Debate Teacher Reacts: James White vs. Leighton Flowers

Okay, just for a moment.

Let's just set aside the issue of calvinism and not calvinism.

I'm, not sure how flowers would characterize himself here and let's consider something purely from an exegetical standpoint.

Okay, because i'm about to ask you a bible study question.

Are you ready for this?

Got another one and another one.

Welcome back to another debate teacher reacts video friends.

My name is nate.

Thanks so much for watching and for continuing to come back and check out what's going on up in here.

We at wise disciple are all about living effectively as christians in today's culture you all voted and told me that you

want to see James white versus layton flowers in the romans 9 debate, which is just

a light, uh, really Inconsequential debate i'm not sure why you wanted me to do this.

Well, anyway, uh, thank you for voting.

Thank you for letting me know what you want.

I will continue to do that.

Look i've collected a list of Debates that you guys are recommending for me to react to and just looking at the

list I think i'll be busy till about the year 2049.

So anyway, that's that's fantastic the topic discussion appears to be which?

Soteriological view is taught in romans 9.

Uh, this debate took place back in 2015.

And as I sort of stepped into this debate, uh, just taking a look at it.

It appears to be very contentious, uh, so Let me do this i'm going to lay

out The specific criteria by which i'm going to judge this debate just so that we're on the same page and you

understand How i'm thinking through the debate as i'm watching it.

All right.

So here's my criteria number one who engages with and responds to the topic better

than the other again.

In this case the topic is a question which soteriological view is taught in romans 9.

This was the topic question that was billed by the Sponsoring organization.

I think it's called red grace.

So in this way It's really going to come down to who handles that question.

More carefully and more meaningfully.

Okay, that's the first criteria.

The second one is because of the topic question, it's gotta be who is the better exegete of romans

9.

Okay, I mean again which soteriological view is taught In romans 9 that means it comes down

to the text.

So we got to have exegesis of romans 9 and the question is who is going to do a better

job of that.

Number three who lays a better framework?

I explained what that is in previous videos and then number four who provides a more qualitative Set of

challenges in cross -examination again cross -examination is where it's at in my opinion.

And so those questions in cross -exam, they need to poke some serious holes And reveal

flaws, um in the presentation provided by the interlocutor in their opening statement.

Okay, and so those four pieces of criteria is what i'm going to use to adjudicate.

So now let's walk through the debate together and we'll see who does a better job.

First of all, you believe um paul is teaching that jacob was chosen for salvation over esau.

Um isaac over ishmael.

And so I want to ask about abraham's six additional sons that came after isaac.

And i'm trying to understand if you believe they were repubates for the same reason that ishmael and esau were repubates

that god Predetermined them to go to hell before they were born also because they obviously weren't

chosen to carry the promise.

And so i'm what I want to get.

What i'm getting to with this question.

Is what I want to understand is do you acknowledge in any way the difference between those descendants chosen to bring the word

like isaac.

And those who may or may not believe that word like the other brothers, for example.

Yeah, so your goal as an interlocutor in cross -examination is to poke holes

in your opponent's presentation.

And to reveal flaws and inconsistencies in their specific arguments.

James white in his opening statement.

I mean, basically his opening statement was an exegesis of the text of romans 9 From his position and

he started at the end of chapter 8.

And worked his way through chapter 9.

By the way for those of you who?

Haven't looked at the fuller debate.

The link is in the notes below.

But if james white exegeted romans 9 From his position on the topic then as his opponent you

should zoom in on what he said specifically.

In his presentation white never brought up abraham's other sons.

Because romans 9 doesn't bring up abraham's other sons.

So being fair to flowers here if he has some greater point to make about white being inconsistent in his position

He better get to it soon because he's starting cross -examination like way out in the weeds.

Paul doesn't even raise those objections.

I don't know if anyone had ever raised them to him uh, but he does not even raise those objections in this in this

text and I would say it goes outside the realm of Of romans 9 and what it's trying to communicate.

Agreed and uh, you know, it's smart to take this kind of question and shift it back To

the text of romans 9 and what it teaches because that is the topic for debate.

For example lot we know he was declared righteous by peter.

Um, we know that he was saved but he wasn't chosen for the lineage.

He wasn't chosen matter of fact.

He was a lot like esau in that his his descendants end up rising up against. Um,

Israel and attacking them.

They were cursed but lot was saved.

He wasn't chosen for the promise much like esau.

