Debate Teacher Reacts: James White vs. Leighton Flowers (John 6:44)

Wise Disciple

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:00

I'm here to debate John chapter six. If you want to talk about all sorts of other things, that seems to be your thing. I just talked about draw.

00:05

That seems to be your thing. I think the teacher actually says, when I want you to hear and learn and listen, I really want you to hear and learn and listen.

00:11

That's what I believe. Clear enough? I'm having deja vu, because didn't this happen in Romans nine?

00:17

Just set aside how you want this debate to go and just think for a moment in terms of strategy and methodology.

00:31

Welcome back to a highly requested video of Debate Teacher Reacts. My name is Nate and this is Wise Disciple, where I'm helping you become the effective

00:37

Christian that you were meant to be. Before I jumped into this ministry full -time, I was a debate teacher. And so I look at apologetics and theology debates and I talk about who's really winning from a more formal perspective.

00:48

Well, today's video was a long time coming. Dr. James White versus Dr. Layton Flowers. The last time these gentlemen got on the debate stage, things got muy caliente.

00:58

I don't know why I just spoke Spanish there. I am indeed Samoan. Talofa lava to all my usos out there.

01:05

That's right, me and The Rock are the only half Samoans making moves in media right now. I'm just kidding. This debate took place just a couple of weeks ago in Houston, Texas.

01:14

The topic of the debate is, does John 644 teach unconditional election? As usual, cross -examination is where it's at.

01:21

That's where all the magic happens on the debate stage, in my opinion. So we'll head there in just a moment. Don't forget to like and subscribe to the channel because many of you who watch my videos have not yet subscribed and today's the day.

01:32

I feel it. Also, if this video blesses you, would you do me a favor and share it with someone else? Let's all get on the same page when it comes to engaging the culture for Christ, amen?

01:41

Finally, check out the awesome discounts that we're running at logos .com forward slash wise disciple. I've partnered with Logos because it is the

01:48

Bible software that I use to study the Bible and it's a game changer for the student of scripture. The link for that is below.

01:54

Dr. Flowers, is it still true today that no one is able to come to Christ unless they're drawn by the

02:00

Father? Everyone must be drawn in order to come to Christ. The drawing is the teaching.

02:05

Just like you say in your own book, you actually ask the question, how does God draw them? By teaching them.

02:11

I agreed with you on that point. He draws by teaching and so you have to be taught. Like Paul said, how will they believe in one whom they've not heard?

02:18

They have to be taught. There has to be revelation, there has to be light and so they have to be drawn by God. So why is it that no one has the ability to come to Christ?

02:30

Don't we have free will? They don't have the ability to believe in one whom they've not been taught about.

02:36

Just like I said, they have to be drawn by the teaching of God. Okay, so we're starting off with cross -examination.

02:44

Again, those of you not familiar, cross -examination is the segment of the debate where you get to grill your opponent with leading questions that are designed to poke holes in their contentions, perhaps challenge or undermine their argumentation.

02:56

The focus should be on the things that they said in their opening statements. Rebuttals, but really it's about furthering your own argument as well.

03:05

And so in that sense, this is like a verbal form of chess. When you're in cross, you should only ask questions that don't waste a lot of time or take you and your opponent down rabbit trails or that create opportunities to filibuster.

03:20

Again, it's about hitting as many important arguments that your opponent has made and forcing them to explain themselves and their potential flaws, as well as how they fail to address your overall framework.

03:33

Dr. White is asking about Dr. Flowers' own contentions about the proper understanding of John 644, but he's trying to do so in a way that deals with the text itself.

03:42

Flowers says people are free to believe or not believe in God. Okay, if that's true, then why does

03:49

Jesus say no one is capable of coming to him? So it's a matter of communicating facts or data to someone.

03:57

Is that what the - If you want to call the gospel facts and data, I mean, the gospel is the power of God into salvation.

04:03

It's the light, it's the sword of the spirit. It pierces in through not only bone and marrow, but into the heart and it affects our lives.

04:10

Just like, you know, you may say the sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words have power. Okay, so a person who is drawn, again, looking at verse 44, a person who is drawn by the father to the son is being taught by God.

04:28

Is that, is being taught the gospel by God, the father? Well, Hebrews 1 says in days of past,

04:36

God spoke through the prophets and other various means, but in these days, he speaks through his son and then of course the apostles and the bride.

04:44

So in that day in John 6, it's the transitionary period of being taught through the prophets and the law.

04:50

And now it's transitioning through being taught through Jesus and the bride of Christ through the gospel that's being sent to all of creation.

04:57

So we're jumping into the deep end of the pool here. You're gonna have to know the text, right?

05:03

The scripture and have it open alongside this discussion because these gentlemen are probably going to go super fast.

05:11

The other thing is you need to know how they made their cases in their opening statements. So you definitely need to go back and watch the full debate if you have not already.

05:19

And I'll leave a link for that in the notes below. White argues that the drawing of God is divine and effectual to salvation, which aligns with Calvinism.

05:29

And Flowers argues that the drawing of God simply refers to those who listen and learn from the father in verse 45.

05:37

Those who choose to, I suppose, listen and learn. Real quick, let's take a look at the passage together for reference.

05:44

This is John chapter six, verse 44. No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

05:51

It is written in the prophets and they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the father comes to me.

05:58

So again, those are the two distinctive positions on the debate stage. Probably what is happening here is

06:05

White is setting a garden path for Flowers. In other words, he's setting him up for like a humdinger of a question later.

06:11

But let's see how this plays out. Everyone who is drawn by the father to the son is that today, is that all people?

06:24

Or is there, what differentiates as to who is being drawn by the father?

06:32

Well, we live in the church age so that the drawing is by Jesus to himself. Jesus draws all people once he's raised up and he's been raised up.

06:39

And so he sends the gospel to go into all creation and through the bride and through the gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ, through the teaching of the apostles, we are now being drawn through the teaching of Christ.

06:49

So the father is no longer drawing people to the son? Well, they're... Hopefully you're picking up on what's being put down here.

06:56

Jesus said in John 6 44, but not just in John 6 44, it's also in verse 37 and also verse 65, which is the same concept.

