Debate Review PT.2 | James White vs Leighton Flowers & John 6:44 w/ ​⁠@AKRichardson

And so Dr. White's a master of doing that from the Greek, because I think he was getting into the verb tenses of saying this is a very specific divine act that necessarily entails the being taught by God or those who are being heard and those who are learning from the

Father that will be raised up on the last day. I think he was trying to do that from the Greek, and like I pointed out earlier, I would have to broaden the context back to verse 28 and 29.

I think that's that effectual working of God, not of man, that you believe.

And so for me, that's really compelling. I did have a question for you though, because I don't know if you've listened to this on the dividing line.

James White mentions the hymns, right, H -I -M in verse 44.

I think on Leighton's view, so this might be your view also, or you may nuance it a little bit differently,

I think what Dr. White is saying is you can't divorce the hymns here into two different kinds of anthropologies or different on -tosses of man.

So like this, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

Now he's challenging the provisionist, so we'll see if you would identify with this or what have you, but this is someone who is unbelieving that will believe by the

Father's drawing, giving revelation, and then their categorical response, free will.

And then he's saying, okay, that's a different kind of hymn than in the second sentence, and I will raise him, meaning redeemed person now, up on the last day.

White's point is it's got to be the same hymn, which we would say is the elect, unconditionally, conditionally, effectually drawn.

But the burden of proof for even the negative here is to show how you can validate these hymns not being the same.

Let's see if I understand what you're saying is verse 45. No, which one are we in?

Oh, verse 44. So no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Who's that first hymn? No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

It's the guy being drawn, whoever that is. Which is unredeemed? Well, when you start off being drawn, some people are unredeemed, like in the gospel,

I mean, like in the gospel age. Now here, it's primarily the faithful Jews that already heard and learned from the

Father. So if I had my James White hat on, this is where he would be a lot more fierce than me.

I just can't do it, but he would say it has to be the same hymn. It has to be the same hymn.

You don't get an unbelieving crowd unless it's kind of universalism. This is the unbeliever now also being guaranteed to be raised up on the last day, and he's pushing back on the provisionist saying you either got two hymns and it doesn't work contextually, or it's the the same hymn which are the elect before the foundation of the world.

So when he says I will draw him, if we admit that the draw is teaching and educating because it says has heard and learned, if the drawing is drawing through the work of the revelation of God, that's what my view is, then who he's drawing are those who have heard and learned, okay?

So if that's the first hymn, what's the argument? The argument is it has to be the same hymn.

What do you mean when you say it has to be, what is the it? What do you mean it has to be the same hymn?

The hymn has to be the same. As who? The one who's redeemed has to be the one that is being drawn by the

Father, and so if we have a nebulous group of unredeemed people that are being drawn not effectually, well then you have a disconnect from whom the

Father draws isn't necessarily going to be raised up on the same day, and Dr.

White has always made the case is you can't have two different hymns in this context. It's talking about the same hymn, the one who is unable to come to the

Father, who is drawn by divine act, and we have to interpret that, but whoever that first hymn is is also the same hymn that will be raised up in salvation on the last day, so this kind of involves the eschaton.

Okay, I guess I'm missing the point, so... That's okay, we can keep moving on. I'm just saying like over the years,

Dr. White, that's kind of been his major sauce. Well, I don't know, but I'm trying to figure out how that hurts my view.

I mean, so... In your view, do you have people that are drawn by the Father that will not be raised up on the last day?

In this context, the drawing is hearing and learning. I mean, so those who hear and learn will be raised.

They are the same people. I mean, in the context, the same people. He's not raising up people who haven't heard and learned.

Right, but do you kind of see the point now? No. Okay, that's okay, man.

I don't get it. Are you... Is this more about one saved, always saved than unconditional election?

Well, unconditional election necessarily entails the P also, so we're seeing a lot going on in here, but what

Dr. White has stressed the point is saying you can't have two different hymns. It has to be the same hymn. So I'm not getting it, though.

I mean, I have the same hymn. He's drawing... The drawing here is...

Here's how we test it. Do you have in him a hymn that's being drawn by the Father that hypothetically won't be raised up on the last day?

Do you have any hymns? No, there will not be...

There is no one who has heard and learned who is not raised, and I'm teaching...

I'm talking about unconditional election. Now, when it comes to one saved, always saved, which is a different topic,

I know one is implied by the other, but I would... Well, like I said, we don't like that term because it kind of means something.

Like one saved, always saved typically is the... I do have categorical freedom to choose, and so I'm saying this...

Preservation. Yeah, there you go. Well, and I don't want to necessarily debate this with you, even though I love it.

I love the sparks, but I just wanted to tell you kind of what Dr. White has always pressed over the years, and some people might, maybe those who have been eternally decreed, find that compelling to say verse 44 has to be understood before verse 45 without an assumed anthropology that's kind of shoehorned back into verse 44.

That's at least what Dr. White is meaning by you can't reverse the order of the text.

I've heard this before, but I really don't remember what the thrust of the point is.

Hey, it's a pretty good one. Can we have a half point for that? Well, what I'm saying is

I don't understand it right now. I forgot at least what the point is trying to make. I'm still not quite sure.

Okay, well it kind of reminds me of what this one guy was doing in the pre -Grace movement named

Charles Jennings with Timothy when it said if we die with him we shall also live with him, and then he would say, well, there you go.

It's a condition, you know, it's conditional in the Greek, and it has to be true, so if you had died, no matter what you do, you have to live with him, but what we have to understand is that all that text is saying, and it's the same thing here, is that it doesn't mean there can't be other things implied by other passages, and I'm not quite sure, but I'm not quite sure what is being said here.

So Dr. White's strong point is the first hymn, who is that?

And let's take the provisionist. It's the hymn who's been given revelation, who's being taught by the

Father, and all the ball is in your court now. Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart, and you have to make that categorical response or not.

I would have philosophical objections to that, but we're saying that's the hymn there, okay?

We're saying for the sake of argument, and what Jesus is saying is the same hymn is being raised on the last day, those who are redeemed.

Now I know you reject eternal security and so forth, but we're saying... No, I do believe in eternal security.

I reject unconditional eternal security. Okay, you are a true philosopher, man. I want to give that to you, but that's what's being meant is you have a first hymn that is being drawn by the

Father, which we could just say is the proclamation of the gospel, whether it's in seed form or it's a field form, but this first hymn doesn't necessarily somebody that will be raised up on the last day.

Dr. Wyatt's point is, well, that's the second hymn, and the hymns are connected, and you can't have two separate ones like Leighton and the

Flower Patch Kids have. Yeah, well, the person who has heard and learned is not...

Remember, it's not just heard. Now, this is what I was wanting to get to. This is what

I was wanting to get to. The person who's heard and learned is, at least in this context, the Israelite who has been faithful.

I mean, he's not... It's not just hearing, and what Dr. Wyatt is going to say, and this is what I was going to get to, Dr. Wyatt is going to keep saying, at least twice, she's going to say, it says those who have heard will come to the

Father, and then Leighton even corrects him and says, no, it's heard and learned. It's not just hearing data.

The person who has learned is the person who has been affected by it in such a way as to believe. I mean, and so, yes, that is the person.

Yep, the work of God, right, earlier in the context, and I think Dr. Wyatt is saying the heard and learned are a package.

That's Dr. Flowers in the side chat. No way. Is he here? I mean, isn't that him?

Yes, Dr. Flowers. He heard me say Flower Patch Kids. No, yeah,

I heard you say that before. I'm kind of starstruck right now. I can't believe he's tuned in.

I want to say I got to meet Dr. Flowers back in Tullahoma, a gentleman.

He even hung out with some of us, you know, during the, after the conference or in the evenings, and I thoroughly enjoyed my time just getting to meet him, and when

I shook hands with Dr. Flowers, I just said, just so you know, my dad really appreciates your content.

He's like, so what does that do for the family? I was like, it makes for good discussions when he'll let me talk about the videos of you that he sends me.

Okay, so what did he say? Actually, we could concede the hymns can be the same.

The distinction is in the condition. Well, yeah, I appreciate Dr. Flowers saying that, so that's kind of Dr.

Wyatt's point of saying the condition matters because you could, on the first hymn, someone could reject the condition of faith and not be raised up on the last day, and I think

Dr. Flowers, rebuke me, Dr. Flowers, if I'm misrepresenting, but we're saying that there are two different hymns here because you can have some people drawn by the

Father that reject the condition, however you want to say it, and now they're not being raised up on the same day.

We're saying, well, now you have two different hymns. But they're not rejecting the condition.

The person who's heard and learned is the person who has been taught.

So, the faithful Israelites, in this case, who had already been, maybe this is the point, maybe this is the point of what you were saying, it was

Flowers was pressing the point, but in this context, the person who's heard and learned, in this case, is the

Jew who has heard and learned from the Old Testament scriptures, from the Old Testament revelation. They come to Christ, and the difference is in the

New Testament age, it's the gospel that teaches you. You come through hearing. It's the same thing with Lydia in Romans 16 or Acts 16.

It says, and the Lord opened her heart. Well, how did he open her heart? Well, she was already a believer in the

Old Testament God. She had already heard to some degree and learned. So, it is the same hymn, because it is the person who has already been attracted to Yahweh through his revelation, and so they hear the

Son, and they're attracted to him. I mean, do you get what I'm saying? Yeah, this is where we part ways.

We agree, disagree. I'm getting better at that over time. Okay, well, let's keep playing.