And so what i'm trying to get to is why do you assume that esau was chosen for reprobation?

When Lot, for example who meets the same criteria.

He wasn't chosen to carry the promise.

He wasn't the lineage, but he he obviously was still saved.

Well again again, I hate to keep interrupting.

Sorry.

Just like abraham's other sons are not mentioned in romans 9 lot isn't mentioned in romans

9.

And white didn't mention lot in his presentation.

So it's difficult to see how this is a great strategy at this point for uh flowers and

you know.

What caught my eye about this was if you go back and watch, uh white give his opening statement.

Flowers doesn't take any notes.

It looks like he doesn't flow.

Anything, you know flowing a debate means taking notes.

Yet flowers has these questions that are ready to go which I guess means that he wrote these questions before the

debate.

I mean, these are the kinds of things that i'm talking about right now that you should avoid.

In debate, it would be better if you did flow your opponent's presentation.

So that you can draw from those notes in cross -examination.

And ask specific questions on the things that they offered in their presentation, you know, that's how it should be done.

Well, I again as as I as I mentioned the text point is to demonstrate That

before the twins had done anything good or bad God had a specific purpose lot was

not involved with that.

He would not have he would not have been involved with that one way or the other uh, at least as far as lineage is concerned,

but uh, the point is that even when there was a natural The the

natural choice should have been esau.

He's he's the older sure God had the freedom to overturn Even the

standard tradition of how the promise was to be passed on.

And in regards to jacob and esau obviously did much more uh to

demonstrate The reality of his freedom to choose than he did with anyone else.

And again It seems like you're making the connection that well, uh, the

promise is is only about salvation.

Um.

That's that's not that's not the point.

The point again, and I I think this is we need to emphasize this.

Um.

The point in looking at romans 9 is god's freedom in the fact that he has

chosen to take the gospel to the gentiles and that there has been a Hardening of the people of israel and

that this is not inconsistent with what he has done down through the history of the people of israel,.

It sounds like you're starting from a Human perspective and arguing

upward from there.

I'm trying to say that this text starts from god and that we have to reason down from there

and I don't think that the two the two perspectives actually end up lining up which may be why we're here this evening.

It might seem to you like white is not exactly answering the question That

flowers is asking here.

But the reason he's not answering the question you have to understand is because flowers is not specifically dealing with.

The things that white offered in his opening statement I mean, that's why why is appealing to his

presentation and the overall topic question.

So in that sense, he's handling himself pretty well in cross -examination because the debate really should be focused on

the topic question.

And the text of romans 9 and i'm still waiting for flowers to start asking questions along these lines.

You and I both agree that verse 6 is key to understanding the entire discourse.

I think we both agree that god has blessed israel By entrusting the very word of god to come through them.

I think that's a distinction when what i'm trying to draw between his choice of one brother over the other.

Um, the nation is selected for this noble purpose, okay.

That's interesting.

Did you catch that?

Let me let me play that again.

Six is key to understanding the entire discourse.

I think we both agree that god has blessed israel By entrusting the very word of god to come through them.

I think that's a distinction when what i'm trying to draw between his choice of one brother over the other.

The nation is so.

The choice that god makes the the the choice of election as sort of revealed in

places like verse 11 of romans 9.

You know god choosing jacob over esau for his purposes of election.

I mean, uh, I think that's the phrase.

These are choices of a particular people to carry the word of god forward

Throughout history.

Okay, just for a moment.

Let's just set aside the issue of calvinism and Not calvinism.

I'm not sure how flowers would characterize himself here and let's consider something purely from an exegetical standpoint.

Okay, because i'm about to ask you a bible study question.

Are you ready for this?

The end of romans 8 is.

It sort of concludes with this picture of god orchestrating his family.

He's bringing the family together and christ is the firstborn amongst everyone else in this family

and nobody can break up.

Or separate this family of god because verse 33 says it's up to god who is

elected.

All right, so therefore we will never be separated from the love of christ in this family dynamic.

That's the end of chapter 8.

Paul steps out of that picture and begins chapter 9 lamenting the fact that his brothers.

His kinsmen as he calls them have been cut off from christ and are accursed.

That's what he's saying when he says I wish that I were the one who Was cut off and accursed.

The reason he's saying that is because his kinsmen are the one who are accursed.

They're cut off from christ.

Okay, and now we get to the key verse according to White and according to flowers flowers

agrees verse 6 is key paul says in verse 6.