07:06

Those who come to him are drawn by the father and no one can come unless they've been drawn by the father, whatever that means, right?

07:15

Flowers is saying that this kind of drawing is no longer a reality because now we live in a different era.

07:21

And so Jesus is now drawing people to himself instead of the father drawing people to Jesus.

07:28

That's what White is asking flowers about right now. Maybe people who read the law and the prophets prior is people in the

07:34

Jewish tradition may come to Christ through the teachings of God the father, but it's, as you know, it's a triune

07:41

God. So God may draw through various means in the old Testament. It was the, as Hebrews one says, it was the father that drew through the prophets.

07:48

So actually verse 44 isn't continuing true today.

07:54

Something has changed to where when Jesus says, I will raise him up on the last day, who is it that Jesus will raise up on the last day?

08:05

Everyone who comes to him in faith. Everyone who comes to him in faith. And yet in verse 44, who is it that Jesus will raise up on the last day?

08:16

Well, in first 44, like you acknowledge the difference between the context of chapter 12 and chapter four is chapter four is still prior to the crucifixion.

08:25

I think you mean chapter six. I'm sorry, yes, chapter six, 44. And so in chapter six, he's drawing those who believe in the father who have listened and learned from the father.

08:35

He's drawing them to the son and they will be raised up in the last day. For example,

08:41

Simeon would have been a good example of this. He was a God -fearing man. He would have been drawn to believe in Jesus. But after Christ is raised up, that's when he says to go and spread the gospel to all people.

08:50

And so that's the means by which he draws all people today is through the gospel of Jesus Christ. So you and I came through the drawing of Jesus.

08:57

We didn't come through the drawing of the prophets. So Flowers points to John 12 and suggests that Jesus will take over drawing people to himself after he is raised from the dead.

09:09

So what White is doing is he's investigating the coherence of the position that Flowers has taken.

09:15

Does this make sense of the text of scripture? Everything in John six has now changed.

09:22

Is the eating of the flesh, drinking the blood, has all of that changed now that Jesus is doing the drawing rather than the father doing the drawing?

09:32

No, because all of that is symbolism to listening and learning to the drawing that comes through our God, either through the prophets or through the apostles.

09:40

Either one is still God doing the drawing. It's just a different means at different times. And so they're still eating the flesh by listening, inclining their ear to hear the gospel, just like when they incline their ear to hear

09:50

Moses. If they believed Moses, they would believe Jesus. So did every person who was drawn by the father to the son come to the son?

10:02

In that context, I have no problem with that interpretation because he's not drawing them unconditionally.

10:08

He's drawing them conditioned upon the fact that they listened and learned from the father. So the only way for you to understand verse 44 is to have your interpretation of verse 45, right?

10:21

Well, obviously we have interpretations of both verses and they correlate together, but this is the same view that Michael Brown debated with you.

10:31

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 to them that you're saying to me.

10:37

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.

10:46

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

10:57

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

11:03

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,

11:13

I can't imagine Simeon saying no to Jesus. Why? Because Jesus is one with the father. So if somebody listened to your teaching, then they would listen to the teaching of Jeff Durbin because you teach the same thing.

11:24

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

11:29

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.

11:37

That's why the sheep don't reject them. But if they have free will, they can choose to do that for various reasons, right? But I'm saying they would not choose to do so because the father and the son are teaching the same thing.

11:48

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.

11:54

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?

12:04

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,

12:10

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

12:16

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

12:23

And so you see a distinction between that and everyone hearing from the father.

12:30

That's a different group. No, I believe that all of Israel has heard.

12:37

Not all of them listened, but all of them heard because you're responsible whether you listen to your teacher or not.

12:43

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?

12:57

They come to Jesus. So again, hopefully you're picking up on what's being put down here.

13:02

Flowers is saying on the one hand, all will be taught by God when he establishes his eternal covenant of peace.

13:09

That's Isaiah 54, 13, which Isaiah is the one that is quoted by Jesus in verse 45 of John.

13:18

But on the other hand, not all will listen and learn from the father. So what White is asking about is where this idea that not all will listen and learn come from.

13:27

Where in the text does it say that? And isn't that in contradiction to Isaiah 54, 13, which says that all will be taught?

13:35

Which, by the way, I'm surprised that I'm not hearing anything about Jeremiah 31, where God says that he will put his law in the minds of his people and write it on their hearts, which

13:46

Milagos commentary is pointing me to in reference to John 6, 45 as well.

13:53

That's neither here nor there because nobody's bringing it up. So shut up, Nate. Okay, let's see what happens next. So if it was all of Israel, why didn't all of Israel come to Jesus?

14:02

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.

14:10

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.

14:17

But just because they hear doesn't mean they'll listen and learn and believe. But it specifically states, everyone hearing from the

14:25

Father will come to me. How is that not clearly - Everyone who has listened and learned, it says.

14:32

In other words, they heard and they learned, which implies that they believed. It doesn't say everyone believed.

14:38

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

14:50

Father comes to me. How is that not very clearly the description of what drawing means in verse 44?

15:00

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

15:08

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

15:14

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

15:24

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

15:30

You have closed your eyes. It's their fault for closing their eyes, not a default condition from birth like you teach. So Flowers is actually not doing a bad job here.

15:39

I think White probably could be asking another question. If Jesus quotes

15:44

Isaiah 54 .13 and says that all will be taught by God, Flowers says that's all of Israel right there, okay?

15:53

Well, then how can Flowers then go on to say that not all will learn from God? Isn't being taught learning?

16:00

Look at the passage one more time. No one can come to me unless the

16:05

Father who sent me draws him, right? Verse 45, it is written in the prophets, and they will all be taught by God.

16:11

Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Isn't being taught learning?

16:17

Isn't the definition of taught someone who has learned? You see what I mean? If all will be taught, and that's

16:25

Jesus' Old Testament way of explaining what he's talking about in verse 44, then when he gets to verse 45, how can

16:31

Flowers say that all being taught won't learn? Is that what makes the most sense in this text?

16:38

I'm simply pointing this out to show that White has not asked this question, and so Flowers does not have to answer what was not asked, and I'd say

16:47

Flowers is holding his own up here right now. So let's see how White finishes. So you see a distinction in the middle of the sentence, and when it says, it's written in the prophets, they shall all be taught by God, you interpret that as a general thing to all of Israel, right?