I'm just tickled that Dr. Flowers is in the building. Yeah, I don't know him, but I agreed with most of what he's saying, and well,

I would always say this, that I think this part,

I think Dr. Flowers does very well here, but what James White is about to do is what

I was really enjoyed the live debate. Loved it. Sorry about the flickering there.

I would have been disappointed if there wasn't sparks flying in that debate, I'll be honest. Well, there was, primarily from White.

He's so testy there. This is the same view that Michael Brown debated with you.

It's the same view that Steve Gregg debated with you. Michael's not here, so let's stick to the subject. And you said the same things at the end that you're saying to me.

Sure, stick to the subject. Well, they corrected you on this, and I'm just wondering why you haven't picked up on it yet. Well, you should try it, because you're not doing so.

So, those who were drawn, in verse 44, are raised up by Jesus, and that's everyone.

Everyone who heard from the Father, learned from the Father, is raised up by Jesus in the last day.

Is there anyone who rejected the Father's teaching? I can't imagine why somebody who listened to the

Father through the prophets and believed. I can't imagine Simeon saying no to Jesus. Why? Because Jesus is one with the

Father. Which is exactly what Jesus said in John chapter 5. He said, if you believe Moses, you would believe me. It wouldn't make any logical sense to say they loved

God through his revelation of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Law and the Prophets, but then reject the same revelation coming from Jesus.

It's the same God. You can't reject one and love the other. In fact, Jesus says this. This is a theme of John, even in his epistles.

He says, if you deny the Son, you deny the Father. He that does not have the Son does not have the Father, because you can't have some of God and then reject other parts of Him.

I'm not talking about ontological or Trinity. I'm just talking about revelation. So, that is a motif in John, is that those who heard and learned from the

Old Testament Scriptures. I guess what I'm missing with your two hymns, but I'm not quite sure, but I think what is being missed by White is that the hearing and learning is the person, the

Jew in this context, who has been taught by God through the Old Testament. Not just her data and information,

Jeremiah, but has been shaped by it. You know what I'm saying? Oh yeah. Well, we're kind of echoing our thoughts, which is,

I think, great, because what I think is really, if I was in the debate dojo with Dr.

Flowers, I would have explored a little bit more of what it means to be in the New Covenant, because that necessarily means believers.

I'm not Presbyterian, so this is a point that I think really cashes out in this conversation. The New Covenant, I would say the

Old Testament saints are benefactors, however we want to splice that out. They are benefactors of the

New Covenant. So, salvation has always been the same. Psalm 19 is a good place to say that you need the revelation of, special revelation of God to convert the soul, because there's an anthropology that matters in this conversation.

We're saying there's an inability, that Jew cannot come to the Father unless the work of God has been impressed on his heart to believe, and what's interesting about these

Gungus -mooing Jews is they've seen the work of God in their midst, and they refuse to eat and drink of the

Son, namely, sing, and then I would argue, let's just say, because they've not been drawn by the

Father. They maybe have heard without perceiving, because the divine act has not regenerated that heart which is promised in the

New Covenant. So, we've kind of touched on that, but the hymns do matter, like I said, and like I said, that might be brought out again in this.

Well, I'm not saying they don't matter. What I'm saying is... Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that you're saying it doesn't matter.

What I'm saying is, I mean, the point of the debate is for White to establish unconditional election from the text and saying, and most of what you just said,

I can agree with. The point is, but are these things based upon an unconditional election, and that's not what

John chapter 6, so that's what I realized. It don't say it. It doesn't say it.

Everybody heard it, he conceded. So, if somebody listened to your teaching, then they would listen to the teaching of Jeff Durbin, because you teach the same thing.

Why would somebody listen and believe your teaching and reject the teaching of Jeff Durbin? You teach the same thing. Same thing.

God is teaching something through the prophets and through Moses. There's no reason that he would reject what the

Son teaches if they have the same voice. That's why the sheep don't reject him. But if they have free will, they can choose to do that for various reasons, right?

No, see, he's still... He doesn't understand it. It doesn't matter about free will.

A person cannot... A person with their free will could choose to reject

God in the first place and reject Jesus, but it's a contradiction. It's illogically impossible to say that you can love

God in one hand in his revelation and then reject him in this other hand. You can't do both.

You either accept him in his revelation or you don't, because it's all revelation.

So, he's not getting flowers there. He's still hung up on this free will thing. Well, they could just choose not to.

No, that would be a contradiction. I mean, you understand what I'm saying. You might not agree with it, but you understand the distinction

I'm making. I totally understand. If Dr. Flowers is still listening, this is where the distinction between you and Leighton really comes out, because there's an anthropology going on here.

Now, y 'all are on the same island at that point of saying, yep, categorical ability to choose

A or not A. God has not made that determination for you. That's all you in the ultimate sense.

I think what White is bringing out here of saying, if you're being drawn by the

Father and you hear and listen, or what's the verbiage here?

Being taught, heard, and learned, then can you ever choose to leave? You, in some sense, would say yes, and then

Leighton would say no. Then we're saying this kind of goes back to, and he'll be raised up at the last day, the eschaton.

So, it kind of does. This is to your point earlier. There's a lot of topics that can be brought out.

As much as I appreciate the critique or criticism that can be made of saying, stick to the text, stick to the text.

For me, personally, I'm not as well versed in the Greek syntax and the parsing that out.

So, for me, I have no other choice but to broaden out in the context. So, I get why

Dr. White is sticking to his wheelhouse, but for me, I see benefit on touching potential peripheral issues that do directly relate to the text.

For me, I like it when we're asked about our system and then the entailment over here.

How would we account for that data or that information? Well, let me just say, of course,

I'm not anywhere near the expert in Greek that White is, but I read Greek. I'm a student of Greek.

The English, for the most part in this chapter, says what the Greek says. I don't believe you can establish it from the Greek any more than you can the

English, but anyway. I'm enjoying this, by the way. But I'm saying they would not choose to do so because the

Father and the Son are teaching the same thing. There's no reason that a person who's believing what the

Father teaches would reject what the Son's teaching if they're teaching the same thing. When it says, they shall all be taught by God, who is the they?

Who's the all? I think that's reference to Israel, just like Romans 10, when he asked, have they not all heard?

And he actually says, yes, they have. It's gone to the edges of the earth. And so I think it's the same reference point that, yes,

Israel all have heard. Everyone has heard. Not everyone has listened and learned because that's their responsibility.

You can reject what you hear. So everyone in Israel was taught by God.

And so you see... He's missing his point. Not everybody in Israel was taught. Everybody is heard, but not everybody learned.

The Pharisees, Caiaphas had not learned. Learned in this sense doesn't mean to be educated about facts about the gospel.

It means when the... Learned in the sense that the gospel affects you in such ways that you believe God and you understand

Him and you are... This is what we're talking about. And he mentioned Simeon, which is a good example. The disciples or the apostles, those are the ones learned.

Learned in this sense does not mean just come to know facts. Yeah? Yeah.

This is where I think White does agree that learned, heard, and learned are a package deal of salvation believing.

Now the dispute is how that cashes out in real time because I'm over here saying, like with Dr.

White, saying there's a reason... Oh, you're gonna distract me with Dr. Flowers. See, I'm already thrown off by Dr.

Flowers being in the... I thought you guys were... I thought you knew him already. No, no. I shook his hand.

I was kind of like, oh, I hope he doesn't look at my channel. He's gonna be like, oh, he's one of those. But he could probably already tell by my beard and the fact that I had a nametag at IntelliHoma's conference of speaker.

But... Yeah, you had that picture with him. That's right. Well, then one... Because one picture with White and he was...

The other one you were with Dr. Flowers. And one you were too short and one you were too tall. I want to say some of that was the angle.

The one gentleman that was doing like glamour shots down low and I'm like, okay. But I think

Dr. Flowers... Dr. Flowers, how tall are you? Because he is taller than me. I think he's around maybe 6 '3". I'm only 6 foot.

And Dr. White is probably around 5 '7", 5 '8". Me and White are exactly the same height because we took that picture together and I'm 5 '8".

I'm 5 '8". Well, I'm glad you got to meet Dr. White. You were the first questioner at 12 .5.

Everybody else was scared to death. You got to think I was really nervous about being on stage with him up there.

I held back. I didn't want to press him and come up there swinging. I even made a joke about Steven Anderson.

I don't think he took it as a joke. But anyway. I laughed. And I agree with you to take repentance out of response to the gospel to me is just kind of nonsense.

But I wish you would have asked him about Acts 2 .38. That would have been awesome. No, that's okay.

That's all right. Distinction between that and everyone hearing from the

Father? That's a different group. No, but on the point though. But that was his question.

I mean, all of Israel has heard. And I want you to listen. Now, I think you'll concede that he makes a couple mistakes here.

I'm gonna try not to. No, I believe that all of Israel has heard. Not all of them listened, but all of them heard.

Because you're responsible whether you listen to your teacher or not. If you tune out your teacher and ignore what he says, that's your fault, not

God's fault. But it says everyone, pass, everyone hearing from the

Father and learning does what? They come to Jesus.

So if it was all of Israel, why didn't all of Israel come to Jesus? No, see, Flowers said all of them heard.

He didn't say they all heard and believed, and that's the big difference. He's not grasping that.

They all hear, but they're not all... they weren't all believers in God. I mean, Caiaphas wasn't all...

you know, all those... plenty of Jews rejected the Old Testament Scriptures. That doesn't mean they weren't religious. Again, I mean, the the televangelists are very religious, but that doesn't mean they've actually learned.

