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 hymn, 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 saying there's 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 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 will not be someone 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 without...

Preservation. Yeah, there we 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. 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 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 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 I do believe in eternal.

Security. I believe 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. White'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...so it's not just hearing, and what Dr. White is going to say, and this is what I was going to get to, Dr. White is going to keep saying, at least twice, he'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. The work of God, right,.

Earlier in the context, and I think Dr. White 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.

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, well, 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, well, I appreciate Dr. Flowers saying that. So that's kind of Dr. White'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, 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 agree with most of what he's saying. 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 wanting to get to.

Let me go back. I want to say to Dr. Flowers,.

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 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 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 that is a motif in John, is that those who heard and learned from the Old Testament scriptures, and I think this is, 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, a 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 moving 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.

Cross. 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. You know, 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 realize.

They don't say it. They don'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 a logically 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, and so I think what White is bringing out here of saying, so 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, and 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, and so 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't establish it from the Greek any more than you can the English, but anyway. I'm enjoying this.

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 it... He's missing his.

Point. Not everybody in Israel was taught. Everybody has 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 learn in the sense that the gospel affects you in such a way that you believe God, and you understand Him, and this is what we're talking about, and he mentioned Simeon, which is a good example.

The disciples are 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 chat. 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 probably already tell by my beard and the fact that I had a name tag at Antellahoma's Conference of Speaker. Wow. Yeah, well, you had that picture with him.

That's right. Well, because in one picture you were with White, and 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 heights 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, pas, 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.

Caiaphas wasn't. All those... plenty of Jews rejected the Old Testament Scriptures. That doesn't mean they weren't religious. Again, I mean, 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 a 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.

Good verse. 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, he... So I don't know how you can critique something if you're not actually interacting with what he's saying, but anyway.

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'll raise 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, exactly. But see, I don't... but see, that's... you say exactly, but I think that is the point is 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 gonna demonstrate what I'm talking about with White. Listen to what he's gonna 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 gonna 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's.

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. 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. 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.

That's why I said earlier. Calvinism, you.

See, I wouldn't agree that conversion and regeneration is a work of the Spirit. It's the work of the Spirit in the heart. The difference is Calvinists presuppose a mysterious supernatural work of the Spirit.

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 he's going to 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 is 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 going to 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.

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, everyone 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 and learning, and you said, by the way, you said the hearing is the believing. Now, was that a misstatement, or did you.