17:08

Yes, all of Israel has heard, they have no experience. Then the sentence doesn't, there's not even a sentence break.

17:16

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

17:23

I mean, Thayu is in the genitive ablative, right? I'm just telling you what it says is that they hear, but hearing isn't enough.

17:33

You have to actually believe what you hear. You think that that's something God controls, I don't. That's the only difference between our views.

17:40

Where's the word believe in here? Yeah, it's not there. The words are taught and learned.

17:46

It seems like Dr. Flowers wants to suggest that these terms are not maybe referring to the same people.

17:52

Maybe he's got a good answer for that, but White doesn't seem to quite get there in terms of a leading question, so they'll have to move on, it looks like.

18:01

I've listened to your explanation of John 3 .16, where you try to make world not to be universal, but of the elect, and the way you kind of revamp the word whoever.

18:11

I'm just wondering, in John 6 .33, where it says the - Revamp the word whoever, where did I do that? Where you change from whosoever to the believing ones?

18:20

I've heard you give that explanation. Well, the Greek is pas hapistio, and it means everyone believing. I'm not revamping anything. I'm actually just translating it correctly.

18:27

Okay, so do you use the same kind of hermeneutics when it comes to John 6 .33, for the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world?

18:36

Is that just the world of the elect? No, it's obviously the only source of life for anything in the world, which includes

18:45

Jews and Gentiles, is the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the whole point of John 6, is that he is the living bread.

18:51

So the world is everyone in the world who will receive life, receives it only through Jesus Christ and in no other way.

18:56

So the elect of the Jews and the elect of the Gentiles. Actually, I've never said that. I think you're misunderstanding my understanding of cosmos.

19:03

Cosmos is used by John in at least 10 different ways and in the New Testament, at least 14 different ways.

19:08

So Jesus did come for everyone in the world, every person, every single person in the world. There's a vast difference between saying

19:14

Jews and Gentiles and saying every single individual world. That would be like saying Jesus specifically came for Judas Iscariot, even though Judas Iscariot was -

19:22

So in verse 32, when it says, this is my father who gives you the true bread from heaven, he speaks to an unbelieving crowd.

19:28

Would you say that to a group of unbelievers that Jesus came for you? In the same way that Jesus said it.

19:33

Again, he's talking about the fact that he is the true bread from heaven. He is presenting himself in that way.

19:39

I'm not making, I'm not Jesus, so I don't know someone's heart, even though John 6 says Jesus did know their hearts and knew who did not believe.

19:46

Okay, I wanna put - So again, cross -exam is meant for the contentions that were made in opening statements.

19:55

Dr. White asked about, when it was his turn, John 6, 44 and 45, because Dr.

20:01

Flowers talked about that passage in his opening statement. White never made any arguments about the world.

20:07

In John being limited only to those who believe, he made other contentions in his opener, which

20:12

Flowers should focus on. The point is, you have very limited time on the debate stage.

20:18

And because of that, you have to be judicious about the questions that you ask and keep them focused on your opponent's arguments in the debate, because the clock is ticking.

20:28

You know, Flowers says, well, you know, given your Calvinist views, would you evangelize to everyone in the room? That's not time well spent in cross.

20:36

Kind of side -by -side RT views, and I wanna see if you think it's a fair characterization. I believe Jesus is rebuking this unbelieving

20:41

Israelite crowd by telling them the reason they're not being granted to come to Jesus is because of their continued unbelief.

20:47

They didn't listen to the Father, and therefore they're not being entrusted to the Son, while you, in contrast, believe Jesus is explaining to a crowd of unbelievers why they can't believe by introducing

20:55

Calvinistic sociology, the T, the U, and the I. Is that basically what you think's happening here in John 6?

21:02

No, of course not. Boy, that's a bad question. Never ask your opponent this kind of question, okay?

21:10

All you're doing is setting them up to restate their case in a manner that is advantageous to their position. You might think that this is a gotcha moment, right?

21:18

Don't you think that your position is actually horrible? But then all your opponent is gonna say is, no, my position is, and then they're just gonna restate it in their own way, which is just furthering their own case.

21:31

Never let your opponent do that. Watch, this is what White is probably gonna do here. First, I reject your rabid misrepresentation of free -for -all theology.

21:40

He's not introducing total inability. I'm gonna answer the questions that you asked, okay? Please stop interrupting me.

21:47

You just presented T and I and all the rest of this stuff. I was just summarizing to be fast.

21:53

No, go ahead. I was just summarizing to be fast. No, go ahead. What did you wanna ask?

22:00

I already asked. Do you think Jesus was introducing the Calvinistic doctrines to this crowd of unbelievers? He was, he's not introducing

22:08

Calvinistic doctrines because the belief in God's sovereignty is part and parcel of the

22:14

Old Testament revelation. So it's not something new. This was something they already recognized. They already recognized that Yahweh had only revealed himself to the people of Israel, that the sacrifices of the

22:24

Old Testament weren't for the Babylonians or the Egyptians or anybody else. So whenever it says no one can, you don't think that that's reflecting on the

22:33

T of total inability, the default condition that you refer to in your book? Yes, of course it is.

22:38

Of course it is. I just don't believe that's quote -unquote Calvinistic theology that's being introduced.

22:44

It's biblical theology that's been there from the beginning, from Genesis. This is getting caliente.

22:50

And also White just furthered his own case. So that's why you don't ask this kind of question.

22:56

Something that Dr. Flowers seems to do quite a bit is he always wants to bring the issues back to the bigger picture of Calvinism.

23:04

So, you know, tulip and the Calvinistic presuppositions and double predestination and all of the issues under the broader category of Calvinism.

23:14

Only one of those pieces is arguably specific to this debate. It's the

23:19

U in tulip, right? Unconditional elections, that's literally in the topic that I'm looking at, the title of the debate.

23:28

The rest of these issues are not. So when Flowers starts bringing in all this other stuff, it's not that these pieces are not somehow connected to it.

23:37

It's just too imprecise. It's wedging in extraneous pieces that actually lessens his ultimate effectiveness on the debate stage, in my opinion.