You know what I'm saying? So here's my thought on what's going on. I think Dr. Y is doing an internal critique on Flowers' view, because Reformed theology, we would answer this way different, because we're over here saying this is the

New Covenant where all Israel hears and believes, but the question is, who is

Israel? We would say, according to Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36 through 37,

Romans chapter 2, Romans chapter 9, even Ephesians 2, the mystery of Christ revealed, we're saying

Israel are believers, always have been, always will be.

They are true Israel, and the quotation from Isaiah 59, we would argue, demonstrates that case, that all of Israel hear and believe by divine act of God, but we're not saying is the ethnic

Jew. Now, what's ironic is the ethnic Jews are here hearing and rejecting, and we're saying, yeah, they're not of God.

They're actually rejecting Moses. But I don't think Flowers is saying anything different than that, and as far as I understand, as far as I know of Dr.

Flowers, me and him are in agreement with his view of the remnant of Israel, and John, he's saying that there are plenty of people in the

Old Covenant that are not necessarily believers in God or saved. Yes, they believe in the existence of God and all that, but they haven't actually learned.

They're not the faithful remnant. He mentioned Simeon. That's unlike Caiaphas. Caiaphas was in the Old Covenant.

He was a Jew. He was circumcised. He's heard all of his life, but he hadn't learned, not just simply been educated on facts, but he hadn't learned in the sense of being become a believer, truly, because Jesus said in John 5, if you had believed

Moses, you would have believed me, but White had asked the question just now.

He said, well, they all heard, so why weren't they all drawn? He's not understanding the learning part.

Well, I think White's trying to demonstrate an internal critique, not that he's not understanding. He's just trying to step in Leighton's worldview of saying, okay, you got this language of...

and to Leighton's credit, I think he gave a decent response, but we would push back and said that response is being read into the text.

But if it's an internal... how can you have an internal critique if you're not interacting with what he's actually...

because Flowers is not saying they all heard and learned. They all heard, but didn't all learn.

I mean, so I don't know how you can critique something if you're not actually interacting with what he's saying.

Well, I think what White's trying to say is, it's a package deal. It's a divine act by God. No one can come to me unless the

Father sent me draws him and I'm raising him up on the last day, and then you have this interesting quote from the

Old Covenant or Old Testament Scriptures prophesying about the new covenant to where all those that hear are all of those who learn, same him, and are those that are be raised up on the last day being salvific, and then

I always point people back to verse 29. This is the work of God that you believe, which...

But the passage is talking about hearing and learning. There could... I mean, there are people who hear and don't learn. Exactly.

But see, you say exactly, but I think that is the point. Flowers is talking about hearing and learning, not just the

Israelites who heard and didn't learn. Well, so we're agreement that hearing and learning are a package deal in the verse, right?

But that's what Flowers is saying, but when White says, well, all of Israel has heard...

in fact, but listen here. I think this is going to demonstrate what I'm talking about with White. Listen to what he's going to say here.

You're ignoring the fact that you have the ability to listen and believe. If you hear the message, like everybody in this room just heard me teach.

Is everybody in this room going to believe what I taught? No. Some of them are going to reject what I taught. You're responsible for what you do with what you hear, but just because they hear doesn't mean they'll listen and learn and believe.

But it specifically states everyone hearing from the Father will come to me.

Okay, now you notice what he just did. Yes. What did he just do? So I think me and you are looking at this a little bit differently.

Well, yeah, but just objectively, what did White misdo or misquote the text?

What did he do? Oh, so he misquoted the text, you say? He misquoted the text to make the very point that he was making, which is missing what

White Flowers is doing. Rewind it. Rewind it? Okay. Boy, I can't rewind it just a little bit.

Okay, sorry. Let me try. I see it's at 120. I saw flowers in the chat, too, so I was trying to...

I'm still a little distracted by that, man. It specifically states everyone hearing from the

Father will come to me. Okay, okay, so you're saying everyone hearing of the

Father, the next word is and learn, but White went back up to verse 44 to say it will come to me, right?

No, he left out the believe. He said it specifically says everybody hearing will come to me, you know. Okay, so this is where I think that's what

Jesus is talking about, is the hearing is the believing, right? Faith comes by hearing.

Now, we disagree on what the response looks like. We see this as a divine act that is effectual, and I think the other side of the aisle is saying it is a divine act, or Flowers may not.

I don't think Flowers sees it as a divine act, AK, because of how one of the last audience questions asked him is...

and I'd be curious to see how you answer this. Did you watch the audience Q &A? I did. I want to know your thoughts on this, if it's okay.

What did you think about that question that said, hey, Leighton, Flowers, is conversion, is the responding in faith to the gospel a miracle?

Is it a miracle? What do you mean by miracle? True philosopher over there.

So a divine act that is supernatural, not just providence, but kind of that hand of God intervening in real -time, supernatural, not natural occurrences.

That's how I would... By miracle, you mean like a changing to our physical nature.

No, I don't. I don't believe in total depravity and all that, but it is a miracle in the sense the gospel was miraculously inspired originally, and I believe providentially

God brings it around. Okay, so tell me if we can be charitable on this point of kind of agreeing where we part ways.

The Calvinist sees conversion as a divine miracle of God, regenerating that dead heart that only loves sin and brings him to newness of life, and we're saying miraculous.

It's the most common miracle today that you have sinners that are dead in their sin and trespasses coming to newness of life.

We're saying miraculous hand of God, as where Flowers and you to some degree is saying the miracle is the inspired

Word by the Holy Spirit, the incarnation that made the gospel possible, but conversion itself is not miraculous.

Well, that's why I said earlier. Calvinism, you see, I would agree that conversion and regeneration is a work of the

Spirit, and it's a work of the Spirit in the heart. The difference is Calvinists presuppose a mysterious supernatural work of the

Spirit that I just don't see the Bible ever saying that, but I see I get that a lot, Jeremiah, because they say, well, it says it's gonna be born of the

Spirit. Well, the Spirit has to be doing this, but the disagreement is on what is the

Spirit doing. I don't see any kind of mysterious supernatural, and by the way, I don't know if you do, but other

Calvinists say it's mysterious. I asked Matt Slick, by the way. Yeah, you mentioned Matt Slick. I asked him,

I said, what is the Spirit doing when he regenerates? He said, well, I don't know.

I mean, it doesn't tell us that, but that doesn't say anything about the Spirit doing something mysterious. It tells you what the

Spirit does. It makes you alive, which all actually happens in God's mind. The sinner being considered alive, now

I know there's a change of character, and we start to think differently. I mean, I'm not talking about that, but a sinner being considered alive and in union with Christ, adopted as a son, all these things simply happen in God's mind.

They don't actually happen ontologically. I mean, the Bible just doesn't talk much about our ontological nature, except for the reforming of the mind, which is a reforming of how you think and your character.

Now, that's different, but everything else, it's not an ontological thing. It's a thing that happens in God's mind.

You are a son because he believes you're now a son. He considers you a son. You now have an inheritance because he says you have an inheritance.

You're alive because the relationship is fixed. Anyway, but White's gonna say it again here, and then

I just want to respond to what he's saying. Was that not clearly...

Everyone who has listened and learned. In other words, they heard and they learned, which implies that they believed.

It doesn't say everyone believed. It says everyone has heard the message, and therefore they're responsible for the message they've been given.

But it says every hearing one, pascha accusas, every one hearing from the

Father comes to me. You did it again. He left out the believing. It doesn't say that.

It says and learns. Oh, I said and believing. It's in learning, and you said, by the way, you said the hearing is the believing.

Now, was that a misstatement, or did you mean to say that? I think in the context, that's what's being taught, is the one's hearing is bringing out faith, and they are responding.

The context is all -encompassing of Israel doing all of Israel. Now, what I hear you and Flowers saying, well, all within the subset of Israel are responding in this way, and we're saying this is

New Covenant language, where it's from the least to the greatest. It is all -encompassing because of who

Israel is. It's the believing ones. Okay, well, first of all, I would say that the hearing is not believing because it's the coming to Jesus is paralleled with believing.

He that comes to me has life. He that believes on me has life. Those are parallel, so coming to him is believing, but you don't come until you hear, so the hearing can't be believing.

You have to actually hear to believe, but the hearing here is the hearing and learning, which the

Old Testament saints who were faithful, because they learned already, saw

God in the Son because they'd already learned from God, so they saw him in the Son, and so they come to Jesus. That's the point.

Yeah, I would agree, and that's what I mean by the hearing is the believing ones. I'm saying it's the ones that are hearing different from those that are hearing and rejecting.

All of the hearing ones is all of Israel, but we're not just...we're talking about the

New Covenant. We're talking about all believers of all time where they've received this divine work, but like I said, we're kind of touching on a lot of past points.

But I was kind of amazed by that, that to confirm that White is misunderstanding it, he even misquotes it twice, which shows that he misunderstands it.

I mean, it's not even what the text says. Now, of course, White knows what the text says, but he's so focused on what he thinks

White is saying that he quotes the text to say something it doesn't say, and it says...

now right here, he read this part. He says, pas ha 'akusas, the one hearing.

He says, come to the Father. Oh no, it's also mathon. It's a participle, and it's learning.

It's active, by the way. It's learning, being taught. So it's the one... it's not just pas ha 'akusas, it's pas ha 'akusas kai mathon, and that's just because he quoted the

Greek. The English, Jeremiah, kind of says the same thing anyway, but I just wanted to make sure people knew that.

