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

John 6:44 and the Debate Topic of Unconditional Election

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. 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. That's what I believe. Clear enough?

I'm having deja vu, because didn't this happen in Romans nine? Just set aside how you want this debate to go and just think for a moment in terms of strategy and methodology. 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 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.

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. I don't know why I just spoke Spanish there.

I am indeed Samoan. Talofa lava to all my usos out there. 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.

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

Cross-Examination on John 6:44 and Drawing by the Father

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

Everyone must be drawn in order to come to Christ. The drawing is the teaching. Just like you say in your own book, you actually ask the question, how does God draw them? By teaching them. 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? 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? Don't we have free will?

They don't have the ability to believe in one whom they've not been taught about. Just like I said, they have to be drawn.

By the teaching of God. Okay, so we're starting off with cross-examination. 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.

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. 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. 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.

Dr. White is asking about Dr. Flower's 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. Flowers says people are free to believe or not believe in God.

Okay, if that's true, then why does Jesus say no one is capable of coming to him?

So it's a matter of communicating facts or data to someone.

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. 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.

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. Is being taught the gospel by God, the father.

Well, Hebrews one says in days of past, 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. So in that day in John six, it's the transitionary period of being taught through the prophets and the law.

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.

So we're jumping into the deep end of the pool here. You're gonna have to know the text, right? The scripture and have it open alongside this discussion because these gentlemen are probably going to go super fast.

The other thing is you need to know how they made their cases in their opening statement. So you definitely need to go back and watch the full debate if you have not already. 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. And Flowers argues that the drawing of God simply refers to those who listen and learn from the father in verse 45.

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

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. So again, those are the two distinctive positions on the debate stage.

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

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

So the father is no longer drawing people to the son?

Well, there are many. Hopefully you're picking up on whence being put down here. 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.

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

And so Jesus is now drawing people to himself instead of the father drawing people to Jesus. That's what White is asking Flowers about right now.

There may be people who read the Law and the Prophets prior, there's people in the Jewish tradition may come to Christ through the teachings of God the father, but as you know, it's a triune God. So God may draw through various means.

In the Old Testament, it was the, as Hebrews 1 says, it was the father that drew the prophets.

So actually verse 44 isn't continuing true today. 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? 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?

Well, in verse 44, like you acknowledge, the difference between the context of chapter 12 and chapter four is chapter four is still prior to the crucifixion. 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, he's drawing them to the son and they will be raised up in the last day. For example, 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. 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. 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. So what White is doing is he's investigating the coherence of the position that Flowers has taken.

Does this make sense of the text of scripture?

Everything in John six has now changed. 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?

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. Either one, it's still God doing the drawing.

It's just a different means at different times. And so they're still eating the flesh by listening and inclining their ear to hear the gospel, just like when they inclined their ear to hear Moses. If they believed Moses, they would believe Jesus.

Sorry.

So did every person who was drawn by the father to the son.

Come to the son? In that context, I have no problem with that interpretation because he's not drawing them unconditionally. 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?

Well, obviously we have interpretations of both verses and they correlate together, but 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 to them that you're saying to me. Sure, stick to the subject. Well, they corrected you on this and I'm just wondering why you haven't picked up on it yet.

Well, you should try it because you're not doing so. So those who were drawn in verse 44 are raised up by Jesus and that's everyone. Everyone who heard from the father, learned from the father is raised up by Jesus in the last day.

Is there anyone who rejected the father's teaching?

I can't imagine why somebody who listened to the father through the prophets and believed, I can't imagine Simeon saying no to Jesus. Why? Because Jesus is one with the father. 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 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. 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 a distinction between that and everyone hearing from the father? That's a different group.

No, I believe that all of Israel has heard. They, not all of them listened, but all of them heard because you're responsible whether you listen to your teacher or not. If you tune out your teacher and ignore what he says, that's your fault, not God's fault.

But it says, everyone, pass, everyone hearing from the father and learning does what? They come to Jesus.

So again, hopefully you're picking up on what's being put down here. Flowers is saying on the one hand, all will be taught by God when he establishes his eternal covenant of peace. That's Isaiah 54, 13, which Isaiah is the one that is quoted by Jesus in verse 45 of John.

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

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?

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

No, some of them are going to reject what I taught. You're responsible for what you do with what you hear. But just because they hear.

Doesn't mean they'll listen and learn and believe. But it specifically states, everyone hearing from the Father will come to me. How is that not clearly

Everyone who has listened and learned, it says. 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. How is that not very clearly the description of what drawing means in verse 44? How can this be a general reference to God teaching Israel?

Everyone who hears from the Father and learns. They all hear his message, but they all don't listen. Some of them close their ears, they close their eyes. Like Acts 28 says, Paul rebuking this same crowd of Israelites saying, you're ever seeing but never perceiving, you have closed your eyes.

Otherwise you might see, hear, understand, and turn and I would heal you. What's he saying? You have closed your eyes. It's their fault for closing their eyes, not a default condition from birth like you teach.

So Flowers is actually not doing a bad job here. I think White probably could be asking another question. You know, if Jesus quotes Isaiah 54, 13, and says that all will be taught by God, Flowers says that's all of Israel right there.

Okay, well then how can Flowers then go on to say that not all will learn from God? Isn't being taught learning? Look at the passage one more time. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, right?

Verse 45, 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. Isn't being taught learning? Isn't the definition of taught someone who has learned?

You see what I mean? If all will be taught, and that's Jesus' Old Testament way of explaining what he's talking about in verse 44, then when he gets to verse 45, how can Flowers say that all being taught won't learn?

Is that what makes the most sense in this text? 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 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? Yes.