23:47

This is the difference between shooting with a shotgun and shooting with a rifle. One is going to be buckshot and all over the place, and the other is much more focused in aim.

23:56

If Flowers would just keep to the debate topic, to the biblical text that is in question, and then stay focused on White's specific contentions and arguments in this debate,

24:07

I think he'd be a lot more effective. The rest of it, it doesn't need to be brought in. You told one of your

24:16

Calvinist friends that was debating with an atheist or somebody that was debating with an atheist and he brought up total inability.

24:23

He brought up Calvinistic theology. And he says, you said, quote, there's no reason to be discussing the sovereign grace of God and things like that with someone who just doesn't even believe.

24:30

And so I'm wondering why you think Jesus is introducing these doctrines to a bunch of grumbling, gungus -mooing

24:36

Israelites. Massive category difference. Boy, again, there are just so many good questions to ask

24:45

Dr. White about his position. But instead, when you ask him to basically explain the text from his position, you're wasting precious time.

24:54

Never do this as a debate opponent, friends. Never set up your opponent to further their own case.

25:01

Again, they already have the ability to do that in their opener and in their rebuttals.

25:06

Don't let them do that in cross -exam as well. Flowers is missing a lot of great opportunities to press

25:12

White here. Well, he is explaining the fact that these individuals have come seeking him, but they are not seeking him for who he is as the

25:23

Messiah. They do not understand that he is the source of spiritual life. And why would he say that to them?

25:28

Well, because it's recorded for us in Scripture so that 2 ,000 years later, we could be sitting here and looking at it.

25:34

Okay, so you equate drawing with regeneration, basically. You believe someone must be made alive, regenerated, in order to come to the life giver who is

25:44

Christ. Yet on page 25 of this book here, drawn by the Father, you wrote, quote, when we come to him, when we believe on him, he becomes the source of our spiritual life.

25:54

Well, isn't regeneration the source of our spiritual life, not Jesus, on your view? No. That's so obviously false.

26:02

I'm not even sure how to address it. The only way that you can have spiritual life is if Jesus Christ is provided for the work of the

26:09

Spirit through his redeeming work to even raise us to spiritual life. So the idea of separating regeneration from the person of Jesus is an absurdity.

26:21

So, I'm getting frustrated. And just so there are no misconceptions here,

26:28

I actually want Flowers to do a great job. I'm watching this debate because I want to see true clash.

26:36

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm not sure if y 'all realize that or not. Because I know that the moment that I point something good that James White does in this debate, all of a sudden

26:48

I'm a Calvinist. And I'm sure if and when I point something to, you know, where Leighton does something good,

26:54

I'm all of a sudden a provisionist. I just want to see a good debate, guys. I want to see the best of both positions run headfirst into each other so that the rest of us can weigh the issues in an informed manner and then come to our own conclusions.

27:08

I'm not seeing that here. I genuinely believe that these two gentlemen are incredibly intelligent.

27:16

Of course, they would have to be. I mean, to not only get up on the debate stage and talk about this topic, but then like devote a good chunk of their lives to this very issue.

27:25

But clearly one of these guys has been debating a lot longer, and it shows. I just want to see some good clash.

27:33

But you must be regenerated prior to coming to Jesus. So before you're unified with Jesus, you have a new life.

27:38

First of all, I don't agree that drawing is the same thing as regeneration. That's not the terminology. I think we ought to stick with what

27:45

John 6 is actually talking about. John 6 defines the drawing by the Father as teaching, learning, and hearing.

27:55

That's the definition of drawing. It results in a person being raised up at the last day. That's the meaning in the context.

28:01

Actually, I'll read a quote from you where you actually equate drawing with regeneration later, but I'll have to pull that up.

28:06

What support do you have for equating this concept of regeneration with the word draw in the sense that you obviously -

28:14

He literally just said he does not equate regeneration with drawing. And now Flowers is asking for evidence to support his equating regeneration with drawing.

28:22

White literally just said he doesn't equate the two. Whether Flowers can pull up a book quote or not, why not just go after the contentions that White did make in his opener?

28:36

I don't understand why you do not attack the claims and arguments that White made in his opening statement in order to undermine his position on this debate.

28:45

I don't know if Flowers is trying to - What's his strategy? Go for death by 1 ,000 cuts or something?

28:52

But this strategy is wasting time, and it's setting up White to just say, that's not my position.

29:00

That's actually not my view. Here is what my view is. And then he furthers his own case again.

29:08

So you believe the drawing must involve regeneration because it has to precede their believing, doesn't it? Well, again,

29:13

I'm here to debate John chapter six. If you want to talk about all sorts of other things, that seems to be your thing. I just talked about draw.

29:19

That seems to be your thing. And I realize, Layton, it's all you've got. I asked you about Helco. The reality is, as we have seen, what is found in verse 44 is the assertion that no one has a certain capacity, unless something happens.

29:34

And that drawing is an effective drawing. It's not talking about issues of regeneration.

29:40

It's not talking about adoption. It's not talking about sanctification. It's not talking about a lot of things. But what it is explaining is, without it, there will be no eternal life.

29:49

Can you explain from your perspective why this audience can't believe, and why they're being judged for their unbelief, if that's a default condition from birth that they have no control over?

29:59

Well, again, God is demonstrating to the entire universe His justice, according to Ephesians chapter one, the praise of His glorious grace.

30:07

So you think it's just for God to condemn somebody who, by default, can't believe? I'm just stopping the video to see if maybe

30:17

I misunderstood the debate topic. No, I got it. Does John 644 teach unconditional election?

30:25

What is all this other stuff supposed to accomplish, other than wasting precious time?

30:32

This is really bad, guys. Like, I hope those of you who are fans of Flowers can appreciate that two things can be true at the same time.

30:41

Flowers might actually be 100 % correct in his views on soteriology. And at the same time, this is not the way to cross -examine someone when the debate topic is specifically about what

30:51

John 644 teaches. He just asked White, you know, can you explain why this audience doesn't believe based on your own

30:59

Calvinism? Do you think that that's just? What? Flowers is like way out in the weeds on this one.

31:07

Hey, real quick. I'm so grateful that you're watching. If I've earned the right to get your sub, I'd love it if you would just click the like and subscribe button.