You sounded brilliant right there. Well, no, I mean, that's not what I was going for.

I'm just saying, White quoted the Greek, but it says mathon. That's there too.

That's learning, and that was my point earlier, is that he's not even getting what White is saying.

Okay, so, I mean, we could keep playing that, but just let me ask you, let me ask you now, what statement in John 6 establishes unconditional election?

I obviously think John 6 44 is an excellent place to start, and I get how the whole debate rages on it, don't say that, don't say that, and I'm like,

I get it, but I do like starting with John 6 44, tag team with verse 37, 65, and I love pressing earlier into the context about believing, or belief, is a work of God, meaning it's not a work of man.

It's not within man, and then I would continue to push early, so I'm sorry,

I'm giving a really long -winded answer, but I would start probably with John 6 44, but then connect it to these kind of reaffirming verses that say it is a very particular divine act from God.

Okay, well, I understand that you're collecting, you're connecting dots, and that's fair to do, but we have to analyze one dot at a time, so verse 44 says, no one can come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him. Now, show me, do you think that by itself could establish unconditional election?

It depends, because on one hand, no, because once again, we could all agree on what it says, but what does that mean?

I think verse 45 is important. Do you hear something?

Sounds like snow, like someone's slidding. Do you hear it?

Oh, I can't hear you anymore, so I can't hear you.

It kind of sounds like fireworks are going off in the background. Okay, it stopped.

Yeah, my battery's running low on this thing. I can re -hook this up, though, so let me play this and change my mic.

Okay. My batteries are dying. That's what it is. Okay, we'll play some more of the debate.

Now, when do you want to end, by the way? I could, it's 937, our time.

My flower says it's the sound of Calvinists being drawn into provision. Are you coming on over, Jeremiah? Well, if God determines for that to happen, who am

I? Who am I? Oh, Jeremiah, to answer back to God. Yeah, that's right.

All right, so it's gonna die. When it dies is when you're gonna hear that sound, but I'm gonna change it out here.

So what did you say you wanted, how long did you want to go? Let's see, we've been going for two hours, 22.

I could probably do up to around 10. I've been in really enjoying this, so I could go for another 20 minutes.

And by the way, I mean, so Dr. Flowers is in the audience. Dr. Flowers, you're always welcome to come on here and talk about it as well.

You're gonna have him on before me. But you are on. No, no,

I'm saying you have him on your channel before I have him on my channel. Well, I don't know,

I mean, he may... We can't hear.

I said maybe he hasn't got an invite from you is the problem. That is true. I'll own that one.

I gotta play my cards close. All right, I'm gonna share it again. The description of what drawing means in verse 44.

How can this be a general reference to God teaching Israel? Everyone who hears from the

Father and learns. They all hear his message, but they all don't listen.

Some of them close their ears, they close their eyes. Like Acts 28 says, Paul rebuking this same crowd of Israelites saying, you're ever seeing but never perceiving.

You have closed your eyes, otherwise you might see, hear, understand, and turn, and I would heal you. What's he saying?

You have closed your eyes. It's their fault for closing their eyes, not a default condition from birth like you teach. That's spice.

Can't hear you. I'm hearing but not hearing right now. So you see a distinction in the middle of the sentence, and when it says, it's written in the

Prophets, they shall all... Do you hear me now? Yeah, but it's a little distorted.

It's a general thing to all of Israel, right? Yes, all of Israel has heard.

So you can't hear me? Yep, I can hear you now. All right.

Well, let me say that... No, I forgot my point.

He said something there. Got me out of the hot seat there. I'm gonna try to back it up too much here.

When it says, everyone hearing, how is that different than being taught by God?

I mean... Well, you know my answer to that, right? Because you could hear, you could hear the gospel, or you could hear, in this case, the

Old Testament Prophets and not have been transformed by it like Caiaphas. Yep, so my ongoing point there is, all those in the

New Covenant are those who hear divine work has been written on their heart, transformed.

They are the ones that learn and are the ones coming to Jesus. So this is important for the

New Covenant, which will be perfectly mediated by Christ and cannot fail to be raised up on the last day.

But it sounds like you're still talking about those who have heard and learned. Yep. And by the way, they're not in the New Covenant yet, technically.

I mean, he hasn't even... We would disagree there, too. We would say that it's a guarantee that they are in the

New Covenant by virtue of faith and have received not only justification, but it's on promise.

So they are beneficiaries of the New Covenant, and some Reformed theologians say that they are members, but it's qualified by promise, faith in that proto -evangelion coming.

So they are still in the New Covenant, however we want to explain it, because we're saying the

New Covenant are all the elect of God who are being mediated by a perfect Savior. Okay, well, so I think this is actually a good verse.

What do you think about it, this verse on the screen?

Oh, ever hearing but not understanding.

So help me out. Is this the quotation from Isaiah 6 applied in the book of Acts in multiple gospel accounts?

I believe so, assuming what I'm aware of. Okay, so I think this is talking about judicial hardening and is very specific not only for the foreshadow.

Well, back in Isaiah, it was happening in real time. God was judging unrepentant ethnic

Israel who were unbelieving, and in the the gospel times, it's happening again in real time, kind of as its fulfillment.

So it's very prophetic. So I want to say here, this is not talking about the elect, which

I would say is talking in the New Covenant in Isaiah 45. That is talking about ethnic

Jews that are hearing the revelation of God, but they have hearts of stone.

So you seem to concede that you can hear and not learn.

Not true Israel. Well, the text doesn't distinguish. I mean, we would disagree, because I would say the quotation from Isaiah 59 makes that case for me.

But I think this works for the point. If you're going to say that hearing and learning in John 6 is about spiritual

Israel, well, that would mean that those that have heard and haven't learned are a different class of people, right?

I mean, I think what Leighton Flowers is talking about is the same thing I understand. It's those who hear and respond to what is being said, particularly the

Jews here in the Old Testament prophets. But it does distinguish that there is hearing and not learning in some cases.

So my pushback is saying here, this is a package deal, and all

Israel, question mark, respond in this way. And we're saying all Israel are believers of all time.

They're the elect. And so that's what we're saying is all these verses are talking about.

And White's internal critique is saying, well now, and I get how it comes out in the conversation, but White's saying all

Israel is being mentioned here, right, essentially, and they will all be taught by God.

And so he's trying to push back on saying, who is the all? And I get Flowers' pushback as saying, if we're talking about all of ethnic

Israel, some are gonna hear and not learn, because I think

White understands this point too. But he's trying to push back and say, no, this is all a package deal from verse 44 into 45, because these ones that are hearing are also the ones learning, and these are the ones that will be raised up salvifically on the last day because they responded in faith.

The interesting point, though, is that it's all of them. And we're over here saying that that makes sense in the

New Covenant, but kind of on the other side, you've got the separations of the hymns.

Well, there's a lot of things there that I disagree with that are a different discussion. I don't believe they're in the

New Covenant yet, because you still got the Old Covenant. You still got it there. But anyway, that doesn't matter.

Well, so you're saying, well, we believe it's people in the New Covenant, spiritual

Israel. Of course, I'm an amillennialist, but I don't. John chapter 6 is just talking.

All he says in John 6 is, no man can come to me except the Father who sent me draws him.

And then it says, as he goes on, he says, all who have heard and learned from the Father. Now, he may be pressing

Layton there. Of course, he's being cross -examined.

That's fine. But the point I'm trying to really emphasize is that the burden of proof really is on why to establish unconditional election.

And you can't get that from those things. Especially, you could say, well, you, Jeremiah, believe it's about spiritual

Israel and all that, and it's not about the hearing that unbelieving Israel would have. But, see, that's the thing is, all

Layton really has to do is say, well, you could be true, but you can't establish that I'm wrong from the text.

And then that's the point. You've demonstrated, as long as Flowers can demonstrate there's a legitimate way to interpret the text itself, then

White has lost, because he can't prove his position from the text.

Even if it was through another text, Jeremiah, if this passage debated allows for an alternative viewpoint, you've lost the debate, if you like.

Darn it. I know, right? Yeah, no, and I agree in principle of what has to be done.

And it's funny, because I do think people that are already Reformed think that Dr.

White knocked out of the park. I think that people that are hardened against Reformed theology don't see it.

Maybe they don't have ears to hear. And I think people in the middle have a really good opportunity to weigh those two out.

You know what I mean? So I'm with you in principle. I agree with you. Now, Jeremiah, when I try to give some of my comments on it,

I try to just be objective. I try to give pros and cons for both. I didn't just come out and say, oh, man, why?

Because I saw people in the side chat at the end, they said, oh, what Flowers has done after this. I said, come on, do you not, do you not see,

I mean, I don't say, oh, White has done. Now, I don't ever say that when

I'm watching a debate. Someone I disagree with, I don't say they're done. I mean, because that's not really the way that works. It just doesn't work that way.

And I think you're right. That's why I try to be objective. But while we're doing the review,

Jeremiah, I'm not trying to be just simply repetitive for no good reason. I'm trying to say, because you and I can get into these points, and we can debate it and spend all time.

We have a debate that we can point people to. But I just want to say, for the purpose of the debate, when

Flowers, you're correct, the negative is at an advantage. It's up to White to prove that unconditional election is not a presupposition.

It is in the text. And I'm saying you can't get that. Now, well, that brings me back to you, though, because you said verse 44 connected with the other ones.

