Debate Review | James White vs. Jason Breda w/ @apologeticsfromtheattic7131

Well, hello and welcome to the apologetic dog where we're live this has been pretty fun with this whole new studio setup and Today, I'm wanting to just jump right in and let you know doing a debate review now.

I hate to say it But this debate review was supposed to be with dr.

White last week, but he's not feeling so hot So if you're tuning in just please lift, dr.

James White up in prayer. He's combating a lot of sickness and He has another debate this week.

And so I'll let you know a little bit more about that But before I let you know who

I have instead of dr. White on the show This is the apologetic dog where it's our hearts desire to contend for the gospel of grace

And so if you see the apologetic dog logo somewhere, you might see first Timothy 620 where Paul is telling

Timothy Oh Timothy guard the deposit that has been entrusted to you and so that deposit is the gospel of grace and he says avoid irreverent babble and Contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

And so here at the apologetic dog we stand on God's truth That is where we get knowledge and we're equipped to contend for the gospel of grace and we guard it

With with all of our might so I just want to thank you all for tuning in to the apologetic dog

The Tennessee electrician reminds us that God is the necessary precondition for electricity

Thank you, Tennessee electrician true facts true facts and so with the the live streams something

I'm looking forward to is Getting more acquainted with the the the chats in the sidebar

So y 'all have to bear with me a little bit Y 'all say some of the wildest things out there and I love it

Let's see. So the intro is super quiet. Sorry about that in the side chat and Facebook land

I believe we are live on Facebook as well So if you have any questions along the way as we do this debate review, let me know your thoughts

Definitely want to include you Facebook world out there, but without any further ado, let me show you my co -host today or this evening

David Lewis, what's going on, sir? So you just introduced me as instead of dr.

White that's kind of crazy You know what your name was in the same sentence as dr.

White. That's pretty awesome All right. We can't say too much of this everyone who watches it gonna say we're biased and that's why

Doesn't let me say it doesn't matter how good Jason did he can't possibly win, you know

I'm extremely biased. I was at the debate and I think you're familiar.

There was a little bit of background history with dr. White and Jason Bretta my Santa's name, right?

Do you know? Not sure, but I didn't know about there that there was a background though. There's a little background

Jason Love him appreciate very cordial respectful individual But I believe he was critiquing

Calvinism and it may he may have been critiquing one of dr. White's videos I don't remember exactly but Jason ended up on the dividing line and are on a radio free

Geneva. So dr. White really Brought out the Greek analysis and showing how you you know, you got to do more than just going to Bible tools with just looking at the

Greek verb tenses and I know I remember that dividing line now Yes So when

I was talking with Jeffrey Rice, he was like, oh, yeah, that's the guy we got debating. Dr.

White and I'm like, oh man, I cannot wait to see what happens and Like I said,

I was there late live in person David and you know,

I really Layton flowers was there also I got to have a selfie with him so and in Layton was genuinely kind and We were talking a little bit before the debate and he let me know

I was one of the nicer Calvinist that he's met and I was like, I appreciate that So and you know

I think it's unfortunate that we have to be so intentional With just trying to be extra kind because a lot of people can be jerks.

I'd love to hear some of your thoughts Why it is sometimes in the reformed crowd there could be arrogance and stuff like that Have you had any experiences like that before?

No, sure a pastor good friend of mine It took me two years and we were at breakfast one time.

He's not a Calvinist. He said to me Yeah, you're the first Calvinist I've ever met that isn't angry all the time And then he let me preach from his pulpit.

I'm in a non -Calvinist Church Yeah, I think my best explanation for that is that if Satan can't blind people to the truth

He'll make the ones who have the truth arrogant so that they'll never receive it. Yeah, that's one way

I've talked about it. So I think that's I think that's a satanic attack against Calvinism personally

Although I'm not blaming Satan people give in to sin as well and need to repent But yeah,

I mean I think that that's You know among in the cage stage theory that so many times people who become reformed

They they become reformed in a non -reformed context. Mmm So they're the only ones who believe it for a while and then

Versus if you grew up in it, like you won't find very many like reformed Presbyterians who were baptized, you know as an infant

You know, they have the opposite. Like why aren't you more excited about? You know, I've met people like that like it was shaking them like why aren't you?

Oh, yeah tulip. Yeah Yeah, I've known that well, I was two years old You know you make a good point about you know

A lot of is you know, there's spiritual warfare at work and it's not just the reform crowd You can have really militant

Provisionist if you will cage stage II Armenians, and so it's I think it's just a it's a heart mindset

I think a lot of people can be excited about learning new things and that excitement comes across as So dogmatic that you can't see the love in it.

And so I David, you know being at the why Calvinism conference so many wonderful conversations like I said

I got to meet people of different perspectives people asking questions and it was a very gracious environment and Obviously getting to chat with dr.

White, you know, he was looking forward to the debate and he essentially was debating Limited atonement defending that doctrine and I want to throw this graphic up again for everybody to see so the debate that David Lewis and I are talking about is the debate between James White and Jason Bretta I don't know if I'm saying the last name right, but I'm thinking that bread that Monet But Jason was very respectful and I think he was more representing the provisionalist side of things

He definitely used that terminology and you know More power to him if they're wanting to try to distinguish themselves, you know as not being

Armenian per se Definitely synergistic. I've learned to they don't like that terminology that much either

But that's okay because like I said, what was kind of in you know, the foresight of their conversation was you know

What is what is the nature of the atonement limited atonement? Maybe it's a bad rap because we're not putting limitations on God But we're talking about particular redemption that the blood of Jesus is sufficient to save to the uttermost

All that the father has given to the son to save so do you want to add anything else?

To the doctrine of limited atonement and maybe how it's misperceived and what we really mean by that Yeah, first of all,

I have to say You're a stumbling block to me Jeremiah every time we say that you were at the debate and you were at the conference

I just want to point that out. So you caused me to cause me to covet I have to repent.