It's not as though the word of god has failed.

For not all israel are israel essentially so verse 6 is responding to this problem going on with paul's kinsmen.

And paul says that because he anticipates someone from you know a jewish background saying something like

You know, well, I guess the word of god then has failed to the jew.

He gives a response.

He gives his answer.

Not all israel are israel.

So the word of god has not failed.

So here's a bible study question.

Why would a jew question the word of god right here in verse 6?

Is it because they are concerned that they will no longer be the group That carries

forward the very words of god as this is this is flowers position.

Or is it because they are concerned that they are no longer in the family of god?

Think about that if you can answer that question I think you'll have a better grasp of romans 9 and and sort of the following passages

that come after Verse 6 and again i'm trying to be very careful here.

So i'm not talking about theological systems right now I'm, not even talking about who's winning the debate at this point.

I'm just talking about trying to be a very good student of the scriptures and hopefully we can all agree

that we should all be good students of.

The word elected for this noble purpose of bringing the world the messiah and his message.

Yet for the most part israel is standing in direct opposition to their own messiah and his gospel message.

Which does obviously lead one to ask has god's word failed?

Um, and I think you and I would agree that the reason the israelites are standing in opposition to the gospel and

rejecting their own messiah is because God is actively Hardening them like the verb you said it's

active hardening.

We both agree with that.

Um.

He is as paul says sending them a spirit of stupor.

Uh, just as jesus spoke to them in parables to prevent them from understanding and believing.

So what I want you to explain Is what you feel is the difference between our views on this particular point

because I think we both affirm that god's active Hardening of the unbelieving israelites, but you seem to think that's

hardening from birth.

It's a natural condition from birth.

Whereas I obviously believe it's a judicial act of one who is freely rebelled.

It's a it's a judicial act of israel specifically at this time in order to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose.

Yet you seem to assume correct me.

You seem to assume it's a natural condition from birth.

This hardening this inability to hear see understand and turn to god.

That's not bad.

Verse 18 of romans 9 deals with god Hardening whomever he wills.

Okay, so I mean that is a romans 9 question.

You know, this is not exactly the question that I would have asked james white in a debate.

And maybe in a moment i'll talk about that.

Maybe i'll offer some questions that I would have asked.

Or strategy perhaps.

But let's see what white says about this.

Well, that's because that's the the prophet's perspective on fallen man.

Uh, we have a heart of stone not a heart of flesh.

The the picture that is drawn is of a valley of dry bones the the psalmist makes it very clear

that from We have gone astray from our mother's breast.

We were born all together in iniquity and sin.

We can no more do good than the leopard can change its spots.

And so this is the consistent testimony.

It certainly is how the book of romans began.

There is no god seeker.

There is no fear of god before their eyes.

This is.

This is simply the biblical teaching on the fallenness of man.

But one of the one of the things I hear you saying, uh, and and sort of putting into your presentation here Especially even in the

few first five verses was this idea of israel's Being called to

be the the mechanism of proclaiming the message of the messiah and I have a I have a

real problem with that because the whole point of The final verses at the end of chapter

9 is that it had always been god's intention to take the

message to the gentiles it had always been god's intention that.

Uh, you know verse verse 25 I will call those who are not my people my people those who are

called lo ami become ami.

So all through the gospels you have these prophecies that this is what god's intention was from the beginning

and it sounds to me like you're saying well god's intention was this and now he's he's changed that and

I don't see that that is is actually a sound position to begin from.

I wonder if flowers will simply counter with dr. White.

It's not that the gentiles are included.

That is a surprise.

It's that a large number of the israelites are not but again I mean these are questions that I would not have asked white.

I mean one of the major sort of tent pegs that I would be trying to attack based on white's presentation

is his identification of the word call in both, uh, Romans chapter 8 and

romans chapter 9 that is white says that god's calling is understood the same In both chapter 8

and 9, okay and again If you haven't seen the opening statement or if you've it's been a while, you know 2015 go back and

watch it because uh, I would argue that's one of those key Places to go in cross

-examination and I would challenge white to simply justify that.

To unpack that with some kind of justification white also interprets.

Um paul's quotation of isaiah in in romans 9, uh,

verse 27 in a Soteriological manner, um, I would challenge him to justify that

as well you know explain it step by step and start from the beginning because These are the kinds of questions

that would have been better for flowers to pursue, you know, or attempt to pursue.