But I can agree, do you not realize that I can agree with everything in verse 44? If I can agree to it, that means that means your presupposition of unconditional election can't be found there.

So I just want to be clear. Now, you obviously would disagree. I was going to say, how can you establish anything in 44 as being that the drawing is based upon an unconditional election?

How do you do that? Yeah, I think what we can get out of John 6, 44 is a kind of inability, and we follow it.

No one can come to me, Jesus, salvifically, that's the context, unless there is a type of divine act.

Now, you and I will agree with that. Leighton, in his debate, kind of conceded that if it's a divine act.

But now in the side chat, he just said basically the eye and tulip is what he means, and I get it. But I'm saying there's a very specific divine act that's done by the

Father in the drawing, which I think is providence plus regeneration, and I would continue to parse that out and defend that.

And the same draws him, same him. God says, I will raise him up on the last day.

So I would repeat a lot of things that we said into verse 45. I think it doesn't say that, and I'm saying...

Well, how do you... if I could agree with all that, it's a divine act, but how can you prove it's based upon an unconditional election?

Yes, so, well, we have to define what unconditional election means, right?

There's no condition in man that God looks to to choose to save him. Right, right, and so...

How can you establish that from here, though? Yeah, so verse 44, no one can come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him. We would draw out of that meaning.

This is pointing to not only unconditional election, but total depravity, irresistible grace, and then

I would say because of the eschaton, this is also eternal security. So I would begin to unpack it.

I think you would just say, don't say that. We agree with what it says, and I understand.

Well, I don't mean it doesn't say it verbatim. I never take the position that the text has to say something verbatim. I mean, in order for verse 44 to establish unconditional election, it does have to say something that necessarily implies it.

So, but is it not possible, if you don't know nothing else in the rest of the

New Testament, if it says no man can come to me except the Father draws him, is it possible to draw him as some other...

Can God draw somebody that's based upon a conditional election? Not that God does,

I know you disagree with that, but could somebody also say, well, yeah, nobody can come to him unless God draws him, and he draws him based upon a conditional election.

Now, you say, well, I don't believe it. That's fine, but how can you disprove that from the text itself?

Yeah, I mean, I think we're gonna be on repeat. I'm just being honest, because I think, looking at this verse alone, most people historically have been very bothered by it.

I mean, I'm just saying, like, the text itself has produced this very conversation. I love it.

I love the text. I'm not bothered by it, but I know what you're saying. I'm just saying that when you ask, is it possible,

I'm saying, oh yeah, like, you and I are proof that someone like me can read that and think, dang, divine act brought me out of, you know, my deadness of sin, not seeking

God, and yes, I responded by learning in faith, but I'm over here saying that could not have happened unless the

Father dragged me out of that previous state. So I'm just saying, and then you would push back and say, don't say that, and then kind of...

Yes, all that is presuppositional. Just like you said, it's an inability. I agree that it's an inability, but it could be, whatever inability it is, it doesn't mean it's still based upon an unconditional election.

You know, I don't believe in prevenient grace, but we could say, well, that might be the inability.

I don't believe it is. I'm just saying for the sake of discussion, let's say, well, there's an inability, and God gives prevenient grace, according to Psalm.

I could say, well, that's at least a logical possibility. I can't establish that from the text.

I don't believe it's established anywhere, but the point is, you have to be able to show the basis of this, because all it says is that no one can come unless drawn.

But that doesn't prove He only draws those based upon an unconditional election. What's the other verse?

You mentioned what? Real quick, we can talk about the other verses. They all kind of relate back to everything we've been talking about.

I did ask Leighton Flowers about verse 29. I was very curious, because to me, verse 29 is one of those really important verses in the flow of this context.

If you go back earlier in the chat, I thought you'd be interested to see this. Dr. Flowers says verse 29. I think

I agree with John Calvin's commentary on this verse, ironically. I don't know if you want to put that up there.

Yeah, hold on. I'm trying to get another screen in there. Say it again, Dr. Flowers.

So I asked him in the side chat what his understanding of verse 29 is, because I thought he would disagree with you on this verse.

So this is huge for me, that believing...

Now, he's gonna disagree. I think he probably disagrees with Calvin. But what this verse is telling me is believing, belief, whatever the

Greek is. I can't read it. That's a work of God. Now, Dr.

Flowers, hope he doesn't get mad at me. I want him to like me, but he had in his closing statement years ago, he just said, since we're made in the

Imago Dei, just as God can speak the universe ex nihilo from nothing, us being made in the

Imago Dei, we too can bring our faith from nothing. And that has troubled me ever since I've listened to that, just because since we're the

Imago Dei, we reflect the image of God. We're not on that same playing field, which gets back into our debate last time.

So anyway, I look at this kind of just on the surface saying, man, that is meaningful to me to say that God, the ones believing, responding, hearing, learning, believing, taking in the

Son. That's a work of God. Well, I would say,

I don't know what he would say. I don't believe ex nihilo in the sense of from nothing.

At least you come from the gospel. I mean, your belief comes from the gospel. It's something God has done. You respond in faith because of what

God is doing. Okay, he said, if you want to put it up here, he goes, I didn't say bring faith from nothing.

I just want people to know, I'm not trying to misrepresent Dr. Flowers, but I remember him saying something to that effect.

And so anyway, I just... I don't see it. Oh, it's one of his. Oh, right here,

I see. Yeah, yeah. So Dr. Flowers, if you remember what you said,

I'd like to just see it because that's what I remember. You said, I thought you were making the fact that we're made in the

Mago day. We too can bring our faith from nothing. So if I'm wrong there,

I want to see it. I compared the mystery of creating something from nothing.

So to me, that sounds like a distinction without a difference.

I always wanted to say that kind of directed at Dr. Flowers. But anyway.

Well, I mean, that's what the Bible says, faith that comes by hearing the Word of God. I mean, that's what that says.

But well, we can't play the whole debate, obviously, nobody ever does.

In fact, I think people do what we do. You play a little bit and you spend most of the time just talking about it. What else are you going to do?

But that's ultimately what

Flowers was doing in the cross -examination when he was cross -examining White. And that's what it comes down to is,

Dr. White, can you establish that unconditional election is not what you're presupposing? And I had asked you, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot,

I mean, but I think we don't have to go over and over, but I think

I'll leave it for the audience to see whether you could establish unconditional election by verse 44.

I don't think it says anything about the basis of the drawing. It just simply doesn't. It doesn't mention why he draws, who he draws, or who he chose to draw.

It doesn't mention the basis, Jeremiah, but you made your case. What was the other verse?

37, 44, 65 is always kind of the chain. Oh, by the way, you did ask in 29 something about the

Greek and works. Well, it says, erigon to theu, that's work of God.

I mean, you were asking about that. Oh, I didn't have it on the screen. I'm sorry. Well, I interact with people that say, see, your ability to believe categorically is a work, but it's something you do, not

God, and I'm over here scratching my head saying explicitly it's a work of God.

I think that's the divine work that Jesus is talking about and continuing later in the context, and I get how not everybody's convinced by that.

Maybe you have to be eternally decreed to believe that. Okay, what was the other verse?

The one up here in the chapter. Yeah, so 29 is super important for me.

Oh, I was gonna also say there have been works of God earlier in John 6, but it's verse 11.

Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated, so also the fish, as much as they wanted.

That is a miracle work of God, and I'm saying this is the same context of saying belief has to be a miracle of God in your heart.

That's why verse 44 and 45, well 37, with the Gungus moving people,

Jews, 44 and 45 is so important because this is the new covenant that God has written the

Torah on their hearts, something that the Holy Spirit has regenerated, has taken out that heart of stone, given them a heart of flesh, and causes them to walk in his statutes.

So for me, I see that all being drawn out from the text. This quotation is of the new covenant, the covenant of peace, an everlasting covenant.

This is the covenant of grace that's found in Jesus' rot blood, Hebrews. Well, I have some differences with you there.

I mean, obviously, I believe Christ brought the new covenant, but the old covenant is still there technically, but nevertheless, it really doesn't affect, it doesn't hurt my position because the principle is the same, and the new covenant you hear about the gospel being taught, coupled most of the time with the

Old Testament revelation, too. But for anybody who doesn't know, because you mentioned it several times, Gungus moving, it's just a

Greek word for grumbling. Actually, it's Gunguso here, anyway. I wanted to say it because Dr.

Flowers said it in his opening and rebuttal, because Dr. White has said that for years.

He loves saying Gungus moving, so I appreciate that. Okay, but back to verse 29.

This is the work of God that you believe in him whom he sent. Now, how do you establish unconditional election from that? Yeah, where does belief come from?

Well, but you would have to establish that it came based upon unconditional election.

Sure. Yeah, I would say that when we're looking at the context, man does not have the ability in and of himself to believe unless a divine miracle occurs in the heart to believe, and I think that's clear.

I think that's literally like what you're asking for is drawing it out, and I'm saying that's why this flows well.

You have those that already saw the works of God in their midst, and they said, hmm, we care more about the earthly things, right?

We want the miracles for our benefit. If I grant you everything you just said, but how do you know it's based upon?

So God has to work a miracle in the heart. He has to give belief, but how do you know he bases who he does that to on an unconditional election?

Why can't it be on a conditional election? Well, if you grant to me my

Calvinistic understanding of verse 29, then it's clear where unconditional election comes out in verse 44, because God particularly is drawing those that will effectually come to saving faith in King Jesus and will be raised up on the last day.