31:15

It would really help me to get the video out to more and more people. I really do appreciate you. I will continue with my answer to the initial question, unless you just want to say we're not gonna be able to get anywhere with this.

31:27

No, go ahead. Okay, good. Yes, he is demonstrating the praise of his glorious grace from Ephesians chapter one in both the salvation of a undeserving people and in the condemnation of people who love their sin and remain in their rebellion.

31:44

That's the answer of Ephesians chapter one, verse six. That's the answer that I give as well. So it's a demonstration of God's justice to condemn people for something they have no control over.

31:53

You know, it just occurred to me, this looks like Flowers got excited to get white in a room just so he could grill him about all the problems with Calvinism.

32:04

Again, I'm having deja vu because didn't this happen in Romans nine, in the

32:10

Romans nine debate as well? I don't know. That was like a million years ago, but I'm pretty sure the cross exam looked a lot like this.

32:17

And again, especially to those of you who are fans of Flowers, he may be correct in his views, but this is just not the way to debate when the topic is specifically about what

32:27

John 644 really teaches. Flowers brings up a book that White wrote, apparently on John 644, which is actually, it's fine to reference, but not when it shifts focus away from the main contentions that White made in this debate.

32:44

And I encourage those of you who are, you're already upset with me, okay? Your dander's up on the back of your neck and you're growling at me, right?

32:52

Just set aside how you want this debate to go and just think for a moment in terms of strategy and methodology.

32:59

That's all I'm trying to point out here. I'll say it one more time for the back row, okay? Flowers could be totally correct in his views.

33:07

And I was really hoping that he was going to clash with White's contentions in this debate, but that's not what's happening here.

33:13

And in formal settings, when you do not engage or refute the arguments that your opponent makes, then it's understood that you concede them, which is why

33:21

I keep harping on this so much. I utterly reject, and you should know, as a quote unquote former reform minister, that that is a gross misrepresentation, that we believe that the non -elect love their sin, that they are invested in their sin.

33:37

And to say that they have no control over it means that as the incarnate one, Jesus had no control over what he did in time as well.

33:45

We reject that because we believe everything the Bible teaches rather than just small snippets that we've accepted.

33:50

Okay, I want to dig into this moral accountability because I think that's the major Achilles heel of the Calvinism. Is that gonna be in John 6? That's exactly dealing with John 6 because it's by default, you say it's by default, in your own exposition of John 6, you say it's by default they're unable to believe.

34:05

And so that is the root. Because of their sin, yes. Because of their sin or because they were born in that decreed state.

34:11

Yes, they are the sons and daughters of Adam. That's what Romans 5 teaches. Okay, so let's put ourselves in the shoes.

34:17

Let's give a name and a face to one of these people in the crowd that's gungus -mooing. Let's call him Rob the Reprobate.

34:23

He gungus -moos and then Rob turns around, he walks away and he drops dead of a heart attack. He's non -elect, so he goes to hell.

34:30

On what basis is Rob judged? He had absolutely no control over whether he listened and learned from the

34:37

Father or Jesus. Why, on what basis is he condemned? Okay, absolutely no control means

34:44

God must extend his grace to rebel sinners. That's what's being said.

34:49

I didn't say that. That is what's being said. If you say he has no control, that means he is being forced to be a bad guy and God's standing there with a gun, he would be a bad guy.

35:00

No, he's not. In fact, God is restraining his evil. He is justly judged for the love of his sin.

35:07

It's not a matter of being forced into doing anything. It's not a matter of being incapable of doing anything outside of one thing, and that is if you're a rebel sinner, you need the grace of God that doesn't just try to save but actually saves.

35:23

Did I ever say that God owes anybody anything? You are definitely implying it, yes.

35:30

Did I ever say that he owed Rob anything in the illustration? No. Continue on.

35:37

Okay, so on what basis, I'll ask again, on what basis is he being judged? And I already answered the question.

35:44

He's being judged on the basis that he's an Adam and therefore he's being judged - So he's being judged really for Adam's sin. That's all right.

35:51

I've given the answer. At this point, the debater could simply appeal to what's called topicality, which is to suggest that, hey, my opponent has veered from the topic of debate tonight.

36:01

I think White is kind of sort of doing this now with his little comment. By the way, White's not helping himself either with his sort of his non -verbals and his tone against Flowers, okay?

36:12

There is clearly some tension between White and Flowers that honestly I hope is rectified at some point in the future by the simple fact that they are brothers in Christ.

36:22

But having said all of that, Flowers, if this is the end of Cross, has almost completely wasted his time.

36:29

At this point, I would say White has advantage over Flowers. And I think now

36:35

White's going to, he's probably just gonna pick up where he left off in his second cross. Returning to the subject of debate in John chapter six,

36:43

I am still extremely lost as to exactly how you are substantiating the reading that you are giving of verse 45.

36:58

Is there, does the word faith appear in verses 44 or 45?

37:05

No. And when we use the term coming to Christ, are we able to do that now but they couldn't until the cross?

37:23

Is that what one of the differences is? No one can come unless they've been drawn. How does he draw?

37:29

By teaching them. He taught them through the prophets of old and now he teaches through himself, his own teaching, and the apostles through the

37:35

New Testament. Okay, so is there any text in the New Testament talks about what it means to come to the

37:43

Father? Because you said in your opening that the Father gives to the Son those who have come to Him.

37:50

Does the phrase come to the Father appear in this text? Well, in verse 45, he says he knew from the beginning those who did not believe.

38:00

So in verse, I mean, excuse me, verse 64, he says he knew from the start which ones did not believe and then he says it's for this reason they're not being given.

38:07

Same thing in verse 45. Those who listen and learn from the Father previously will come to the

38:13

Son. That's a condition. The condition they met is they listened to Moses. If you listen to Moses, you would believe me because we're one in the same.

38:19

It's repeated throughout the book of John. So the question again was, does the phrase coming to the

38:27

Father appear in this text? Coming to the

38:33

Father. You said those who come to the Father are given by the Father of the Son. It says those who listen and learn from the

38:39

Father will come to the Son. If you listen to Moses. Had they come to the Father. Had you listened to Moses, you would listen to me.

