His general mocking of those he disagrees with, laughing at others apparent in his eyes stupidity, shows his extreme pride and self satisfaction. His worship of scholarship is its own roadblock to true spirituality.
If you would’ve said the exact same thing but exchanged “James White” with “Leighton Flowers” the claim would still be valid.
@ransche1 You’ve described 95% of all 5-Point Calvinists and a significant majority of 4-Point Calvinists. Notice when you get to those who say “I’m a 3-Point Calvinist” (or less), you’re dealing with people who aren’t nearly as arrogant and mean-spirited. At that “level’ of Calvinism, the person doesn’t truly comprehend this man-made philosophy. They don’t understand that Calvinism, with its tenet of divine determinism, makes God the author of all evil, that it teaches innocent little babies who die in their infancy will go to hell if they aren’t among the “elect” due to their inherited guilt of Adam’s sin, and, worse yet, when God sends to hell “the reprobate” whom he made unable to positively respond to the gospel, it somehow brings him glory. It’s no surprise to me people who believe such things as are as unappealing as they are.
@@jlettizard6465 so you’re saying that Leighton Flowers is rude, mocking, proud, and worships scholarship? Show me one example of this. I see Leighton Flowers go out of his way to be kind and humble. He sticks to the subject. James White goes after the person. Show me one example. I can practically cut a snippet off of any James White talk and he’s showing off his intellect. Leighton Flowers goal is to expose error and contradictions in that horrific unbiblical theology.
@@myinternetname5911 that’s all true! The 5 pointers elevate Calvinism to essential doctrine. Those that call themselves 3 pointers generally don’t slip in that doctrine in every conversation.
@@ransche1 my first experience of Leighton Flowers was on remnant radio and he was most definitely discussing Calvinism in a mocking and dismissive tone.
I took the time to watch this again recently and here's a breakdown.
1. James White started his "exegesis" off at the end of Romans 8. The issue is that he concludes that Romans 8:28-30 is about God's unconditional election of men to salvation. But contextually Romans 8 is not about conversion or election unto salvation. The calling, justifying, glorifying, etc. are all predicated on one loving God. God predestined those who love God to be called, justified, etc. These are post-conversion blessings, much like Ephesians 1:4, chosen IN HIM for spiritual blessings. Calvinists like White read Romans 8 as those loving God BECAUSE they are called. But the text doesn't say that and the context doesn't support it. So, he walks into Romans 9 with an already flawed view in place and that is what drives how he understands Romans 9.
2. Leighton didn't go line by line but looked at the overall context of Romans, the Gospels, Acts, etc. and what was going on with the Jews at that time to understand what Paul was conveying. Leighton practiced proper hermeneutics in understanding Paul's message in Romans 9. James White did not.
3. James White also critiqued Leighton Flowers for his methodology in interpretation and not the actual interpretation. This is fallacious on James White's part as he knew that Leighton would do what he did. They agreed to it before the debate. Now, maybe James White forgot this but he's been corrected since and refuses to admit it and even blocked and censored Leighton when he brought it up on Facebook after the debate. That's telling and it tells us White knew he wasn't mistaken but instead was intellectually dishonest.
4. Multiple times James White claimed that Leighton Flowers didn't understand Calvinism but never showed any distinctions with a difference to how Leighton was misunderstanding Calvinism. Walking Calvinism to it's logical ends even though it's not palatable is NOT misunderstanding it. And James White knows this and should stop saying as such.
5. White essentially just begged the question for his interpretation and when given a solid and perfectly plausible opposing view of Romans 9 instead of engaging with it he just labeled it as not "proper exegesis." This is sophomoric, especially for someone as knowledgeable as White. But unfortunately even after all these years he's still making the same fallacious arguments. This means that it's not a lack of knowledge but willful ignorance and it's intellectually dishonest.
I've watched this debate maybe 4-5 times now and each time I'm more convinced that Leighton deals much more with the overall context of scripture and White just begs the question. He just read through the text and told us what his opinion was, chalking it up to an "apostolic interpretation" of Paul while completely missing Paul's entire argument. I hope more and more people will see that what James White presented was shallow and unbiblical and not how we are to properly handle God's word.