And I mean instead he's asking these other questions that kind of they kind of tack on concepts that are found in

romans 9.

But they're not directly dealing with james white's presentation and that's a problem.

Um, r .c. Spurl senior wrote, um,.

Double predestination or equal ultimacy is the view that god works in the same way and in the same manner with respect to the elect and to the

reprobate.

In the case of the elect regeneration is a monergistic work of god in the case of the reprobate sin.

Degradation or a monergistic work of god this clearly makes god the author of sin.

Such a view is indeed monstrous assault on the integrity of god.

It's not the reformed view of predestination.

It's a form of hyper calvinism a radical form of superlapsarianism.

Yet you along with several other scholars have argued quote.

The bible is clear that just as god chooses some for mercy and salvation.

He chooses other others for judicial hardening and reprobation.

When he loved jacob before he was born.

He also hated esau at the exact same time.

It seems to me that that flowers is debating calvinism.

Just watching him the particular kinds of questions that he's asking but the focus for flowers appears to be more about

calvinism itself.

You know talking about spruill and again, I just that's the tactical mistake in my opinion.

He really needs to remember the topic question which soteriological view is taught in romans 9

and he needs to Focus on why it's presentation in his uh in his opening there.

Uh, does your teaching on god's active work of mercying as you call it and and then hardening?

Um in verse 18, how does that not meet the radical form of superlapsarianism?

Superlapsarianism as defined by spruill.

Um, what is the difference.

And be specific if you can.

Well two things.

I I thought we were focusing on romans 9.

But we can we can leave that if you need to at this point.

Secondly I can guarantee you something knowing rc spruill personally.

He's on my side of this debate tonight.

Well, and the other problem too is that I mean.

So now romans 9 is brought into the question, isn't it?

And you kind of have to know these concepts and terms here in order to keep up.

But the the problem with flowers question is it's misleading because the quick reference to

In the question there to like god's choosing jacob and esau before they were born and had done

anything.

And then immediately talking about judicial hardening.

It skips paul's own progression of thought in a chunk of verses.

I think it's like 14 18.

In other words the hardening that paul is referring to does not come out of his talk About

esau it comes directly out of his talk about pharaoh.

That's what flowers has skipped over.

And now there's a question trying to connect these things really quickly.

You know, I mean this is.

It's it's a misleading question and uh, I think you've misunderstood and I have I don't know how many times I have

I have corrected Uh the concept of equal ultimacy.

I have spoken against it any of you who've listened to my programs know That I speak against equal ultimacy

Which is the idea that the action of predestination unto life is identical to the action of

reprobation unto death.

There is obviously a massive difference between the extension Of divine power and mercy

even seeing the incarnation that is necessary for the salvation of god's elect.

Massive difference between that and the Allowing of an individual to continue

In the condemnation that is theirs as fallen sons and daughters of adam.

There is no necessity of the extension of divine power to cause that to happen.

And in fact, I would say that god restrains that evil That would flow from their heart if

it were not for god's sovereign decree that they're only to do certain things.

So, um, I think you've misunderstood.

Dr. Sproul at that at that point.

So this wasn't a great cross -examination by flowers.

He didn't flow white's opening and so he asked questions that were not directly related to white's

opening statement which then veered the discussion away from the focus of the the topic question

and White and his responses kept trying to bring the discussion back to the topic as often as

possible.

I would say white has the upper hand right now in the debate.

What if your understanding?

Of what quote unquote calvinists believe?

About judicial hardening is false.

Would that not completely undercut?

Everything you've presented this evening.

In his opening statement flowers said that judicial hardening is the doctrine that led him to reject calvinism.

Altogether, so this is a very interesting question.

It's based on flowers presentation.

White flowed flowers opening.

So he appears ready to engage here.

If it's not a distinction without a difference.

No, and that's what my contention is is that calvinists try to make a distinction between what they think is judicial

hardening.

For example, they say things like well, they're not as evil as they could be.

They're not as bad as they could be.

Um, you know god restrains Them and I i've never understood that concept because if god

determines all things that come to pass What's he restraining except his own determinations?

And so what I think's happening is the calvinist is making an assertion That yes men there's a difference

between judicial hardening and total inability.

But there's a distinction without a difference because I have not heard any any calvinists say that mankind has born Able to see hear

understand and turn and so as to be healed.

Instead they say the the condition of a man is unable to be able to see hear understand unless they're given a new heart.