38:45

Had you listened to the prophets, you would listen to me. Had you come to me, I would give you life. It's over, repeated over.

38:51

Even John 8, as you like to preach about. If they belong to God, they would come to Jesus.

38:57

But they didn't belong to God because they refused to listen to him. You don't think they belong to God because they weren't elected. I think they didn't belong to God because they didn't listen.

39:04

So I blame them and you blame the divine decree. Okay, so the word

39:10

God in verse 45, they shall be taught by God. You believe that that action is to all of Israel.

39:20

Yes, just like in Romans 10. Have they not all heard? And he says, yes, my message has gone out to the ends of the earth.

39:27

They have all heard. They don't have an excuse. But it's not effective because the majority don't learn.

39:36

A remnant do listen and learn and believe and therefore he reserves them. They're the lost sheep of Israel.

39:41

Do you see the difference between White and Flowers? Again, setting aside whether or not they're correct in their views,

39:48

I'm just talking about strategy. Do you see how White is focused on Flowers' interpretation of John 6, 44 and 45?

39:56

And he's pressing Flowers on statements that he made in this debate in order to investigate for coherence and probably poke holes in those statements.

40:05

Can you see that? This is the difference in debate strategy that I'm talking about. This is what

40:11

Flowers needs to do when it's his turn again. They're the ones he's going to bring to his son. So they're reserved because of what they do, right?

40:18

They're the one. They refuse to bow and eat a bell. That's what they did. So what they did is why they were reserved by God, right?

40:25

They responded in faith, just like the scripture says. So you are introducing a distinction between Pontus and Poss when there's only two words in between them because you seem to be saying everyone hearing from the father is different than all who are taught by God.

40:46

I just don't assume by a presupposition like you do that people who hear a message automatically have to believe it.

40:54

I believe that some people can hear a message and choose not to believe it. I believe they can close their ears and their eyes to it.

40:59

What if verse 45 actually comes after verse 44 and is describing what the drawing that results in giving of eternal life and resurrection.

41:16

What if all who are taught by God, all who hear from the father, all who learn from the father is the effective action of God that's provided in scripture and being described by Jesus.

41:37

What if that were that, what would that do to your theological understanding of this text? If that were true, then your presupposition,

41:44

Tulip, would be true. And I don't think your presupposition is true. That's White playing with flowers right now, okay?

41:51

That is a cheeky question. Not a great one to ask either, by the way, but I don't know.

41:58

I think at this point White feels emboldened to do something like this because of Flowers' performance in the previous cross.

42:03

I believe they actually have the responsibility, the ability to respond to the teaching of God. They can deny it or they can accept it.

42:10

So when I point to the words pontes and pas, and you create a distinction, is it a parlor trick on my part to ask you to substantiate that assertion?

42:26

Again, I can read from you exegetes who know just as much Greek as you do,

42:32

Dr. White, who do not interpret this text to mean that people are just passive in hearing and learning because he's only talking about the unconditionally elected people in eternity past.

42:42

That's actually what Flowers should have done, right? That's actually what would have been extremely substantial in supporting his own position on the debate stage, right?

42:56

Why didn't he do that? Why didn't he quote some experts? This is such a head -scratcher, you know?

43:03

To me, it's like obvious. Quoting experts that support your position is fundamental in debates. It helps to further your case.

43:10

He acknowledges that he could do the very thing that he absolutely should do if he wants to clash with White, but he won't do it.

43:18

I don't understand Flowers' strategy. You understand it that way because you have your presuppositions. I am talking to you about the grammar of the text.

43:27

I'm not talking about my presuppositions. I'm not talking about Manicheanism or any of that insanity. I'm talking about what the text says, and the text is coherent in saying that all are taught by God.

43:43

Everyone hearing, you distinguish. I'm asking you, give us an argument that's not about my alleged presuppositions or somebody who's not here.

43:57

You're the one who brought up the presuppositions. Where from the text you make the distinction that is absolutely necessary for your position.

44:06

And they will all be taught of God. That means that every one of them have no excuse because they have heard what they need to hear.

44:14

Everyone has been taught of God. Everyone who hears from the Father and learns comes to me.

44:21

Not everyone who is taught will listen and learn. Some of them will close their eyes. I know you're - I don't know how that can be more clear,

44:28

Dr. White. I know you're making the distinction, but it is painfully clear to those of us who are looking -

44:33

It's so clear that you're the first one to be able to interpret that way. I mean, it's not so clear if obviously a lot of people interpret differently than you who also know

44:44

Greek, Dr. White. So again, instead of alluding to lots of people who disagree, it would be really great if you could just start quoting some experts, scholars, exegetes in the field.

44:56

They exist, by the way, guys. The exegetical commentaries of the Gospel of John don't all lean

45:03

Calvinist. This is just, again, another missed opportunity by flowers.

45:08

It's amazing. You just said that if these are actually descriptions of the effective actions of God, that the debate is over, that my understanding is correct.

45:22

And I'm simply asking you, it is fundamentally necessary for you, if you're going to deal with the text, for you to be able to explain why the scriptural citation from either

45:36

Isaiah 54 or Jeremiah 31, Pontus deductoi theiou, is different than pas ha accusas para tu patras.

45:46

You have to explain why you're making that distinction from the text, or just admit,

45:52

I don't know, and it's presuppositional, and we're done with it. Again, I don't assume, as you do, that just because someone is taught, that they will necessarily, therefore, listen and learn.

46:06

I believe that if a student is in a classroom and they don't learn, it's not because the teacher doesn't really want them to learn, or because the teacher has some hidden agenda, or a secret hidden agenda, or two wills of the teacher.

46:16

I think the teacher actually says, when I want you to hear and learn and listen, I really want you to hear and learn and listen, and when

46:22

I hold out my hands to you all day long, he actually wants them to come. That's what I believe. Clear enough?

46:29

Nice cover for not being able to answer the question, but I'm done, thank you. All right, let's pick up back with Rob the reprobate, okay?

46:39

Let's say Rob the reprobate is obviously held guilty for something he has absolutely no control over, because he's by default a hater of God.