I agree. Well thought out sir
I just finished listening to the debate. What an excellent job you did Leighton Flowers. I thank God for men like you who hold to the truth and yet show love for those like White who oppose themselves. I am glad to have listened to this debate because you have exposed the heresy of Calvinism very well. Again great job!!!!!!
If God predetermined us why does He command us to spread the Gospel? This is the thing that prevents me from pitching my tent in either camp. I lean in favour of Flowers and the Romans 9 or any scripture needs to be brought in to context. I believe scripture needs to be in harmony with the entire word of God not just a granular perspective contained to one place in order to support a perspective.
Because faith comes by hearing Gods word. Now who hears and listens is up to God changing their heart.
God bless,
SM
@@ShepherdMinistry so what if you’re one of the elect and don’t hear, or does every elect hear in which case what’s the point? And how does free will enter into to this perspective?
@@dwainmcbain5263 God shows mercy to whom he wants to show mercy to. He softens whoever He wants to soften and when He chooses to do so.
I believe those God wants to hear will eventually hear, as Gods will always comes to pass.
Our will is influenced/determined by our nature. Without God intervening we will never choose Him due to our sinful flesh and the enemy keeping us in bondage. Humans are sinful and not God fearing naturally. It’s up to Gods Holy Spirit to draw us to Him. When he regenerates us (reborn) then we will have the Holy Spirit changing us within and leading us to do His will. Someone truly Spirit filled will want to do the will of the Father. His will is to spread the gospel.
God bless,
SM
the best theological preaching u will ever hear. he who has ears let him hea!
Dr White did an excellent Job sticking to the text of Romans 9. I can not same the same for Dr Flowers, he was all over the place jumping in and out of the text running to different verses to try and prove his point. He seemed to appeal to emotion quite a bit and his responses seemed like he giving a emotionally charged sermon then actual rebuttals.
Good job Dr. White. We don't want other pesky scriptures getting in the way of our understanding of this verse.
Scholar4Truth What is the gospel ??? John 3:16 ? So God loved the few lucky chosen ones that gave his only begotten Son so that that asion as the pre wired ones heard about him they will begin to have their eternal life?? I’m. It being sarcastic,
@@albusai if you wanna be accurate, more like "So God loved the few lucky chosen ones that gave his only begotten Son so that that the pre wired ones hearing or not hearing (doesn't matter much since they're prewired) about him they will have their eternal life"
You can’t look at Romans 9 by itself there’s several chapters before and after and the whole Bible is exquisitely linked
That's exactly how you deal with scripture, you realize this is all connected right?
I wonder how many professing Calvinists actually meet James White’s standards for what qualifies a person to be a Calvinist.
@@jakesarms8996 maybe because Calvin'ist God loves and free willers he hated. don't b so hard on freewillers. just give God the glory for everything he has ordained. robots can't help it
@@jakesarms8996
"Most people will reject it because most people go the wide path".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you knocking free will while simultaneously admitting that there's free will?
Do you know the definition of the word reject?
I don't think Dr White is or would consider himself to be the arbiter of what makes one a calvinist.
However the term does have a historic meaning and, if one knows what that is, then one can determine if someone is a calvinist regardless how they choose to self-identify.
The love for Jesus and his word
There are no "standards" for being a calvinist. If you simply believe in the 5 biblical points you are considered a calvinist. In this debate they mostly discussed one point; total depravity. So I don't think you are fully able to follow these debates. Maybe someone can watch it with you and help you understand.
Wow Dr. Fowler is laying it out like we used to say down south, like a cat eating a ground squirrel starting to head and any ending at the tail, he is laying this thing out with such clarity that is irrefutable, thank God for these words because these are the words of life
It really boggles my mind why Calvinists ALWAYS use the excuse that their views are misrepresented, but meanwhile EVERY calvinistic book i read represents it actually pretty much the way brother Flowers did, especially the 5 points of tulip. And by the way, pretty assumptous from a doubleminded hypocrite like Brother White to accuse someone of bad form of exegesis, meanwhile calvinists twisted the simple meaning of the words "all", " everyone", "the world", " whosoever", etc... Just so that they can fit into their entire theology.
As for "handling" the word of God. White may pretend to handle it well, however he fails miserably in rightly dividing it, the result is obviously a perverted understanding of the simplest basic doctrines of the scriptures.
The ultimate fallacy however is, to not distinguish Israel from the church. In his subtility he may not admit it, but in the end its the main problem when encountering Calvinism.