Yeah Hey, I will say there's a I have

I have some stories for you along the way that I may tempt you to covet

More, but yes, it was phenomenal. You know what that means David. You just got to come next time That's true.

All right, so I so I agree that So, yeah, you'll hear a lot of times

Calvinists will say we shouldn't use the term limited atonement anymore We should use particular redemption, which I agree from for the reasons they would give but I like When a non

Calvinist does use limited atonement because it gives you the opportunity to point out unless you're a universalist

Everyone limits the atonement. I don't know if you ever heard that line, but I forget where that's from but Everyone limits it.

So there's a couple times. I don't know if we'll play these clips or not, but there's a couple times where You know

I was yelling at the debate when Jason was making a few statements where it's like dude you keeps giving you want to give the atonement this universal provisional scope right but it's

It's limited even in your view Because it's only for those who believe again.

He said that a whole bunch of times Well, it's only for those who believe it's only for those who believe I mean you I Let's go down that path.

It's only for those who believe correct So when someone dies in unbelief was the atonement for them and dr.

White I've heard him do this He's very good at it Like he'll corner you to the point where so you're saying that those who are Spending an eternity under the wrath of God in hell

Jesus died for them Are you prepared and you know Just say yes

I mean be consistent right with your position and then that pushes them to basically well, it's either universalism or particular redemption

Mmm, unless you change the atonement Then now we'll change the atonement away from a penal substitutionary atonement to something else to get completely out of that Conundrum, which is what

Arminius did and which is what like Charles Finney did more more recently Let's get rid of the whole

Let's change the entire doctrine of the atonement away from penal substitution so we can avoid that Calvinistic challenge, which we can't refute

I'm glad you brought up penal substitutionary atonement because that's the core of the gospel I'm thinking of verses like 2nd

Corinthians 5 21 that says the father essentially made Jesus To be sin who knew no sin so that we might become the righteousness of God the great exchange right is how

I've often understood it and explained how when you put your faith in Jesus a faith that recognizes you can't do

Anything to earn God's favor all of your good deeds righteousness is like filthy rags So we're looking to the one who is perfect who was perfectly obedient to the law who did everything that he should have done and Never did anything.

He wasn't supposed to do and when you look to Jesus in faith apart from your own merit and works then you receive that perfect righteousness imputed to your account and When we talk about the beauty of the gospel in this penal substitutionary atonement justification by faith apart from our works

Jesus is our perfect Substitute and so as we're gonna look at a few clips in the debate

David this necessarily Brings about trinitarian language right like I was quoting 2nd

Corinthians 5 21 Well, this is something between the father and the son, you know,

I mean and the spirits involved the spirit Regenerates hearts and the the

Holy Spirit seals Believers unto the day of redemption. That's why the doctrines of grace that's why really it's hard to totally divorce any one of the doctrines of grace from the rest of them because who the son sets free is free indeed and God the

Father is never going to overturn that justification and that Declaration of being right because we have the perfect righteousness of Jesus.

Therefore the Holy Spirit Preserves us to the end. And so what I'm getting at is there's a trinitarian

Harmony. Okay. So what do you think about when you hear that phraseology the trinitarian harmony?

Well, I think it's a very powerful argument for Particular redemption.

It's a very powerful argument for Calvinism in general, but especially for particular redemption because You have from the non -Calvinist perspective.

You have the Holy Spirit being sent after the work of Christ it to create the church and to Send the church forth to preach the gospel in the spirit is

Attempting to save Those whom the father did not elect and the son did not die to save So that's so that's the one way that I've heard the trinitarian disharmony of the atonement really is what you know

It's you have this Now to get around that you deny the foreknowledge of God.

That's the open theist route And then you change the nature of the atonement

That's more the Arminian route because the Arminian is not going to deny the foreknowledge of God So there's different ways to shuffle the deck there to try to get around it

But the it's a strong argument because the trinitarian the spirit is going to be drawing

Those for whom the son died in the words those for whom the father elected

But when you deny particular redemption you well, there's people I think Spurgeon has the best stuff on that I'm trying to think who

I'm pretty sure Spurgeon has a couple sermons where he just crushes that Like what the trinitarian harmony?

but yeah, I was looking in a Reform doctrine of predestination by Botner, but I don't think that's where I think

I was thinking of Spurgeon I thought he had he has a little bit on trinitarian harmony, but it's not what

I it's not what I was thinking of I believe in the debate John Owen was brought up on a strong trinitarian harmony

Especially going through the book of Hebrews And so I want us to play this first clip where it caught my attention because the trinitarian harmony phraseology is beautiful because we

Understand that the gospel is trinitarian We understand famous passages in John's gospel that you know

No one can take us out of Jesus's grasp his hand and then the same breath that talks about and no one can snatch them out of my father's hand

Right as he's about to talk about the Holy Spirit's work and believers how he won't leave us as orphans Right, and so I want to play this first clip before I do.

I just want to encourage our audience Please like and subscribe the content here at the apologetic dog

I've done a little research and the more subscribers that we have the more that you know

This content is shared the more the algorithm brings this content, which is the gospel at its core

And this is just where my heart's I know this is where David's heart at hearts at two is we just want to sow seeds

Baby, we want to sow seeds and we trust God to give the increase And so if you've you've ever appreciated the apologetic dog ministry, please like and subscribe and that just really helps out the channel

So David with that, let me play this first clip. It's just a few seconds long. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it

You you've heard. Dr. White discuss the trinitarian harmony argument and trinitarian harmony as he mentioned

Emphasizes the unity within the Trinity concerning redemption and how Christ's intercessory work only applies to the elect

I do see this as a smokescreen to support limited atonement and we all believe that there's harmony within the

Trinity. I mean okay, I just want to kind of pause there and He said a few things he called the trinitarian harmony argument

Like smoke and mirrors a smokescreen and then he just says because we all believe in a trinitarian harmony

And so is that what's going on? When you kind of look at this as a provisionalist perspective

Well, well, I mean that's just an assertion does it I don't know if he ever actually I mean he was he was about to back it up I think but If you want

I can keep playing a little bit Yeah, I think we all at least agree on that that there is no disunity within the

Trinity But my disagreement lies in the interpretation behind how white and Owen view

God is working So first of all, remember everyone theology is the art of making proper distinctions

I got that from a Lutheran guy years ago It's very very good though.