And new eyes, so I mean just being super picky about style.

Here I would have worded This response by flowers a little bit more clearly.

Um, you know, it's an interesting response that he makes.

I I.

Maybe it would have been better if it was said something like this, you know.

Like well if total inability is true and man will never seek after god.

I mean, but that's romans 3, right?

Well, then why must god harden the heart of that kind of man?

You know shouldn't they be left to their own devices, you know without without a hardening having to take place.

It seems redundant, which is literally I think what flowers said in his opening that's

probably flowers best bet here.

He it could have just been said a little more clearly professor flowers.

You said that um, uh clement.

You quoted from clement of rome.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

And you said we have a lot of his writings.

Did you list them?

List them all.

Ooh.

Okay standard cross -examination question if you're going to say that you have sources if you're quoting somebody you should be able to

cite them specifically.

It isn't isn't the fact that we have one Epistle of clement to the corinthians

and the rest are pseudo clementine.

Thus, although we are born neither good nor bad we become.

One or the other and having formed habits.

We are with difficulty drawn from them.

Yeah, that's that's the quote but you said we have lots of his writings.

Isn't it?

I've got five more.

Do you want me to read them?

No, okay.

Where are they from sir clement?

Okay, so we have One epistle did he exegete romans 9 in that epistle?

No, not that I know of.

We've got quotes that support his view of free will.

We've got quotes that denounce the concept of individualistic calvinistic type of interpretations.

And as you interpret irenaeus and others as you interpret it.

Well, obviously, okay.

All right.

Right.

This goes directly to the credibility of the of your opponent.

All right.

Have they accurately represented their citations and their sources and to get flowers to admit that you know.

What clement isn't directly speaking about romans.

9 that helps white?

Um, it's not a devastating blow either, but but you know, you said that.

Calvinist, but but dr White not only as I interpret it as lorraine botner interpreted stan storms interprets it.

I could list other calvinists who admit that augustine's the first one to clearly teach.

The the so you can show me where they've interpreted clement's epistle to the roman to the to the corinthians.

No, i'm what i'm saying is that I have quotes from other calvinists who admit that augustine is the first one to clearly.

Which would be different than the application you're making.

They wouldn't agree with the application you're making right?

Oh, no, no, not no, they would probably try to say that.

Well sam storms For example argues in progressive revelation that we have learned more since that time and that

we're continually learning.

Um, at least the the the podcast the unplugged podcast.

Those guys talking that's what they have.

You read all of clement sir.

I'm, sorry.

Have you read all of clement?

Um.

I've no i've not okay.

Um, would you be surprised the discovery speaks often of the elect?

Well, so does the bible.

That doesn't mean it would.

Obviously he must have understood it in your way.

Well, how do you interpret then the the passage that I just wrote?

You can the one that says everyone has free will.

How do you ask me that.

You can ask me that question when it's your turn?

To ask questions.

You said that calvinists confused the call of paul with the call to salvation.

As a former calvinist, um, could you provide some examples of this from.

From r .c. Sproul myself since i'm the one you're debating this evening.

Can you show me.

Can you show anyone where I have ever made that that confusion?

Um.

I don't have any quotes available.

But I can provide some quotes where I think pointing to paul in the damascus road experience and the effectual nature of his

calling Is used quite often by calvinists and I would be glad to provide those.

Okay on my podcast at a later time or on my blog if you'd like me to okay.

No now would be the time if you're going to make a claim in your presentation, which he did.

It's in his opening statement calvinists confound.

They confuse the various calls of god.

You'd be ready to be challenged by your opponent to provide citations for this claim.

These these.

These little tiny jabs that white is getting in here.

If flowers isn't careful, they're going to add up.

That that's not what I was asking.

Very clearly.

I have distinguished between call paul's call to be an apostle And the fact that he was set apart

from his mother's womb.

Uh.

And recognize that the one Demands the other but we recognize the difference.

You say we're conflating them.

Is that your argument?

Yes, I believe you.

You think that god is In some ways saving men in the same way.

That he he saves and calls out his apostles.

Because he has a remnant to accomplish his purpose through through israel and his promise will not

fail.

So for example in jonah's situation God could have just used irresistible means to

make him want to go but he uses a big fish.

He could have just irresistibly made paul want to believe and and do what he wanted him to do.

But he uses a blinding light and I think we all agree he uses means.

But in my my perspective, I think that means actually accomplish what the scriptures say that they accomplish.