All of Israel has heard. They have no excuse. But then when it's, then the sentence doesn't, there's not even a sentence break. When it says everyone hearing, how is that different than being taught by God?

I mean, say you is in the genitive ablative, right?

I'm just telling you what it says is that they hear, but hearing isn't enough. 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.

Where's the word believe in here?

Yeah, it's not there. The words are taught and learned. It seems like Dr. Flowers wants to suggest that these terms are not maybe referring to the same people. 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. Right. 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.

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. 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. 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?

Is that just the world of the elect? No, it's obviously the only source of life for anything in the world, which includes Jews and Gentiles, is the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the whole point of John 6, is that He is the living bread.

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

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

So Jesus did come for everyone in the world, every person, every single person in the world.

There's a vast difference between saying 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.

So in verse 32, when it says, this is my father who gives you the true bread from heaven, and he speaks to an unbelieving crowd. Would you say that to a group of unbelievers that Jesus came for you?

In the same way that Jesus said it. Again, he's talking about the fact that he is the true bread from heaven. He is presenting himself in that way. I'm not making, I'm not Jesus. So I don't know if someone's heart, even though John 6 says Jesus did know the hearts and knew who did not believe.

Okay, I wanna put. So again, cross-exam is meant for the contentions that were made in opening statements. Dr. White asked about when it was his turn, John 6, 44 and 45, because Dr. Flowers talked about that passage in his opening statement.

White never made any arguments about the world in John being limited only to those who believe. He made other contentions in his opener, which Flowers should focus on. The point is you have very limited time on the debate stage.

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

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 Calvinistic sociology, the T, the U, and the I.

Is that basically what you think's happening here in John six?

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

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.

He's not introducing total inability.

I'm gonna answer the questions that you asked, okay? Please stop interrupting me. You just presented T and I and all the rest of this stuff. I was just summarizing, to be fast. No, go ahead. I was just summarizing, to be fast.

No. No, go ahead. What did you wanna ask? I already asked.

Do you think Jesus was introducing the Calvinistic doctrines to this crowd of unbelievers?

He was, he's not introducing Calvinistic doctrines because the belief in God's sovereignty is part and parcel of the 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 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 T of total inability, the default condition that you refer to in your book? Yes, of course it is. Of course it is.

I just don't believe that's quote unquote. Calvinistic theology that's being introduced. It's biblical theology that's been there from the beginning, from Genesis.

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

So Tulip and the Calvinistic presuppositions and double predestination and all of the issues under the broader category of Calvinism, only one of those pieces is arguably specific to this debate. It's the U in Tulip, right?

Unconditional elections. That's literally in the topic that I'm looking at, the title of the debate. 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.

It's just too imprecise. It's wedging in extraneous pieces that actually lessens his ultimate effectiveness on the debate stage, in my opinion. 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. 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, 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 Calvinist friends that was debating with an atheist, or somebody that was debating with an atheist, and he brought up total inability. He brought up Calvinistic theology, and 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.

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

Massive category difference. Boy, again, there are just so many good questions to ask Dr. White about his position. But instead, when you ask him to basically explain the text from his position, you're wasting precious time.

Never do this as a debate opponent, friends. Never set up your opponent to further their own case. Again, they already have the ability to do that in their opener and in their rebuttals. Don't let them do that in cross-exam as well.

Flowers is missing a lot of great opportunities to press White here.

Wow, he is explaining the fact that these individuals have come seeking him, but they are not seeking him for who he is as the Messiah. They do not understand that he is the source of spiritual life. And why would he say that to them?

Well, because it's recorded for us in scripture so that 2 ,000 years later,.

We could be sitting here and looking at it. 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 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. Well, isn't regeneration the source of our spiritual life, not Jesus, on your view?

No, that's so obviously false. I'm not even sure how to address it. The only way that you can have spiritual life is if Jesus Christ has provided for the work of the 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.

So I'm getting frustrated. And just so there are no misconceptions here, I actually want Flowers to do a great job. I'm watching this debate because I wanna see true clash. 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 I'm a Calvinist, and I'm sure if and when I point something to where Leighton does something good, I'm all of a sudden a provisionist.

I just wanna see a good debate, guys. I wanna 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.

I'm not seeing that here. I genuinely believe that these two gentlemen are incredibly intelligent. 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 devote a good chunk of their lives to this very issue, but clearly one of these guys has been debating a lot longer, and it shows.

I just wanna see some good clash. But you must be regenerated prior to coming to Jesus, so before you're unified with Jesus,.

You have a new life. First of all, I don't agree that drawing is the same thing as regeneration. That's not the terminology. I think we oughta stick with what John 6 is actually talking about. John 6 defines the drawing by the Father as teaching, learning, and hearing.

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.

There's no reason to bring it in next. I'll read a quote from you where you actually equate drawing with regeneration later, but I'll have to pull that up. What support do you have for equating this concept of regeneration with the word draw in the sense that you obviously.

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. 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? I just, 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.

I don't know if Flowers is trying to, like, what's his strategy? Like, go for death by a thousand cuts or something? But this strategy is wasting time. And it's setting up White to just say, that's not my position.

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

I believe the drawing must involve regeneration because it has to precede their believing, doesn't it?

Well, again, 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. But that seems to be your thing. And I realize, Layton, it's all you've got.

I asked you about Hell Code. 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. And that drawing is an effective drawing.

It's not talking about issues of regeneration. 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.

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?

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

The praise of His glorious grace. And 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 I misunderstood the debate topic. No, I got it. Does John 644 teach unconditional election? What is all this other stuff supposed to accomplish other than wasting precious time?

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

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

It would really help me to get the video out to more and more people.