MANY are called Mr. White, but FEW are chosen.
I think to say that the Church has replaced Israel is an incoherent position: Given that the Chruch is comprised of individuals who have attained righteousness by faith and not by the works of the law, to say that the Church replaced Israel is to say that it has replaced the Old Testament means of attaining righteousness through the pursuit of the law. The problem, of course, is obvious upon reflection; the law was always only a shadow of things to come, a tutor to lead us to Christ. In light of this, in what way does the "replacement" of Israel by the Church maintain consistency in its transfer of the concept of the MEANS of sanctification and righteousness? It's a DEAD metaphor! Only a remnant of Israel has ever been truly the TRUE, spiritual Israel. I'm not arguing against the blessings promised to Physical Israel, as the Bible is clear about those promises. I'm just arguing that Replacement theology doesn't even make sense, so how could it be theologically sound?
About your comment saying Calvinist twisted the text "all", "whatsoever". I asked you this very question that changed me from Arminian to non-Arminian:
Have you ever thought about people living in Tibet on 100AD? They got absolutely 0% chance of receiving the Gospel. None of them believe in Jesus since they havent listened to Gospel. So, where do you think they will end after they die?
When i was Arminian, i debate my Calvinism lecturer over Soteriology, and he checkmated me with that question. Not literally ALL human receives free will, dude
You are caught up on the linguistical dichotomies and leaving out the logical communication being driven in the entire Word of God. It is the Context of scripture in whole that reveals the usage (exegesis) of words in individual passages. With your slandering above calling James a doubleminded hypocrite, you are doing a disservice to the Master that purchased you. Romans 2:24. Repent, that God may forgive and use you for His Glory.
Gods message is definitely confusing 😐..even though God is apparently (not ) the author of confusion ?
Christian against Christian debates happen all the time ..even in pauls days ??
But everyone forgets that we are arguing about the message from a deity that is okay with genocide..sending out lying spirits..killing of children..and giving young girls to use as sex slaves to isrealite soldiers as reward ?? Yet we are to believe in a loving mercifull God ?? And worse ..he has created ppl just to watch them burn eternally..
Thats confusion 😕
Excuse me
Could you please give me the scriptural justification for calling the elder in a Christian church a "double minded hypocrite"
Thank you so much for this. Dr white has clarified so much for me. I have been unable to reconcile the Calvinist positions with the entirety of scripture. He has clearly made the case for rejecting his options in whole. He can not openly debate-his arrogance and professorial legalism and condescension has made it clearly open for anyone to reject Calvinism. He quits because his argument collapses. Thank you for this clarity. McArthur has always been difficult but I’ve spent 64 years as a believer and student of scripture accepting him uncomfortably. Today, in this exposition, dr white has show. That his self-promotion, in step with McAuthur, blaspheme the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world and the call to “Go” and make believers of all the world. There is no choice and no reason to go. Fates are sealed. Faith and acceptance are useless “works.
Dr. White would turn a student or listener to atheism. Thank you for showing the tare in the grain.
I thought the gospel was to be easy enough for a child to understand? Calvinism doesn't sound easy to understand at all.
One of these men is preaching rehearsed sermons, one of these men has shown up to a debate. One of these men wants to talk about Romans 9, one of these men wants to avoid Romans 9.
I love the part about there being a "HIGHER VIEW" of God in that he was able to provide salvation to all..... by giving us free will....while still defeating the Devil.....while still being able to execute justice on those who reject him....while still remaining 100% "perfectly Holy"...........and getting the victory and glory!!!!
Now THAT I believe....is who God is!!!
Calvinism tries to claim that they see a "higher view" of God...........but in reality I believe they restrict his sovereignty and paint him into a corner!!! How else can you logically explain his decree to save some and not others.
And while White says that God's plan of salvation was Purely for his Glory and we only play a role in it.......... is likewise making God out to simply be a "Glory seeker".....and we are merely Pawns. Now God can do anything he wants.....but I think his main purpose for creating us was because........
He desired to display HIS LOVE!!!
And he couldn't display his Love for us if he didn't allow us to have the freedom to Love him back!!