So really, for the sake of debate, you couldn't grant me that understanding of verse 29. No, no,

I was granting to you the things you said about God has to work a miracle. He gives you faith.

What I don't grant to you is the very thing you need for it to say that it's based upon an unconditional election. That's my point.

Well, my point is if you grant the Calvinistic understanding of verse 29, then it's easy to understand verse 44 and 45.

Okay, well, I did go to 44, though, and then I'm looking at verse 29. I wasn't granting to you the presupposition of unconditional election.

I'm trying to see, because you mentioned this verse, and I want you to be able to... What I'm doing, Jeremiah, is I'm trying to do what

I would have done with White if I had debated him, and I appreciate you trying to get that debate, by the way.

Hi, I got your back, man. I appreciate it, but keep working on him. You keep having him on your program and say, hey, do you know this

A .K. Richardson? You know, he's, you know... Believe it or not, me and him, we actually have, like, good email correspondence and whatnot.

So, did you listen to my interview of Dr. White? I didn't. Okay, you need to do that, by the way, but I got to explain my favorite story, because we did a whole debate tour review, so we covered all five debates that he did, and I got to tell you this real quick.

So, to me, I didn't realize Dr. White and I were as close as we are, but at the

Jason Breda debate, which, by the way, did you watch that debate? No, I didn't.

A .K., it's like you have a full -time job or something, and a family. So, during that debate, and Leighton's maybe heard me say this before,

I just got to retell this, so James White went first, because he's defending limited atonement, essentially, and so, you know, he kind of speaks to Romans 8,

Hebrew 7, Trinitarian Harmony. Voila! It's not his first rodeo. He did a good job, and then

Jason Breda comes up, and he says something almost heretical, and he basically brings out the golden chain in Romans 8 and says, this is talking about the

Jews. It's not even in Paul's purview to even talk about Gentiles, and we're over here, like, and then

Dr. White comes out in his rebuttal, basically saying, well, your heart is either rank heresy, or he needs to soften his stance and say, yeah, but that's still true of the

Gentiles. So, that's what Jason Breda did. We're all like, whoo, you know, out in the crowd. So, this is where the memorable moment comes in, because Keith Foskey, he was moderating the debate and did an excellent job.

He's like, all right, everybody, you got a break for 15 minutes, intermission. Don't harass the debaters.

We'll be back in 15 minutes, and so I'm chilling in the back with some of the crew from 12 -5 and other people that I met there talking with, and so Dr.

White comes to the front of the stage, and he points at me, aka, and says, come here, Jeremiah, and I'm like, me?

So, I kind of, everybody's looking at me. They just kind of part ways, you know. I'm just kind of straight down there, and so he had to check his sanity with me, aka.

He said, am I hearing what's being said properly, and I kind of put my hand on his shoulder.

I said, Dr. White, I said, we're hearing the same thing you're hearing up there, and he said, I've never heard this argument, and you know what

I did? I want Dr. Flowers to hear this. I was like, oh. I put on my shoulder. I was like, I know where he's getting this from, and what

I meant was, is I've heard, I think Dr. Flowers had David Palman, classical Arminian, on to talk about kind of the exegesis understanding of Romans 8, and the classical

Arminian understanding is kind of the simple four knowledge view, those who may foreknew, and that helps cash out the rest of the golden chain, and I think

Dr. Flowers said something to the effect of, no, this is talking about the patriarchs of old, and I remember just thinking,

I've never heard of such a thing, so anyway, that's the point that Jason Breda was making, and so I told

Dr. White, I was like, oh yeah, that's coming from Dr. Flowers, maybe. I don't know. I'm sure they talked behind the scenes, but here's what

I want to tell you. He said, you're kidding me, and I said something to the effect of Dr.

White. I said, look, this Jason guy, props to his boldness, definitely came into the Calvinist line then to debate you on limited atonement.

I said, but I don't appreciate how much confusion he's brought, and I said,

I really hope you expose everything for what it's worth, and he says, oh, it's not gonna be pretty, and so my point is,

I was really trying to rev that engine to get him ready for the cross -examination, and if you go watch it, it was definitely one -sided in my most humble, unbiased opinion.

Yeah, I haven't seen it, and I might go watch that. Well, okay, well, just closing up some of the things we were talking about here.

Well, so in verse 29, when it says, this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent, the basis for, of course, you know my view.

I don't believe it's, I believe God causes belief, but he doesn't do it irresistibly, and it's not based upon an unconditional election.

I do, I believe he does it. You have different presuppositions? I have different presuppositions, but if I can bring different presuppositions, and they'll first say the same thing and be logical, then it means your presupposition is a presupposition also, which is unconditional election for the verse, and if it is, then it isn't a, it isn't a verse.

See, that's what the debate is about. When I debated David Lewis, I'm a repetitive person,

Jeremiah, but I want people to know this. The burden of proof was on White. You have to prove it from the text.

You can't, you can't just, whatever White of Flowers believes, just like in my debate with Lewis, even if I was wrong in my interpretations of Romans 8 or whatever it was we were debating from his passages,

I could still be wrong, but he has to prove that he's right, and I said, the text doesn't say what you need it to say.

Even if John 6 works with unconditional election, let's say it's definitely true. Let's say the book of, you know, the fifth gospel was in there, the gospel of whatever,

Bojangles, and it taught unconditional election in the clearest of terms. Okay, well, we said, well,

John 6, I can work that for the most part with unconditional election, but you can't prove it,

Jeremiah, and that White loses the debate, and why is it important to me as a non -Calvinist?

Because John 6 is always touted as a Calvinistic proof text, and I'm saying it might fit for the most part with it, but it doesn't establish it.

You know what I'm saying? It just hasn't been determined for you to see it. And yet I get the blame.

What a shame. Truly and morally so, but that's a different conversation. That's a different debate, and that's the debate you and I had.

I really enjoyed that debate because I got to finally address your, how did you say it?

Oh, I loved it because I listened to so much of your content in preparation for our debate, and so what did you always say?

Ask the Calvinists, well, who determined that? Well, who determined that? Who determined that? And to me, the only way to engage you on that level is you have to have the compatibilistic framework to make heads or tails.

You know why I say that, right? Because a lot of times you guys will cite a thing, but you don't follow it to the logical conclusion.

Now, I called that, you know, that's something silly, ignoring the shooter. You focus on, this guy died from a bullet. It says right there, the bullet killed him.

End of case. And it's like, but somebody shot the bullet. And you guys will say, well, the bullet is what killed him.

It injured the body, pierced the liver. This is why he died, but you're ignoring that the bullet was shot.

And that's why I always say, just like somebody said in the side chat, does

AK believe he has to allow God to regenerate him? And you guys used the word, you used it in the debate, but then that's why the question came.

Yes, that's why the question is, yeah, but what is he allowing, but the very things he determines?

And when you guys say, well, no, the center is choosing, he's choosing, he's responsible because he's choosing his sins.

And I say, but you did, God determined for him to choose to sin. Exactly.

Now, I got to take bone with that too, or I got a bone to pick with that. You guys always say,

I don't know about you, but Calvinists always say, well, the center is free to choose his sin. But you know, that's not true because even in Calvinism, the center can't even choose which sin.

He chooses only what God determined, which sin. So he's not even free to choose the particular sins he would like to commit.

He's not even free to like them. Anyway, you know, I'm just, I'm having fun with you here, but it hurts.

I enjoyed it. I think, I really think me and you advanced the conversation because, you know,

I brought out the philosophical distinctions between categorical and conditional. And yes,

I'm glad he brought that up because in reformed theology, we also talk about moral inability or moral ability and natural ability.

Remember how that was something that you thought, that's what I was talking about. That's meaningful for federal headship.

But I was talking about the two categories that's important for compatibilism.

So we were, we were talking past each other and we have to always define terms. I tried so hard to do that in the opening statement, but it's hard for you hearing stuff for the first time to get a proper definition.

That's where one of my favorite video clips I got to make was you. Oh, I asked you a question.

It was giving you fits, which it's a philosophical thing about, you know, if we're given libertarian free will, but we're necessarily going to sin, what does that mean for libertarian free will?

That that has a whole history with it. And my other fun part of the debate and to me, these aren't gotcha.

And to me, I, I would never want to declare victory in a debate. I've told people, I felt like me and you were evenly matched.

And that's what makes a good debate. Now, maybe your cause is now I can't wipe the floor with them. I'm like, he did and it hurt.

Like I'm still recovering. Like to me, I just don't even try to like, even with Dr. White and, and flowers, it was, in my opinion, a good debate.

But what I mean is I showed up for entertainment. Dr. Flowers did the

Dr. Flowers thing. And Dr. White did Dr. White thing. And did the white, but he was in a, well, he wanted to be good.

I mean, when he debates Muslims, he's very nice and perky. Now, this is what we think about that we think, man, y 'all like flowers, or y 'all like white when you agree with them.

But when he challenges you, it's like you can't see it. Like, that's how we that's how we perceive the whole situation.

Well, I've told you I've, I don't like how white does some others, but I gave my objective critique to both of them, you know, but, but flowers are cut from the same cloth.

Like with that comment down there. Don't say that. Yeah. Well, I mean, but to be honest,

I mean, Jeremiah, when it says that this is the work of God that you believe it doesn't say unconditional like it doesn't even imply it.

But that's what if you're going to use john six as a proof text. Let me say this. Oh, well, you said something there.