So so, okay Is he talking about the imminent Trinity or the economic

Trinity for those who may not know what that means? We distinguish between the Trinity the triune

God as he is in and of himself We have very little Access to to that we have the revelation of Scripture which only takes us so far

But yes, there is total perfect harmony. And this is what I assume this is what

I assume he was saying That's what he was talking about when he said well, of course We believe there's harmony in the

Trinity. He was talking about the imminent Trinity The trying guys he exists from all eternity

He certainly wasn't talking about the economic Trinity, which is what dr. White is arguing when the triune

God acts in history There is a perfect harmony between the persons in that those actions those things that they carry out.

So And I don't think he even touched that at all. He just made the assertion basically

But now of course, there's there's harmony in the Trinity. Nobody disagrees with that. I mean, of course, he didn't touch dr white's argument

Only thing I would add is It's the reform perspective that I think carries a legitimate

Trinitarian harmony because we have the father decreeing essentially sure whatever comes to pass all that means is the means to bring about the the ends and The Sun is the perfect Savior to purchase redemption for that elect that the father is chosen and the spirit

Regenerates seals unto the day of redemption and we're saying voila that is, you know

I perfect that is salvation perfectly worked out by God and then when we look at other

Beautiful passages which we're gonna get into Romans 8 here a little bit, especially how it was brought out in the debate But when we when we look at for all things work together for the good

For those that love God those that have peace with God by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone well, then

We understand all things are ultimately working together for our sanctification and So to kind of flip the script, you know,

I don't understand like I don't see a harmony in an incompatibilistic worldview meaning that man has this superpower

Aka doesn't really like it when I say that but this superpower of a free will that I argue

Contradicts the very nature of God meaning that he's omnipotent He has a limitless choice and yet he has to limit his choices for you to make an ultimate choice

And I'm saying that's that's God denying himself There's just an inherent contradiction within provisionalism and these incompatibilistic worldviews

The reason why I'm saying that is everybody has a worldview. And so provisionalism necessarily says it's impossible for God have

Overriding ultimate determination over whatsoever comes to pass and that's fine We can critique it on that basis.

And what I'm saying is there's not a Trinitarian harmony because the father is really hoping made provision for all in such a way where Everybody has essentially these same kind of opportunities

But the ball is in man's court right to respond in an ultimate sense Jesus did everything right the

Holy Spirit is wooing And so there's not this this harmony that the reform perspective is saying that's what the book of Hebrews That's what

Romans 8 is arguing for that Jesus not only died for the elect, but he raised people want to know well

John 3 16 says whole world You're saying they looked I'm like, well, what is the world because Paul would say well, you know

He died for believers who can bring a charge against God's elect He not only died for them, but he resurrected and perfectly intercedes on their behalf

So am I being charitable by saying that the other side can call it a harmony, but I don't see it

Yeah, so the minute that you give God Perfect foreknowledge of what's going to happen in time before he creates you

Sorry Okay, he's gonna yeah Okay, I'll receive it man,

I totally forgot that you wanted to bring me on your show brother yes Okay, I've gotten the blessing from the wife about I can do more of these late shows

So we're overdue but David a K is just gonna grill me on certain proof texts that Calvinists go to so we're in for a fun

I know he's been itching for a round two since our last debate back at this so back to the point

I was making so the the minute that you introduce into your theology that God Before he created the universe whether you do it of in a monistic way or a simple for knowledge

Armenian type way the minute you say God Certainly knows you don't to say he decreed you can find get that language out

You don't people don't like it. God knows Who is going to?

Repent and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ who is going to respond positively to the work of the

Holy Spirit, right? So God knows that Say whatever you want about the Atonement, whatever you've introduced into your system a situation where God knows perfectly that John Smith is

Never going to respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit and therefore he's never going to put faith in the

Atonement of Christ Which is if you want to say it's faith faith is the condition which

Jason said a whole bunch of times in the debate You've there's your

Trinitarian disharmony right now because now you have the father Knowing who's going to not respond to the work of Christ and the

Spirit is job is to apply the work of Christ, right? So now you have the Spirit trying to save everyone but the father knowing that not everyone's going to be saved

Because he has foreknowledge So what do you do to get around it and see why do the provisionists never address this issue?

Because Leighton has every single type of view of God's foreknowledge other than reformed on his program non -stop

He has open theists on there constantly. He has Molinist on there constantly He says he's some kind of Bohemian.

I don't even I should look up but is you know, Bohethius or whatever? He's got some

CS. I'm just like CS Lewis. I'll say but notice they never make a commitment to that issue

Of God's foreknowledge of the future. They just don't and then it's dr White has said a million times the only consistent way to Fully consistently push your theology and put it all in its proper places to be an open theist

Because then there's no Trinitarian disharmony because no members of the Trinity know what's gonna happen anyway, like you said they're hoping

That people will believe so I just want so that's that's where I'm we you know I know the debate is on limited atonement, but when you go one layer deeper and just ask those type of questions

That's where it all falls to pieces. Yeah. Oh you Calvinist are just determinists So let's just start let's talk about that obsessively for the next ten years, you know, like that's their way around it, too

They never want to talk about their view Yeah, you know, I've been on Layton's program many times. I tried to press him on it

You know what? He does and I got him to laugh when I pointed this out to him. He goes Well, that's the me to fallacy. I said late

So do I have to ask the question first for it not to be the me to fallacy and he actually laughed I said so that's pretty good you know like if I do

I have to because he or do you have to ask the question to me and it won't be a me too because he just That you've noticed that that's what they do.