How can White claim that God can't get all the Glory unless he is in full control. I think he will get MORE glory in Heaven when all the saved ultimately realize that he made a way for ALL men to choose him and therefore is 100% just and 100% loving!! And why do Calvinists believe that God's "sovereign decree" can't incorporate free will? Doesn't make sense to me.
IT HAS TOO!!!! Doesn't it??????????
The only thing God Decreed....... was the "OUTCOME" of his plan of salvation (great multitudes sharing eternity with him). Not the "forced" manipulation of the saved....in order to achieve this victory.
I think both sides of the debate (as ALL of us are) are skittish of the fact that some will ultimately parish in hell.
But it's obvious that some would have anyway if God forced some of us to be saved.....or gave us all free will.
Either way........ God gets the glory....but which way makes more sense?
Free-will..........is the only way God could be fully JUST!!! Right?
Lastly.....Why do Calvinists believe "those he foreknew".......to mean he "chose" them? Why couldn't God simply have seen into the future and all those that chose him............. are the ones he foreknew?
I don't get Calvinism at all!!!
Because you reason from yourself! Your comments are the same as everyone else’s. You think your owed something. Not so
From an apologetical model, I would offer: your hamartiology must inform your epistemology, and your theology must inform your apologetics. Holes in hamartiology give rise to holes elsewhere. This comes down to the Notetic effects of sin on the mind. This also has a HUGE impact on your counseling model and thus, how to parent your kids and relate. The Calvinist largely subscribes to the Nouthetic counseling model. This is a serious debate because it impacts practical daily living. In the end, it is grace upon grace because there is sinful hangover--pride in the pulpit and pride in the pew. We all have our inner "bents" that create presuppositions which is why we need a counsel of others or "the body" to keep us in balance. Humility is the only cure to our pride (that which gives us a false sense of control).
Unbelievers are able to respond to God because they are suppressing the TRUTH. Sounds to me like some kind of response.
I think the fact that James White thinks that he's more humble than a child is a pretty good summation of this debate.
Yeah, White THINKS he is humble... he is the most arrogant and pompous debater I've ever seen in this field of soteriology.
@@fredmiller6166 it’s true. If you see his other debates- especially the one with the late Dave Hunt. He is very arrogant and rude.
BINGO..
I am an ex-Calvanist after sitting in that camp for 20 years. If Salvation is rigged, then why all the commands? Why all the appeal to make good and righteous choices? If God finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then is God really love?
Wow..... Flowers seriously wiped the floor with White. Wow. wow. wow. I loved how James White asked the question of "Was this a proper exegesis of the text? Do you feel you did a good job interpreting the text for us?" I am over here like, ummmmm absolutely! Where you listening? lol.
I have only seen him squirm like this a handful of times (Somewhat of a ad hominem tactic a little bit by Mr. White). I just bought your book Potters Promise and subscribed. Great Job. I am going to go to Southern Evangelical Seminary, however, I sincerely would love to learn underneath you.
You’re definition of exegesis needs correction. That aside- this debate was ridiculous. One side was anti-Calvinist sermons, the other was waiting for a meaningful discussion on Romans 9. Leighton was the standard, emotionally charged typical Baptist preacher. Obvious it was his first debate, knew who he was debating and knew he had to pivot away from normal debate practices and do the Baptist thing- appeal to emotion.
I tend to respect both of these men and I hope this debate doesn't make either lose my respect I don't think it will.
Dr. White won the debate and his view is technically the most Scriptural and correct. However, Prof. Flowers exhibited the greater marks of a Pauline Christian through humility, brotherly kindness, and grace. I don't think I've ever seen a more gracious debate opponent. It was very appreciated.
Flowers posses this "Dr" title as well. Also I appreciate the comment on his humility, but I wish you would explain why you think Dr. White seemed to have objectively won this debate.
My Brother, your making a great assumption to make a statement such as that. I fully understand reformed theology I just don't believe it. I am a follower of Jesus Christ not John Calvin
Wayne Whittaker you can’t understand reformed theology, if you did you would be a Calvinis.
@@flamingooneleg77 lol *pre"destined to believe calvinism? almost didn't catch your wit 🙏
@@flamingooneleg77 Is it possible to understand Calvinists fully but reject the TULIP?
@@CBALLEN are Armenians the only other option ? And as a Calvinist you should know that whatever I am was predetermined for me. So you should not really be worried
Amen