And then I was gonna be preachy sometimes you gotta Oh, we're about giving me fits.

Well, all I said was the question is difficult. It's always been quite it's always been difficult. There's difficult questions for every theology.

I don't think. Personally, I didn't think that it helped you. But I think you did because you played it.

I'm trying to think what question I thought you gave me fits on. So yeah, like to me, those those are,

I like to say fun moments in the debate, because I worked really hard on understanding. I'm trying to think of the philosophical question for it.

But essentially, what's meaningful for libertarian free will is if you're given a command, then you you can respond to it, not just in the moral sense, but also in the act itself.

And escapes me. So anyway, I sent you a book that I read by Dr. Guillaume be young.

And I can't remember the full title, but it's it's totally in the world of philosophy. And so I'd prepared a while to kind of set up that question.

And I was like, yeah, that was the money. That's what

I'm gonna respond to something there. But this is something he asked earlier. So I guess

Calvin says this, those who infer from this passage, that's verse 29, which we were talking about, that faith is the gift of God or mistake if the

Christ does not show us what God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us. Now, you obviously disagree,

I get it. But he was saying he agrees with Calvin on the now. So would you disagree with Calvin on that?

So what was the Calvin quote again? Those who infer from this passage that faith is the gift of God or mistaken for Christ does not show us what

God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us. Yeah, no, that's interesting, because I want to go look at that context, because yeah,

I do see this because I'll be the first. I don't agree with Calvin on a lot of things.

In fact, yeah, yeah, you do. But I try to show people, especially

Presbyterians, where I disagree with Calvin. But yeah, I think that's interesting. I definitely want to go look up Calvin's commentary on that, because to me, this would be like a slam dunk text to say you need the powerful working of God here to to bring a dead sinner to newness of life.

I get how I don't say that. I'm over here. That's my Calvinistic, though. I mean, well, we all agree with that.

The question is, is that Calvin or how did you word it? That powerful working of God? What words did you say?

Got it. I was I was partially quoting Colossians 212. Well, the powerful working of God. But the question is, this powerful working of God, when he does it, is it based upon an unconditional election?

And so you guys say that John 6 establishes that. I'm saying, no, that's a presupposition. It's just not a proof text.

And the short response with people who have heard us is, I go back to verse 29, which

I would say is super clear, and if anyone under the sun were to grant me that effectual gift of believing, then

I think you would maybe agree that if we do grant that into verse 44, that's how we would say unconditional election.

Well, yeah, I mean, I wouldn't grant effectual. I mean, irresistible, you know.

So verse 29 says, this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent, but it is presupposed by a

Calvinist or by yourself that that is irresistible. It's a work of God, right?

Yeah, but God can do works that aren't irresistible if he so chooses. So, okay, how would

God work belief into you that's not irresistible? Through the gospel.

Okay, so everyone who hears the gospel believes. Not everyone.

That's presupposing universal irresistibility, right? So you have to remember what

I believe. I believe people can choose to reject it. I do think that that's harder for your worldview and systematic to account for that verse, because if we reverse the proposition for you,

Defendant, I would do very similar things that you're doing now, which is good, but just pressing on the presuppositions and the verbiage, and I'm saying

I am drawing that out of the text. Now, someone that disagrees is going to say, don't say that. I don't mean that.

No, see, but what I'm saying is you are assuming all the text says is that it's the work of God that we believe.

It doesn't say whether it's irresistible or not. The text does not say that. Yeah, well,

I would tell people, it depends what you mean by irresistible, because... I mean what Calvinists mean. Yeah, well, then we would say this is a work of God, and we're saying it's not also a work of man or cooperation of man.

All the text says is it's a work of God. I feel like we're being...

our side, my side of the screen is being more consistent with what the text says.

Now, we infer different meanings from it. I think that grounds what we're trying to prove, but I recognize that you don't.

All I'm saying is, if it's logically possible even, well, let's just forget about what

Scripture says otherwise, even if it's logically possible that God could work something that isn't irresistible.

Think about this, Jeremiah. You've kept me on it. You're pretty slick. You're now the slickest man alive.

You got me 20 minutes past what I was gonna do. Okay, well, we can end it here pretty shortly.

Let me just make this point. In the Old Testament, it says that Solomon's wives turned away his heart from following God.

They did something, and in fact, they did it to his heart. It specifically says they turned away his heart to other gods and from following Yahweh.

They did something to his heart, but it doesn't say it was irresistible or not. Now, we, of course, realize these are humans.

It isn't irresistible. So, to do something, and even in this case to work an effect on somebody's heart, can even be done by people.

And since we can see that it isn't irresistible, though, if his wives are doing it, that means they still, we still say they did it to him, even though he conceded.

He allowed them. That's the words you guys always say. Since he gave in, that's the word

I would use, not allow. He submitted to their persuasion, and when he does that, it still says they turned away his heart, just like when it says

God works the spirit in your heart or God works belief.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that he does it irresistible any more than Solomon's wives turned away his heart irresistibly.

Now, I'm not saying, I know what's going to be said, oh, you're comparing God to Solomon's wives. No, I'm comparing how language works,

Jeremiah. To say that somebody does something, like somebody's heart or to work something, doesn't mean it's irresistible, necessarily.

That's what I'm comparing, and I think that's a pretty good example, don't you, because... Pretty good.

What's that? I said that's a pretty good point. I'll give you a half point. I got a question for you. Okay. What do you think is some of the most, what do you think the most persuasive point of Calvinism is?

The most persuasive point? I want to try to be genuine here and not say nothing.

Thank you. Okay, what's the most persuasive point? And it could be for any of the five -point acrostic, or it could be for a type of divine determinism.

I'm just curious for those that you think, okay, I can see to a degree, even if it's couched within bad reasoning, how a lot of people find that persuasive.

And hopefully it's not a backhanded one. Well, I'm going to try that it isn't. I would say passages on, like Ephesians 1 and to talk about predestination, because, and the reason

I think those are the most persuasive is because number one, I think

Calvinists have done a good job of communicating their message. This isn't trying to be backhanded. They've done a good job for many years.

And so it's almost automatic now that when people hear the word, that's what they assume it means.

I want to ask Blake Flowers the same thing. What's the most persuasive point for Calvinism that people hear, understand, and hopefully it's not backhanded?

So I just wanted Leighton to maybe post that, so when you're done, we can put his answer on the screen. Go ahead. Even when non -Calvinists,

I often hear them say, well, I don't believe in predestination. I mean, you can't say that. You have granted to the

Calvinists their meaning of predestination. The Bible uses the word. You can't just say, I don't believe in it.

So I think most persuasive things is just a, how do

I say it when it's not backhanded? Like I had to squeeze that in there because I know how these questions go.

Well, I think you get what I mean. Yeah. Yeah. Your big point is Calvinists have done a good job of at least articulating their positions.

Well, they've done a good job of being the loudest voice in the room. Can I say it like that?

Yeah. Oh yeah. I think that's fair. I think this is a pretty interesting point. Even on Calvinism, faith repentance isn't a miracle.

Regeneration is a miracle, and it causes a man to desire to believe, repent freely. So it's not a miracle even on Calvinism.

Because you have to have the regeneration in your be first. So it's the regeneration would be the miracle, right?

Not the faith. Yeah. But to me, that's a distinction without a difference because that repentant faith is an effectual gift of regeneration.

But I hear you, Dr. Flowers. I still want to hear what you think the most persuasive point of Calvinism is that's kind of floating on the

Internet from the Johnny Macs. Oh, OK. He has said this before, and I thought,

OK, this is a good point because Dr. Flowers said that he thinks, in his opinion, Romans 9 is easy to explain the context.

I'm sure you would feel the same way. And he has said before that Acts 13, 48 on the surface definitely seems to fit well within the

Calvinistic paradigm. So I appreciate him bringing that back out. Yeah, now, so actually now that he said that, that's really along along those same lines as what

I was talking about. I was talking about predestination, like Ephesians 1. This is the same language. God, how does it say it typically in the

King James with most people? But it says, help me out here. It says, and all those that were ordained into eternal life believed.

So, yeah, that's kind of what I was talking about. Just simply looking at language like that and when you understand what

Calvinists say that fits well, which is what I was saying about predestination. Can I ask another kind of rogue question?

It's not every day I talk to you and Dr. Flowers kind of in the same context.

Tell me, and I texted you the other day about, you know, kind of what does it make Roman Catholics at large saved.

So like for you, what counts as being in the kingdom versus in the standard of being saved versus where it's a distorted and put somebody outside the faith?

If you want, I'll tell you kind of my quick answer to that just so you can kind of play off of it. Is that okay? Sure. And so same question for Dr.

Flowers. What's the standard of what's that you would hold someone to to become saved versus someone has distorted that and become lost?

So I tell people you got to believe in the right Jesus and you have to receive the right Jesus the way that he commanded us to.

So when I back up, I'm thinking about passages like John 8 24 that unless you believe that Agawai me, then you will die in your sins.

That's the the incarnate Christ, the God -man who is also the second person of the triune God. Got to believe in that Jesus or you have to believe in the direction of that Jesus not to deny the incarnation and the sovereign triune

God. So that's that's the right Jesus. So that's different than, you know,

Unitarians to polytheism and all the rest. And then I'm thinking of John 1

Galatians 1 that you have to receive that Jesus by faith apart from works.

And so to me, gospel of grace mentality. And this is kind of how I navigate the waters of saying if someone's in the kingdom or not.