In other words.

But god means are unto faith, but.

But he could have failed.

Paul could have said no.

Yes.

Um, he able but not willing.

Calvin sees that term all the time.

He's able but he wasn't willing.

Because but he could have.

He was able but not willing.

Okay, so if he had then god would have had to have found someone else other than paul.

Well, i'm not denying god's foreknowledge i'm not denying god's abilities to know His what his plans are.

And so if god knew.

He couldn't have right.

I'm, sorry.

If god knew then he couldn't have.

Or god's foreknowledge again just being super picky here, but If I were up against flowers

I'd really keep trying to bring him back to romans 9 and force him to do something that he didn't

really do.

Uh much of at all, which is exegete romans 9.

The topic question is what it is.

If if flowers is correct, then he needs to be able to from the text show That the text

teaches his particular view.

My questions would be more Bringing him back to elements of romans 9 that perhaps don't agree with his interpretation

um from from the opposing viewpoint and.

So, I don't know if I would spend a whole lot of time on this could have been invalidated, right?

Well god foreknows the free choice.

He doesn't foreknow his determination and that's the distinction philosophically that I really don't want to go down that road.

Not because I can understand that.

Yeah, I get.

Let william lane craig take that one.

Uh, he he won't do it either, um.

You um.

You.

Well, he won't.

Um, you.

You said that you can't trust a god who has two wills.

God said thou shalt not murder, right?

Correct.

Is that the will of god?

Yes.

Um, okay.

White is setting a garden path here.

These are setup questions.

Flowers, you know, make sure you don't get pinned.

In acts 4 27 and 28 was the early church wrong?

To pray and to confess.

That.

What herod.

And pontius pilate and the jews and the romans did.

God's hand and purpose predestined to occur which was specifically the murder of the only

innocent man.

Who has ever lived?

Yeah, I wrote a blog article on this.

The three main texts that calvinists often refer to.

Genesis chapter 50.

The selling of the brothers obviously.

Israel, um.

Being hardened as pharaoh was hardened is a big one.

And then again the the crucifixion of christ.

And as i've reminded In my podcast and other places we do believe god determines some things god does step into

human history.

And very similar to to what maybe even compatiblistic Arguments are and how god works these things out through

judicial hardening that he brings about his purpose.

So he blinds the israelites in order to do what to ensure the crucifixion.

And so yes God does determine some things but it's for a redemptive purpose like the like the height the cop hiding himself.

It's for the redemptive plan.

It's not to condemn them because they too could be saved.

It's not it's not a condemning from birth to death.

Was herod condemned for his actions in the death of christ.

I would assume so.

Pontius pilate.

I would assume so.

Yes, was it eternally god's intention for the cross to take place?

Well, I think the word intention gets misapplied because when we we say intention

You talk about god having the intention of the evil happening where I talk about god's redemptive intention in the evil

happening.

And so there's a distinction michael brown and you go around around about this too where god is Redeeming

a an evil for good and he's he's in he's taking their evil intention and turning it around.

He's redeeming that evil intention for a good thing and in his meticulous providence He's able to do

that, but in his sovereign sovereign abilities He's able to do that.

But that doesn't mean from my perspective that we deny human responsibility in the ability to respond and

Make real choices within time.

Let me try it again.

Was it god's intention from eternity that the son of god become incarnate and die upon calvary's tree?

I don't think you answered that question.

Well, i'm defining the word intention and all right.

If you'd like to use was it his will was it the the the choice of the triune.

God use whatever term you wish.

But did god intend in eternity past?

For the second person of the trinity to enter into flesh and die upon calvary's tree.

And that's what I was attempting to answer in saying that Proof that god uses determinative if you want to call them that

determinative means to bring about.

The redemption of all mankind does not prove that god also uses deterministic means to bring about

all the sins that need redeeming.

That's my.

So from flower's perspective it is advantageous to press the

point about Clarifying from your particular perspective, you know.

You have to make sure that you're not being pinned by your interlocutor and james white is at this point,

uh trying to pin Flowers.

On the other hand this gets tricky because if you don't play ball with some of the easier questions in your opponent's garden

path.

Then you're not really answering the question.

And the judge will.

Well in this case the audience is the judge.

So this so the audience is going to notice this.

What flowers should have done is just answer the question simply.

And clearly that white is asking, you know because there is one simple answer for white's question and then

attempt to provide further clarification from you know the particular perspective of flowers

until.