46:47

He's born that way, he can't help it. False assumption, I'm not gonna bother with answering questions based on false assumption. I'm using your words, by default, they are unable to believe, that's your words.

46:56

There is a lot more to the expression of default. There must be a question. Okay, thank you.

47:02

All right, so this man, Rob, was guilty because of Adam's sin, you mentioned that, and so if Rob had been aborted when he was a baby, or he died when he was an infant, would he have faced the same fate as a non -elect infant?

47:19

Oh my goodness. Mr. Moderator, are we gonna stick to John Six, or are we gonna start wandering into everything?

47:26

Dr. White, and there's your appeal to topicality. That's it. Flowers is just way off in the weeds on this one.

47:35

I don't know what he did when he got word that he was about to face off against White again after all these years.

47:42

It would have been really helpful if he would have sharpened his abilities and cross, because this is all just a complete waste of time.

47:51

Are there opportunities to slam Calvinism from the provisionist side on all of these other issues? Yes, there are.

47:57

Flowers has a podcast for that, does he not? There are other debates to be had on all of these other issues, but that's not what you're supposed to do on this stage right now.

48:08

On this stage, he should be challenging White's exegesis on the text and poking holes in his arguments in order to further his own case.

48:16

What if White is wrong on his reading of the text? So now I'm gonna upset all the James White fans, right?

48:22

What if he really is wrong on his reading? How would you even know that when the cross -exam looks like this?

48:29

Dr. White, haven't you said inconsistency is the mark of a failed argument and isn't Calvinism very inconsistent with how they answer the question as to what happens to infants who die?

48:39

But no, but we came here to debate John chapter six and you're trying to drag it onto other things, which is what you've done before.

48:46

I'm talking to - I am asking that you focus upon the text and the meaning of the text and not get into all sorts of other subjects that do not allow me to even have the opportunity of making a meaningful presentation on the subjects that have not been raised and are not a part of the subject this evening.

49:04

The question of the debate is not who can exegete the text in a way that Dr. White approves. It's a defense of Jesus' supposedly inconceivable teaching of unconditional election, which

49:15

I'm demonstrating by this line of questions. It's demonstrably unjust and inconsistent within the ranks of Calvinism to say that people are condemned for something they have no control over.

49:24

And what better illustrates that than an infant that dies? Yeah, I realize that the subject of the debate is not something you want to pursue.

49:32

You just admitted that you are changing the topic of the debate. Uh -oh.

49:44

I think, Dr. White, I think that you want to avoid that particular issue.

49:51

Is it true that you want to avoid that particular issue because you point out even to John MacArthur and John Piper's view, you point out the reasons that you don't think they're correct points to the very point of up for debate with regard to unconditional election.

50:06

No, it has nothing to do with John chapter six at all. It has to do with your interpretation of John chapter six, believing that Jesus is teaching -

50:13

It has to do with slightly other subjects that we do not have time to make presentations on that will be useful. This is simply your way to avoid the fact that you can't deal with John six.

50:22

Okay, all right, I have to call a time out. We either have to bring the cross -examination to a close or -

50:28

All right, well, I'll move on. I gather that there has been a debate in the last couple of weeks that has come up about infants and things like that.

50:38

I'm gonna make the call. I'll move on, I'll move on. You know, for the moderator to step in at this point and have to redirect the conversation is just further indication that Flowers has wandered so far away from the topic of debate tonight.

50:53

This is truly a shame. I really wish things would have gone differently. There was so much more that could have happened to draw out

51:01

Clash, and this just turned out to be a huge nothing burger. Let's see how this finishes.

51:07

Okay, are students in your class responsible to learn what they're taught? Yes, that's why we have grades.

51:16

Okay, do you want them to learn even when they don't? Yep, that's what you wanna be as a professor.

51:22

And so it's not just a passive reality for them? No, it has nothing to do with John 6, 45,

51:27

I believe. Okay, so why do you - Because I'm not God, and I am not being,

51:33

I'm not, Jesus is quoting that term of what the drawing that effectively results in eternal life is, therefore the connection is absolutely absurd.

51:43

In Jeremiah 32, 33, it says, they turned their back on me, not their face. I taught them repeatedly again and again, and they would not listen.

51:51

How does that fit in with your interpretation here of verse 45, saying that it's just a passive reality?

51:58

Oh my gosh, he finally asks a question worth asking. Yeah, thank you.

52:05

That's, this is what I'm talking about. That's what we need to see. Let me play this one more time.

52:12

In Jeremiah 32, 33, it says, they turned their back on me, not their face. I taught them repeatedly again and again, and they would not listen.

52:19

How does that fit in with your interpretation here of verse 45, saying that it's just a passive reality?

52:26

Well, it's fascinating because you said Jeremiah 32? 32, 33. Yeah, because anyone familiar with that section knows that Jeremiah chapter 31 -

52:36

I'm actually, I'm asking about 32, 33. I'm gonna answer the question. Jeremiah chapter 31 contains the section on the new covenant that says that they, in fact, it's probably the source of this citation, that and Isaiah 54, they shall all be taught by God.

52:53

So there's clearly a distinction between the fulfillment language of the new covenant, it's quoted in Hebrews chapter eight, and the complaint that God makes against Israel about over and over again, their rejection of what he has given to them in scripture.

53:08

In John six, everyone but the 12, as you mentioned, left. You'll have to know your scripture well to catch the references that Dr.

53:15

White just brought up, but I mentioned Jeremiah 31 earlier for the very same reason.

53:21

I do think it touches on John 644 and probably John 645 in a meaningful way, but that's a bit of a diversion at the moment, so we won't go there right now.

53:31

But they left, is that because not a single one in that whole entire crowd was given by the

53:38

Father to the Son? Well, we could hope that in years ahead of that, but at that point in time, even though they were called mathetai, they found the saying skleros hard, and so they walked away.

53:55

So whether any of them were saved a later period of time, there's, the scripture doesn't address it. I was just making sure.

54:01

So some of, you do believe some of the people in the crowd may have been elect? Doesn't say. Okay, so why do you suppose that Jesus wouldn't draw them or regenerate them at that time?