Okay. How would you answer, kind of distinguishing, I know it's always case by case, but what are what are some good principles that you determine if someone's in the kingdom or outside the kingdom based on what they're saying?

I would say you're out of the kingdom if you don't believe the King James is the Oh, no. Oh, somebody.

Michelle Sherry KJV out there. I wasn't.

I wasn't making a comment towards her. She's been a supporter of the

Apologetic Dog, so I'm glad she's still in the side chat. Yeah, no, I was just joking. I was thinking of actually someone like, never mind.

But I believe what puts you in the kingdom is when you put your faith in Jesus Christ in an attempt to genuinely submit to him and be his disciple.

So it's like Apollos in Acts chapter 18 at the end.

It says good things about him, but it says that he only knew the baptism of John. So even something significant as baptism he didn't have correct.

But he wasn't a false teacher. Right. He had a, you know, salvation is not based upon the precision of your knowledge.

Right. What he did was, what he didn't know, he faithfully served Jesus in and corrected it when he realized he was wrong.

That's I think what makes someone saved. Okay, I don't know.

I think all Layton said was, God judges the heart, he will judge rightly. And so I agree with that, but I think we have good biblical grounds for if someone articulates a false gospel, that gospel is to be anathema.

So I'm wondering, what are the parameters of judging a true gospel versus a false gospel?

Well, I would say, well, I'll tell you things that I would say if nothing else are borderline, but I would...

this free grace idea where people say, you don't have to submit to Jesus at all, and you're still going to be saved. I'm not going to call that the gospel at all.

Now, there may be some who call themselves free grace who would say, no, you're not going to fall away. I mean, you're not going to be a rebel.

I mean, a true Christian is going to serve Jesus. But I just have no respect for someone who says, no, you don't have to submit to Jesus, and the mid -act dispensationalists, to some extent, at least, they'll say, well, you know, they'll say, you don't have to submit to Jesus in the

Gospels or something like that. I think that's terrible. Deny the lordship of Jesus is pretty bad.

So how I would kind of piggyback off what you're saying, to some degree, you and I have our disagreements in this question, but when

I say someone has to submit to Christ, I'm saying a true faith alone, apart from works, but the free gracer.

They mean something else by faith than what I mean, because I'm talking about a repentant faith, and like you and I have talked about, they want to remove repentance.

I'm like, oh, when you do that, that is an empty faith that even James 2, I would argue, brings up.

That is a mere said faith that is maybe assenting to facts, but if there's no repentance, if there's no change of mind that engages the heart, then that's not going, that's not submitting to Christ's kingship.

Kind of, me and you, where we disagree is how we define faith and how we define works,

I think. But we define, I mean, we would agree on what you just said. Repentance is a necessary product of faith.

So I think we're saying the same thing, maybe just semantically different, but faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin.

I don't think you get genuinely one without the other, and how you explain saving faith has to involve repentance, and how you explain saving repentance is necessarily interwoven with faith.

Yeah. Well, at any rate, I think, so go back to the debate and kind of end it here.

I don't believe, White's a good debater, even if he's wrong. I mean, that's just, that's the truth. But I think he didn't establish his presuppositions, and I didn't say that in most of my comments because I thought that's what's expected, and everybody's kind of expected that.

And so, I have a debate coming up on some passages, and I just say when you debate a passage, you have to establish that that passage proves it, not just couldn't flow with it, not just could harmonize it, but proves it.

And I pressed you a little bit. You gave your case, which I think failed, but I would say that, wouldn't

I? That's okay. Dr. Flowers, I love this. He goes, so why isn't there a sola repentance, too?

Because he's honestly said, other times he has said, well, why don't you just say sola works?

Also in y 'all's, you know, five solas formula. And I appreciate that, but how I would genuinely say is when we say a sola fide, it's embedded that it's a repentant faith apart from works, which is a category of the heart, contrasted with our external acts of obedience.

So why is he asking? I mean, isn't he, I mean, doesn't he hold the solas? This is where I'm not sure on the provisionist slash maybe traditional

Baptist. I think it goes back to a marketing thing. Like you were rightly saying, I'm going to point that way.

Typically the reformed hearken the five solas. And so I don't know if you're provisionist slash traditional

Southern Baptist that you want to be careful to talk about the solas because you may be sounding reformed and you want to maybe distance yourself from that.

That's my guess because I don't know. Well, we went, we went over three hours.

Well, I mean, it's a lot, I mean, it's pretty big, you know, a pretty good audience, 48. I mean, of course, if you're a person that gets like hundreds, maybe not, but 47 is pretty good people.

People are people listen, people are interested. So I thought it'd be really educational.

The solas are stronger on provisionism. Thank you, Dr. Flowers. By the way,

I may re -upload this on my channel. Are you okay with that? Me? Yeah, I mean, it's fine with me.

I might make it a part of them. I got to think of a banger thumbnail to make with us. So next is for me to get

David Lewis, since he said he's coming on, I'm going to get him on. But anyway.

Yeah. So I appreciate everybody in the audience. I, I, uh, I found the debate was everybody was anticipating this and everybody's been talking about it.

So I thought, well, I guess I'll talk about it too. You know, I have some thoughts on it and, and I appreciate Dr. Flowers since, you know, we're ultimately talking about him.

You come in and, uh, have a conversation too. I was a little starstruck and distracted with Dr.

Flowers in the side chat. So I thought you, I thought you guys were like big buds and you knew each other, you know? No, I'm a nobody.

Okay. Nah. Yeah. I mean, you got, uh, nobody's a nobody.

That's what I always say. Nobody's a nobody. I'm trying to, I'm trying to get people looking at that beard.

That's why I got to have a beard on the apologetic dog, that pit bull. Yeah. Well, all right.

I'll let you, uh, you got some final comments, uh, what you want to say before we close it up? Yeah. Just to kind of echo a little bit of what you said.

I appreciate everybody in the side chat. I really appreciate you AK. Um, just so you know, you're in my prayers and I really do appreciate our conversation.

Something I respect about you, critical thinker, and I really think you want to steal man, uh, the person you're engaging with like me.

And so I want to be one of the first people to say, AK, I have a lot of respect for you distinguished from other crowds where they're kind of saying the same old, same old string in the one, one string banjo.

And so you, you've kind of shown me that you take the scripture seriously. And so to me, that's a good, and that's why

I agreed to come on here. Uh, because I knew it'd be a charitable discussion. I don't want to engage in any condescending way.

We have our disagreements. Um, I think we could both be staring at the same verse and we're like, man, it's so clear on what it is saying and what it's not saying.

And that's okay. Um, I think me and you hopefully charitably modeled that.

And so I'm wanting people to take that away of saying, man, AK really steamrolled Jeremiah, but you know what?

Jeremiah was able to really have a charitable dialogue in that. And for people on my side that maybe think, man,

AK just could not understand what Jeremiah was saying. It's like, Hey, let's remember that Christ -like love when we are engaging with people, whether it be evangelistic or in an iron sharpening iron context.

So if you enjoyed some of our interaction, um, even if you disagree with me, uh, please flow over to the apologetic dog

YouTube channel. Um, I really plan on pumping out more content, um, over there. And I got a website that's about to be released along with a lot of other projects.

So I appreciate, um, your support in those ways. Oh, and I have a debate the same day that AK does

April 5th. Don't know what he said earlier, but, uh, I'm going to encourage you to watch that either at 12 five church where I serve as one of the pastors and elders at, um, it'll be live and in -person

April 5th at 6 PM admission is free. So if you're in the Northeast Arkansas area, come check it out.

Or if you like to travel and check out those kinds of things, uh, mark that in your calendars, or if you're committed to team

AK, at least, uh, be looking forward to my debate, maybe watch the, um, the, the recording of it.

So that's about all I got. Well, I appreciate, appreciate all that. I appreciate you coming on.

And, uh, yeah, we, we have really discussed now I will say, uh, you know, I, I said that I like meeting the man.

Uh, you know, if I'm talking to Matt slick, I go pretty hard. And if I think there's a lot on the line,

I will go pretty hard. And I don't think that's unfriendly. I think, I think there can be unkindness, but you and I are very friendly.

So I don't just sit there and try to press you and try to hammer you in the ground. And I know some people say, are you going to go at him harder?

Well, in some cases you do that with the person, the situation calls for it, but you know, that's just the way it is, but you're always smiling.

It's hard to really hammer you. I mean, you know, people even get mad at me for that. They're like, he's smiling, trying to distract you.

And I'm like, I promise I'm just being me. And before I debate, before I do anything,

I pray that God would protect me from pride, that I would show the love of Christ.

So I try to have a good time. I think that's what helps me stay clear in the debate is

I care about the person I'm debating with. Um, I've been praying for weeks, months leading up to it, and I want to have a good time.

Like I'll tell you this AK, I want to be able to you may appreciate this one day.

Um, I want to debate, uh, professors on their home turf at their own universities on the existence of God.

And so I want to be able to do that where even an atheist professor that hates what

I stand for thinks, you know what? I like him though. That was fun. That was charitable. We'll do it again.

So that's my prayer is just to show the love of Christ in these contexts. All right.

Well, all right, everybody, a good audience. Uh, I didn't get a lot of your questions in. I mean, I didn't really actually see a lot of people saying at AK or at Jeremiah.

I did look for them, but we got some of them in. Appreciate everybody. Appreciate the discussion with Jeremiah and hope you guys were educated.