They just bash the Calvinist for being determinists and then they so therefore We don't have to deal with any of your arguments because you're a determinist.

I don't have to be an AK We'll do that, too. I love you. Okay, but he doesn't okay That's just determinism.

That's just determinism. That's just who ultimately determined you to do that and I'm like, I've never heard that one before I do want to address a few points a

K only because I want to say I respect I respect a K I think he's a sharp thinker. That's why we had 12 -5 charge to debate because I've been studying this content for a long time and I think

I figured him out I mean that in a good way like he's really challenged me to think and so like when he says here if it were

Talking about libertarian free will if it were a superpower Then I could be saved on my terms rather than God's which is faith in Christ So what

I mean by superpower is I'm just saying in in compatibilism Has baked within it this libertarian free will that says you as man has ultimate ability to choose a

Or not a and I'm saying it's it can't work That's why I call it a superpower that which is created and limited and finite even in the imago

Dei which means a reflection of God, we don't have ultimate capabilities and Me and a chemistry we'll talk about this on his program some but there's a reason for that Yeah It's there's a reason why

God can't create another omnipotent being that would be ultimate right because it would cancel out there

There would be two omnipotent powers that would be colliding and that's where you know in our debate

David I was saying to a K is you can't unificate The the will of man and the will of God because you do have all of these these problems

And I want to bring some more clarity here Real quick because the proper term is

Determinism, but you have to ask the question like any good philosopher and theologian what kind of determinism are we talking about because there is such thing called hard determinism, which is fatalistic and incompatible right mean you've talked about these terms before at length and Incompatibilism is fatalistic and man is not morally culpable for his decisions

That's not what the Calvinist framework is arguing for we're saying truly God makes determinations eternally and man makes choices makes determinations

Temporally and I argue not in the same way, but God's Determination grounds and gives meaning to whatever comes to pass in his world and I noticed

David we get accused Well for knowledge doesn't mean causation and it's not that a case said this

But it's always implied and we get misunderstood because we're not saying God's omniscient

Necessarily means determinism we're saying if God is omniscient and then chooses to create a world

Knowing the end from the beginning. Well, then now you're locked in time and now when you're in real time

AK has said You could choose otherwise you just won't and I'm saying that undermines the premise of libertarian free will that says at the moment of choice you can choose a or not a and I'm just saying you don't have that superpower if you start with who

God is in His omni properties and you beak and you start there and then you start to be consistent from there with how we understand man

So this isn't about AK Richardson, even though we we love you. Okay, so we

If you notice if you notice the open theists They attack the omni properties of God Yeah prior

I from the door in that So if you've ever listened to an open theist

From the RIP That's platonic. That's a platonic view of God. They got all this stuff.

So they they it So it's important that you brought that up because that so so the non open theist will not do that Right, they will try to reconcile the omni properties of God with a truly libertarian free will that has no determination to it

But they don't it can't be done the minute you give God the omni property of foreknowledge and omniscience

Eliminates libertarian free will it really does it it it can't exist It can only exist as the they want it to in an open universe where God Doesn't know the choices that are gonna be made.

He doesn't have omniscience. It's just a fact and I will say like When you know

Layton flowers, which by the way, this this person asked so as Layton flowers the founder of provisionism. Yes He's the one that kind of made a counter acrostic to tulip as provide and I can't remember all the points of provide

But he's trying to distinguish himself from our minions Right, and as this kind of relates back to the debate,

I know this for a fact talking with Jason Breda Hope I'm saying his last name, right?

But he is a learner of Layton flowers. And so I want to play this next clip

David Before before I do I just want to remind people Please hit the like button if you're watching that just helps the the the content and the algorithm

Out there and Facebook world and YouTube land. And so this next clip,

I believe It's something kind of wild that Jason talked about.

I'm pretty sure this is where he makes his unique argument From Romans 8 and so I don't want to give it away

I want you to kind of hear it for yourself and I'll let it play a little bit go ahead before you start that just Answer the reform

Bree and if you want to do a deeper dive into this Layton comes out of what in Southern Baptist life is called traditionalism.

Yep So if you do the Google search traditional Southern Baptist statement I think it's called that there's there's always been since Albert Moller kind of took over Southern and reformed it

There's always been in the Southern Baptist life this Calvinist verse Arminian battle going on and then

Layton kind of You know takes it to the next step Anyway, yeah, that's if you really want to dig into the history behind it.

So Layton doesn't come out of nowhere Being like he emerges in Southern Baptist life from the traditionalist

Southern Baptist they call themselves and props to Layton because he kind of took up the challenge from dr

White and many people of saying okay, if you're not Arminians, then you tell us what you are Don't tell us that you're not a

Calvinist. Tell us what you are and Provisionalism is trying to say yes, there's original sin

But was what was not lost at the fall was Libertarian free will to me.

That's the big thing because David you may more know more nuances about this because didn't you debate David Palmer the classical

Arminiast? Yes, that was my first ever online debate yes, hey I remember watching that years ago thinking man,

David Lewis is the man I got I gotta learn from this guy and you've been doing a running commentary on Romans that I just want to encourage our audience

Go check out. I really enjoy I crank you up on times two Just to kind of power through but you know what you said

You really like Martyn Lloyd -Jones. I do too and that is like, ah, no wonder We're so on the same page because I'm indebted to that man's

Ministry God gifted him mightily and I love his commentary And hey gospel truth.

What's up, Marlon Marlon? Good to see you've recovered from the Matt slick

Chris Fisher debate That was the wildest debate ever in the history of the gospel truth by far

Chris Fisher is putting up a paddle that says drink. He's playing a drinking game with his audience in the midst of the debate

So, so David I didn't watch the debate but I watched Marlon's follow -up videos saying hey we we got a buckle down on Well, I didn't

I tuned in because I knew that thing would be wild You know,

I you know, Matt slick he's known for you know, he's he's direct We'll just say that and then

Chris Fisher that I that dude. I totally disagree with him on almost everything

But he's an open theist right like Big time open theist, but he can just keep a smile on his face

But if you want if you want radical consistent open theism with pulling no punches

It's Chris Fitcher like no God learns God did not know where Adam and Eve were in the garden

God did not know that Abraham would sacrifice Isaac. He was waiting to figure that out. Like he will just say that He doesn't even which you know, it's it's easier to deal with someone like that.