You know white steps in and asks another question.

And by the way, I don't know if you notice but white's kind of interrupting flowers here a little bit in official cross

-examination.

It is perfectly acceptable to interrupt your opponent if you think they are not answering your question.

Okay, so actually in white as i'm noticing is holding back quite a bit.

Uh.

Because there are a few times where he Decided not to press.

A little bit harder argument is that sometimes people look at calvary and they say well god.

Use determinative means to bring about calvary.

So he must have brought about all the sin that was being redeemed at calvary.

And that that to me is a gross overstatement of what the cross is.

The cross is called by calvinist the worst evil of all time, but the bible never calls it the evil.

The bible calls it redemption.

God is giving up his own life.

He's stepping in he's self -sacrificial giving himself much like paul expresses at the beginning of this chapter willing to sacrifice himself.

For the sake of his brethren.

This debate was a little difficult to watch.

Okay, and the question of who really won it just does come back down to the criteria that I laid out at the

beginning Of the video, okay.

Um, there are four things that I looked at.

Number one who engaged the topic better in terms of presentation argumentation in terms of

Cross -examination.

Who engaged the topic better again.

The topic was which soteriological view was taught in romans 9.

White clearly engaged the topic better than flowers.

Flowers was debating something else.

Maybe it was like is calvinism false or something or you know, is calvinism really biblical but flowers

Never properly exegeted the text of romans 9 and that's gotta be Based on

the agreed upon topic that's got to be a significant part of your strategy.

Going into this debate white recognized that and he exegeted the text the best of his ability from his perspective and flowers Just did not

do that.

This leads to the second criteria number two who exegeted romans 9 better.

Well, only one person really exegeted romans 9 In this debate.

Okay, you got to go back to the opening presentations to notice that but white did that.

What flowers did was it seems like he provided a lecture against calvinism and And

for his particular viewpoint and then he provided various biblical texts to support his lecture.

Some of them came from romans 9 but some were not.

Some had very little connection to romans 9.

At one point flowers quoted jesus saying come to me all you who are Weary and heavy laden and I will

give you rest when your topic is very specific.

This is a huge missed opportunity.

White clearly did a better job in this particular criteria.

Number three who lays a better framework.

White does a bit of that in his opening statement.

Flowers does a little bit of that as well, but not so much in cross -examination.

They were all bidness in cross -examination.

It was almost as if the audience didn't need to be there.

They were just Going at each other, you know, so in that sense, I would say this is kind of a wash.

Uh, and i'd see how some of the other categories help us to like determine a winner in

this area.

And then finally number four who provides a more Qualitative set of challenges in cross -examination.

With this category it comes down to pressing your interlocutor specifically about their presentation.

Flowers hit white with questions about calvinism and romans 9, but they weren't based on white's

presentation.

They were based on notes that flowers wrote before the debate.

I suppose and when you do something like that you miss opportunities to directly attack specific

contentions and arguments that your opponent makes so that.

Those contentions are not left standing by the end as a matter of fact in more formal debates.

If you don't address the arguments that your opponent makes.

You concede those arguments so in this category white did address specific things that flowers Said in

his presentation and he pressed him pretty hard.

Flowers missed this opportunity to do that.

It's as simple as that and so white clearly took this category.

James white is an impressive debater.

He knows his stuff.

He clearly has a background in debate and because white outperformed flowers in these particular categories.

It's clear to me that james white won this debate.

You know, this is kind of a shame because in a particular issue like this.

You want to hear the best arguments that represent both sides of this particular topic?

I think james white represents one of the best thinkers and communicators on the side of calvinism, you know.

Flowers was not up to the challenge here.

No offense to blatant flowers.

Okay, he's probably gotten a lot better since this debate in 2015, but there are other folks who

Could represent flowers view better.

Nt right, you know and his sort of new perspective on paul.

Probably could have stayed close to the text of romans 9 exegetic and provided the same

kind of argument that flowers was making.

Which is what flowers should have done, you know, who knows given some time?

Maybe flowers and white should revisit this issue in a future debate and we'll see what comes out of that.

Well, those are my thoughts as always.

Let me know who you think won the debate particularly those of you that watched the full thing.

Let me know in the comments below and if you have any ideas about who you want me to React to next

definitely.

Let me know as well again.

This is a family discussion.

So let's continue to represent.

As family, all right stay wise friends and i'll see you on the next one.