54:13

Why would he speak in difficult language like parables? Why would he do that? Because he chose to demonstrate that their faith was based upon what they had gotten from their food, and so he was demonstrating to the disciples, what was

54:32

Peter's response? Will you two go away? And what does Peter say? Who do we go to?

54:37

You're the ones with the words of eternal life. So that was especially important for them, but we're not told all of God's purposes as to why he ordered the gospel of John and the way he ordered the gospel of John any more than I know why

54:50

Jesus' brothers in the next chapter are unbelievers. If they're born by default, unable to believe, then why would

54:59

Jesus need to use parabolic language to keep them from believing? Well, again, we go back to the same issue we've discussed before.

55:07

For example, God had to harden Pharaoh's heart to accomplish his purposes in the

55:13

Exodus because Pharaoh would have relented just simply to save his own skin.

55:20

In the same way, God hardens people who have tremendous light so as to accomplish his purposes, even if they are ignoring that light and not living in accordance with that light and maybe even doing things that would interfere with God's purposes just simply to accomplish their own ends.

55:39

Okay, so why then did Jesus say, when he was asked, why do you speak to them in parables, he says, otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.

55:47

Because he's quoting from Isaiah, which makes the exact same thing. And again, the point is. So they're not gonna be forgiven?

55:54

I'm sorry? They wouldn't be forgiven if they repented? Again, well, was Nineveh forgiven when they repented?

56:01

Yes. And yet they were destroyed very shortly thereafter because it was simply to avoid a particular punishment at that particular point in time.

56:10

Well, I think that was a different generation, but we can talk about that later. Jesus rebuked. Just those Assyrians, anyways. Jesus rebuked the city of Capernaum in Matthew 11.

56:21

It's a city that's in John 6 being referenced here. Saying to them, woe to you, for if the mighty works were done in Tyre and Sidon, would have been, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

56:32

How would that be possible for a city to repent in light of the signs if they had to be drawn or regenerated first? Again, it's, you'll very frequently do this.

56:41

You're attaching concepts here that aren't even being addressed. What Jesus is saying is he's talking to Jewish towns there in Galilee, and they recognize the sinfulness of the

56:55

Gentiles, Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, so on and so forth, and what he's saying is, you've had so much light and have sinned against it.

57:05

Your sin is greater than their sin. So he's just simply using an example to get through. So they really would not have repented had he shown them the signs and wonders?

57:13

That's not the point. That's what he says. Is he lying to them? I know that, and he's using it as an illustration of the people's sinfulness.

57:19

It's not some kind of an idea of, well, it's a theoretical middle knowledge type idea. It has nothing to do with it.

57:25

So Jesus is bluffing, it sounds like. All right, so you say. I didn't use that term, you did. You say, the word regeneration, you say that, quote, regeneration makes you alive.

57:35

It makes you a new creation in Christ Jesus. So you believe because you've been recreated in the image of Christ, and it's natural for one thusly created and indwelt by the

57:44

Holy Spirit to believe in the one who he has redeemed, who has redeemed them and brought them to spiritual life.

57:50

So is it accurate to say that on your view, one has to be made into a new creation in order to believe in Jesus?

57:57

Yes. Okay. The fallen sons and daughters of Adam do not voluntarily abandon their own self -proclaimed sovereignty.

58:07

Okay, so 2 Corinthians 5, 17 says, if anyone is in Christ, he's a new creation, but yet you have them being a new creation prior to being in Christ.

58:13

I find it mere game playing to contrast differing.

58:19

So I've spoken a lot already, which is why I'm letting this play out now, but are you noticing the questions that are more in line with the debate and the ones that are not?

58:29

By now, after hearing me, right, are you noticing that? That's the whole goal for why I do something like this, by the way.

58:35

Okay, it's not to slam particular people or provisionists or Calvinists, right?

58:41

I'm doing all of this in order to ultimately raise the level of discourse in debate.

58:47

And so the question you have to ask yourself when this video is over, besides who you think won the debate is, how can this debate's discourse be elevated?

58:57

Could there have been improvements in order to draw out true clash? I think the answer is obviously yes.

59:03

What do you think? Texts as if they are all meant to provide a specific ordo salutis by order.

59:09

You never do that, do you? To be in Christ, you are placed in Christ by the

59:15

Spirit of God, and that involves being raised to spiritual life. Throughout John six, we're called to come, eat, drink of Christ so as to live, which is consistent with John 540, you refuse to come to me so that you may live.

59:29

So how is it that one is made alive prior to coming to Christ? Again, spiritually dead individuals need to be given spiritual life so that they can have true faith in Christ that endures and is focused upon who he is and not merely looking for signs and food.

59:47

Wow, what a contentious debate. There were several moments where it just seemed like White and Flowers were thoroughly displeased with each other.

59:55

And my prayer is that regardless of whatever happens on the debate stage, that brothers and sisters can still come together and fellowship and break bread as sons and daughters of the living

01:00:05

God. And so I hope that this does not deter White and Flowers from being able to do that together.

01:00:11

I've said a lot in this debate, and I think it's clear that White had the advantage over Flowers pretty much through the entire time in Cross.

01:00:22

White could have asked some better questions himself, especially in terms of pressing Flowers on his understanding of the disconnect between being taught and having learned in verse 45, but Flowers almost completely wasted his opportunities during Cross to just go after White for his

01:00:38

Calvinist views writ large. Now, I did watch the opening statements and rebuttals and flowed them, and I do have opinions about who performed better overall in the entire debate, and I'm gonna discuss those with my

01:00:51

Patreon members. But for now, I'll say White clearly outperformed Flowers in Cross examination by any objective measure.

01:00:59

And now it's your turn. What do you think? Did you watch the whole debate? Who do you think won? Let me know in the comments below.

01:01:05

As always, if you made it this far, you gotta join the Patreon community. Just so you can jump into the discussion, we can talk about the overall debate itself.

01:01:13

You can read the Bible with me there. We're doing a Bible study together on Patreon. That's free for anyone who wants to join. You can also get exclusive access to videos like this before they drop and premiere on YouTube.

01:01:22

You can join me for anything at all that is not offered for free on YouTube. The link for the Patreon is below.

01:01:28

I will return soon with more videos, but in the meantime, I'll say, tofas oifua to all my usos out there, and bye for now.