Okay, you're just putting it out there You're not pulling punches. But anyway, we should probably review the debate here, right?

Yes. All right So the next the next clip I'm gonna let it play for a minute but Jason made a very like We all paused in the audience like gasp.

Oh When he said this and he was starting to rebut dr. White in Romans chapter 8

So check it out the Jew and the Gentile believers It's also a theme we see all throughout the New Testament and it's really beautiful Once you see this and as I mentioned there is a dividing line in the book to the

Jew first and also to the Greek Romans 8 is not speaking to Jew and Gentile and every believer in general as the

Trinitarian harmony would suggest Paul is actually speaking directly to his Jewish audience here in chapter 8

Okay, we can keep playing but did you catch it David what he was saying? Is this the is this his opening statement or is this his first rebuttal?

This is his opening statement because I know this because We all heard it.

We're all doing this now I knew where he was getting this from and I want us to lead into how

I've heard this before But we were all gasping and I don't know if we have it queued up but in dr.

White's first rebuttal He basically said did you just hear what was just said what

Jason just said and we're all kind of like on pins and needles And he's like if he said what

I think he said that is rank Heresy, and he was kind of like looking at him. Like are you serious

Romans 8 is just about the Jews And so we were all waiting of like, okay

He's either gonna double down or he's gonna soften his stance, right?

So he softened and he softened. Yeah, he did because he kept saying well

I'm not saying there isn't a sense in which this could apply to all believers Yeah, I'm just saying Paul was writing to the

Jews where I mean what he doesn't realize he's doing he's just he just ripped biblical authority apart because You can't say the intention of Paul is separate from the intention of the spirit of the later people who would read the scriptures

Right, right. Well Paul intended it that way, but we can come along later and apply it in a different way You know differently than Paul was intending.

No, that's not how scripture works But anyway before Go ahead you go ahead.

What did what did you hear in there? well, like I said, it's he softened his stance which totally

Undoes anything meaningful he's trying to do because it sounds like oh, we've misunderstood you know

Paul's point here because we've been applying it to ourselves in this almost radical sense and then his argument is oh, it's actually to the

Jews and You know when you hear that first, you're almost like, huh? I wonder you know where I missed that but when you think about the implications of it if he's really meaning the

Jews only Well, that is rancorously because as Romans 8 continues that Jesus is a perfect intercessor for the

Jews And not the Gentiles you see where this will essentially just break down and then when he says, oh, but it cannot be applied to both

Okay, well you've you've accomplished Nothing and wasted, you know over ten minutes of making a meaningless point and He goes on to just say you got to follow the pronouns all the way back to Romans chapter 1 where the gospel is to the

Jew first then the Greek or then the Gentiles and we're over here saying That that means it's talking about both because the audience are the

Christians at Rome like dr White said is made up of Jews and Gentiles, you know,

I mean, so Yeah, yeah, it doesn't make yeah, I mean it's it's it

It seems like what he's doing and I heard dr Flowers do this a while ago and I think dr Might white may have even done a weight radio free

Geneva on it He was walking dr Flowers walked through the golden chain in Romans 8 and made the case that it was only for the

Jews That Paul was saying look at those God for new in the Old Testament and See we can we can be sure that God's faithful to us because of what he did to them

That doesn't necessarily apply to us, but it seems like this whole hermeneutic is just of It's avoiding having to exegete the text.

Well, well, no, this is only for the Jews So therefore we don't even have to exegete it and we talked about this before we started

This is exactly what I've heard. Dr. Flowers do on John 6 Oh, yeah,

John 6 is about the Jews Okay, and this is before Christ went to the cross.

So you have to understand it's a very unique situation That dr that that that Jesus is dealing with right there

So then you can just instead of having to go back and forth like the Arminians and Calvinists have done forever

Right debating what is drawn mean and what's John 644 about? No, that's just that's just about the

Jews of that time The hardening and this and then that so it seems like what he's doing there is he's just saying well

I don't have to deal with Romans 8 for example in dr White's argument because it's only for the Jews and dr.

White in typical. Dr. Dr. White fashion his for in his cross -ex He he destroyed him.

I mean he as he owes only he can do asked the very specific pointed questions that exposed

The ridiculousness of the the statement like I remember he took him to Romans 1 right and he totally after about two minutes

I Felt bad for Jason. I'm like, oh my gosh I would not want to be sitting up there right now because he just has no response to what he just presented right, you know

Now I want us to kind of play the next clip that and maybe we've touched on a little bit But it's it's one that you sent me about his rebuttal as he's responding to dr.

White's challenge Where does the idea that it's only coming from the Jews? So I'll play that and it'll kind of go hand -in -hand with what we're talking about Is it something for an examination and a worthy look at yes at the end of the day

That's what we're called to do is examine the text for what it says And the point is very clear that there is there is a first -person focus to the

Jews For the first eight chapters and it's it's not first person to the Gentiles until chapter 9

So that is evident right there, but if you go to chapter 7 I'm gonna keep hearing it

Yeah, let's just let him finish because he's he's so no. Okay. Here's what's interesting. So I Think he realizes saying from chapter 1

He's establishing that principle is a little too far back and I think even that's at one point

He's like, well, if you don't like chapter 1 being where we establish it, let's look at chapter 7. So he's trying to find pronouns closer to chapter 8

To right make his point. Let's see if he establishes the point verse 1 of chapter 7

Says or do you not know brothers for I am speaking to those who are of the law

That the law is a master over that person as long as he lives So from 7 1 and on the audience never changes

Paul tells us that he's speaking directly to the Jews Right there those are who are under the law who's under the law

It's it's the Jews would not be the Gentiles. And so the audience ever changes until Okay, and Wrong.

Okay. He does not say I'm telling you Jews who know the law he says brothers

So this actually disproves his point Paul knows it's a mixed audience

And he knows there are Gentiles who may not be as familiar with Jewish marriage law

Would you disagree like that's Paul's only point there It's not a hermeneutic that governs that he's only talking of the

Jews All that verse means is I'm about to give you an analogy brothers Jews and Gentiles who are part of the one church

Which that's the other thing Pushing his hermeneutic all the way through just it's it's exactly opposite of what

Paul was trying to do everywhere He went he didn't want a Jewish church and a Gentile church and I'm only writing to the

Jews here like to me that that whole hermeneutic just destroys all of Paul's writings Like it.

I don't know. But anyway, all he's saying there in Romans 7 1 is I'm going to give you an analogy

That's from Jewish law and I understand that some of you who are gonna hear this know this law very well

Others of you don't so let me explain it to you and he proceeds to explain it. That's all he's saying

I mean to turn this into a governing hermeneutic for Romans 8 is only about the Jews.

I mean, I'm sorry He didn't convince me at all. No, I mean, I think he Unconvinced himself when dr.

White looked at him staring Exegetically, you know I'm talking about And he just said are you really gonna say it's only for the

Jews because that would undo the gospel That would do the whole context that the gospel is first to the

Jews But then also the Gentile world and so the moment that he said well it can be applied to Gentiles Great you

Totally undermines your whole point The golden chain of redemption still applies. Jesus is still the perfect intercessor for those whom he died

Which in that context is the elect and as we see it's not just the Jewish elect and I believe he goes on to say

Well, it's it's an encouragement to the Jews Well, it's an encouragement for those that truly love

God right back in Romans 8 28 and so kind of with this next point you said

You want to talk about his exegesis of John 3 do you remember if that was talking about Jason or dr.

White? No, this is all the clips. I ever were with Jason Okay, before we go on.

I just want to say a quick thing I want to say toward the beginning but just if you've never done one of these debates

I Mean, so people who Monday morning quarterback Jason, you know, I mean first of all,

I Don't know if this is his first debate it seemed like it was it was okay

I give this guy credit man big -time like you're gonna walk into an arena with a whole bunch of Calvinists in the crowd

See, I've done five debates. I've done five. Okay, and they've all been online I've never had a live audience.

So that got to add a whole nother dynamic to the whole situation David. So Man, you're in a similar boat.

I've done ten debates and two have been live and in person One was with 200 people in attendance.

I was debating a Church of Christ minister on baptism Apparently, I'm the CEO of Baptist debates is what

I've been told and then I had a K over at 12 5 We probably had 50 60 coming in and out.

I'm in attendance Yeah, and so that was kind of small -scale but and it was in my home turf, you know,

I mean But in person debate is just a different animal altogether. So yeah now

I want to I want to agree with you I give Jason credit for being bold and you know standing for what he believes in but I'm gonna

I'm gonna say this I did not appreciate David how everything was canned and everything was pre -written and You know, you got to get your feet wet and start somewhere and I get that but when you're gonna debate dr.

White How can I say this charitably I get that Jason's gonna be

His subscriber count just went up. You know, I mean, so I mean he did he debated James White But it was it was clearly not an even match and that wasn't dr.

White's fault And I'm not even upset about it because I just think it spoke volumes for itself.

You know what I mean? So yes Jason was kind. He was respectful. I think he did the best that he could but I also question

We may play some of these because when James Legitimately asked him to exegete a verse he says well

I can't do that right now and we're all like this is the the only time to do that is

We're debating it and he's just saying he's not trying to argue. So yeah, it's his first debate so I know we need to be gracious and respectful to that, but like I said

But just so everyone understands what dr. White has mastered after 170 some debate okay is so if you if you're

If you're the affirmative your jobs a lot easier honestly, because you give your opening statement, right?

If you are not the affirmative if you are the negative you must do the following throughout the entire debate

Well number one you have to rebut now now you can have an opening statement that you know is pre -written

But that's probably still not gonna work because and I actually wonder what dr. White's opinion is because Like he said in the

Dale Tuggy debate He has coming up Dale Tuggy like as a condition said I must see your opening statement in writing

Which I like that if I was debating dr. Wright, I would demand that there's no way I would debate him If I didn't see exactly what he was gonna say in his opening statement.

Here's why because if you're in the negative So first you have to rebut What he says in his opening statement, right now many times the debates aren't set up this way

You don't know what the opening statement is gonna be So you have to maybe listen to everything that the person said on that topic and anticipate what arguments they're gonna make, right?

So, okay, that's hard enough then When dr. White gets back up to rebut you

You this whole time you better be formulating your cross -exam questions

Well, you're listening to his rebuttal so you can rebut it So you can say well, here's where he was wrong.

See this is where dr. White's a master See, you have to be able to multitask or you will never be able to do good in these debates

So notice what you're right Jason's thing was pretty it wasn't as canned as dr. Flowers Romans 9 was though It was not even close to as canned as dr.

Flowers He had the three -ring thing with all the pages laminated the black monitor pointed that out.

Yeah So because his cross -exam questions, for example, Jason's were clearly all

Pre -written. Oh, yeah, and you and that's you don't do that in the cross -exam

You could get away with your opening statement being pre -canned, right? Yeah, but you can't your cross -exam questions have to be

Cross and dr. White said this a whole bunch of times I don't know what these questions have to do with the debate, but I'll answer him

Anyway, that was his way of saying you've already lost the debate, sir You're not even addressing my art unit

You know, I mean you're like what's that guy's channel who does all the debate reviews for debate professor?

I'll follow Nate Sala at Wise if anyone if anyone's listening is interested in getting it down into that nitty -gritty of how a debate supposed to work his he's

Great. He's he's reviewed a couple of James White's too. So then the cross -examination questions need to be

Okay, you're asking some specific questions about the presentation that was given then what you're supposed to be doing

This is where the multitasking then You're formulating your final

Statement off of the this is where dr. White's really good in his final statement all the time Notice my opponent did not have an answer to this question.

Notice my opponent now you if you think that's easy to do You've never tried to do it like you to formulate your

Closing statement during the cross -examination basing it on the open I think

I'm making sense like you have that all has to flow through so what these guys do you're right now I don't know if it's too.

Oh But they're doing it totally wrong You don't come with a notebook with all the stuff. You're already gonna say and just say it.

That's not a debate Now Jason did a little better. I mean he and this is where you debate what you're not gonna get away with that It's not gonna happen

I've seen a bunch of people get away with that and a lot of other debates with a lot of other people Dr. White is not gonna let you get away with that tactic.

You're not just gonna read your pre -canned things and not be challenged Okay, there's my little soapbox, but I just want to point out

I was good People don't realize how much is going into how dr. White does what he does

To get and then just and then his final statement is always this ground -and -pound thing where you're just like I was wincing it

You know and it's poor Jason, man Yeah It was one of those closing statements where it's just like all you need to do is listen to that closing statement of dr

White and it's just like oh, okay And real quick I want to get a shout out to Conversations with Christians Tim tent was at the debate with me.

He saw it live and in person. Sorry, David Lewis Me me and me and Tim we were you know,

I kind of analyzing the debate especially during the intermission We were all talking shout out to miles

Christian at answering Adventism he was there at the debate too and Like you're talking about David you got a flow the arguments

I did take a class and debate in college and we had a flow chart and The idea is if you don't address an argument, you essentially lose it now as dr

Why it's talked about even on Nate solace channel in the moment multitasking

You got a you got to address the major arguments and then the ones that are peripheral Spend the majority of your time on the main substance and I saw someone learn this the hard way

You don't start with your minor points and then build to your major points Nope, you start with your major points and you utilize all your good time on those

And so Nate Sala would say you've got a flow during the cross exam

Yeah, he does say that that and they'll say that when he's reviewing a bait that didn't flow at all You know,

I want to continue to the next point You mentioned an exegesis of John 3 and so before we do if you are just chiming in like Adam Carmichael is

In the building. I just want to remind everybody If you're enjoying the conversation with me and David Lewis, please like the video

Please subscribe and share that really helps out the channel. Just want to remind y 'all here is the next clip of John 3 verse 12

But as many as received him to them He gave the right to become the children of God even those who believe in his name

We see in John 4 22 that salvation is the Jews so Things getting to the point where you're saying there's an exegesis of John 3 or did he covered the point?

No, no, I just want to point out there. He didn't quote verse 13. That's all I mean, it's just a classic

Who as many as received him to those who believe in his name he gave became the right to become children of God the sentence Doesn't end there.

It continues those not of human will not of born of God Well before we move on, you know,

I talk a lot with Church of Christ And so I've had some good friends of just saying hey, you know These verses exist outside of Acts 2 38 and everything and so obviously, you know

John 1 12 gets brought up and I challenged my friend I said the next time your preachers preach on that see if he goes on to verse 13 and A few weeks went by and he said

Jeremiah it happened He says he started earlier in John chapter 1 and stopped at 12 and I said because verse 13 qualifies why some

Receive Jesus in faith or believing in his name. So yeah, and then you get men that and then

John 1 13 John is setting up the category because that's what John 1 is

It's the prologue 1 1 to 18 almost every theme in the entire Gospel of John is in that those first 18 verses

He's setting up the category of being born of God Which is

John 3 where he's about to go So that category is already being set up by John and if you miss that then you miss the whole connection

Mmm, we shall continue in John 3 There is a massive Jewish theme in John's gospel that I think we cannot deny

But the dividing line is how we're where this is in redemptive history Jesus I just How many times did he say the dividing line?

the irony the irony He was doing that on purpose. He had to have been doing that on purpose.

Anyway, I'm sorry good. That's good We're still an old covenant. The new covenant is not established until his resurrection

And so I see the dividing line in John chapter 3 verses 14 and 15

It says and as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the Son of Man be lifted up So that whoever believes in him will have eternal life

We know the context of John chapter 3 Jesus is talking to Nicodemus a teacher of the law and he reminds

Nicodemus about the serpent in the wilderness from numbers 21 9 Which says Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard and as it happened

That if the serpent bit any man when he looked to the bronze serpent he lived The provision was made to those who look to the serpent and Jesus says just as Moses lifted up the serpent

So must the Son of Man be lifted up That's not the dividing line just so you know that just proves that there must be

The provision is provided to those who look to Christ. That's the parallel but God's provision has always

BAM so he said all that to say the point is You have to look to Christ for the provision that was provided to apply, right?

Calvinists agree with that statement. There's no disagreement We believe well now you just believe

God does it all because you're determinists. I mean, that's what but yeah, we we agree That you must look to the

Sun you must believe upon the Sun you must feed on the Sun You must come to the Sun you must believe in the

Sun we go everything in the gospel John Pulling the verse out of the context of John 3 1 up to that point

He's doing the same thing in reverse that he did with John 1 12 Okay, Jesus just got done telling

Nicodemus unless you are born again you cannot see or enter the kingdom of God and He further explained that which is flesh gives birth the flesh equals flesh spirit equals spirit

Okay, the reason why you must be born again is because you're born of the flesh and The flesh cannot see or enter the kingdom.

So that's the context So it's assumed that yes, they need to look to the bronze serpent, but why do they do that exactly?

This is already given the teaching because they have been born again That's why they do it.

And one more thing. I'll say in look I'm not a betting man But this

Thursday this Thursday, I predict I'll give people two to one odds.

No, I'm just I predict that Dr. Flowers will use this same hermeneutic at some point in his exegesis of John 6

He will say that you have to understand that this is still old covenant

Christ has not yet went to the cross and he'll use that hermeneutic to try to get around How dr.

White exegetes the text? I just I predict that binder I've heard him do it.

No, um, no, I love you bringing out those those points and the bronze serpent I mean, it's such a good

Old Testament principle of saying the people in the Old Testament had to trust in God by simply looking to the bronze serpent and that's that's a type of analogy of saying

Look to Jesus in faith and like you said Calvinists affirmed that it's not Touching on the main issues of why some look to Jesus and why others don't

Doesn't really touch on the atonement, you know, depending on you know, how we're looking at the the framing of these things now

Someone asked this question. I thought was gonna be good maybe to touch on this a little bit But they said are there any other passages that could have better presented the opposing view?

and so I just wanted to I May throw myself off here, but it's okay.

I do want to say yeah classically if you're gonna argue for a Unconditional or a unconditional atonement view

John 3 16 Historically has been kind of one of those passages of saying look for God So loved the world and the world is the assumption that it's every person without exception

That he gave his only son that whosoever believes should not perish but have everlasting life

And so a universal atonement view says it's for the world Meaning not a particular people and I want to say and that's usually goes hand in hand with first John 2 2 that says

Jesus He is the propitiation for our sins and not only for our sins

But also for the sins of the whole world and so to me this would be kind of a classic

Understanding of a Universal atonement until we look at surrounding context.

So what do you think about those verses? I know I believe it's in 2nd Peter chapter 1 where it talks about There are the false teachers that denied the master that bought them, right?

That's usually kind of used in a universal Now one of your past debates was it on the atonement?

No I've never done debate on the atonement conditional just as the so To the person asking the question for John 3 16 first John 2 2 and a few other passages, you know

You really got to Exegete what does world mean? What does all not ours only but for the rest of the the whole world and those to me are better?

Texts that need good explanation from the reform perspective, but as David is pointing out

What Jason is doing is he's just assuming basically his entire position and just say oh well

Dr. White is a determinist not really even qualifying what that means very ambiguous But what he what he means is that if you're determinists at all, you're necessarily fatalistic right in a kind of hard determinism

Which is a misrepresentation of our position and kind of misses the core of the debate altogether

So I just wanted to kind of touch on that and just Said that those are some of my thoughts on better versus that could have represented the other side

Do you have any else in mind that you would have thought of for the other side David? No, those are the ones and did he even he didn't even bring up first John 2 2 in the whole debate.

Oh That's interesting Yeah, can you can you skip around on the video because this is a good place to do one 11954

Okay, did you send me that one? Yeah, it was the last one. I sent you one.

Yeah, one hour 19 minutes 54 seconds This is where he actually walks through John 3 16

So what we will we have that fresh on our mind? That's this is a good Yes, here we go

Oh No, I got I gotta pause you Real quick because I wanted to tell you a quick story right before we get into the cross -sex.

Okay, you ready for this? Okay. Now I am flexing a little bit because I was there but this is important Okay, so we just listened to an opening statement from you know, dr

White the the jaw -dropping opening statement from Jason Breda and then we heard dr

Flaming rebukes and his Rebuttal and then we saw Jason softening his stance in his rebuttal, right?

Yeah and then Keith Foskey which by the way Phenomenal individual loved getting to do some content with him that hasn't been released yet.

And by the way, he did a phenomenal job Moderating the debate and we'll kind of show hit one of his shining moments.

Yeah in the debate But he said, okay, it's time for intermission take 15 minutes don't harass the debaters, right?

Yes, give them some space We'll all meet back here in 15 minutes So, I don't know if Tim is still out there in the chat

I'd love for him to chime in if he remembers this so we're we're kind of all chatting David and we're in the back of the crowd, right?

I'm in the very back Dr. White walks to the front of the stage. Okay, and he points at me

David he point and I do one of these Me And he said Jeremiah, come here and I'm over here like oh my goodness

Why does he want me and so I walk straight down to the front of the stage and he kind of gets down and David?

Serious is a heart attack. He looks at me like this. He goes am I dreaming? Am I really hearing what

I'm what I what Jason's saying? And so I kind of chuckle and I put my hand on dr. White's shoulder I'm you know,

I'm a few inches taller than so I put my hand on his shoulder and I'm like, dr. White you're not dreaming We're all here in the same

Craziness that you're hearing up there because he's talking about the the Romans 8 Jewish argument, right?

Yeah, and In dr. White said I've never heard of this argument before and obviously not because it's good

But just because how borderline heretical it is and I did one of these David I pointed over my shoulder I said, oh, he's got it from that guy right over there.

So dr. Flowers was actually, you know And I said, I know exactly where he's getting this

I said I listened to an interview that Leighton had with David Paulman and I even said I said you remember the the

JC Penney's Worker that you're you know, really? Well, and he laughed he was like, oh my goodness and I said

Leighton said that he believes this is talking about the patriarchs of old and I said even

David as a classical Armenian was like yeah, I don't I wouldn't go that route with that, you know what

I mean and David Dr. White looked at me and goes you're kidding and I said,

I'm I was like, I'm so serious I said that's where he's getting all this information from and so this is this is probably my favorite moments of the whole debate

I was I was involved. I told dr. Why I said look we're praying for you. I said

Yes, I respect Jason for standing on his convictions. I said, but He has totally

Confused what this debate is all about he signed himself up for this and I said, dr

Why I do not appreciate what he has done in confusing and totally undercutting

You know everything that we stand for in terms of what Christ accomplished in his Atonement. And so I'm not kidding David I felt like I was revving the engine with dr.

White. I said, I hope you expose that for all of what it's worth You know, he said he said

Jeremiah it's about to get really bad in the cross -examination And I said, dr.

White I said do it in love I said, please do not hold back Wow, so so we have

You know, dr. White wanted to check his sanity and he probably saw my beard in the back row and was like, you know

I need to talk to Jeremiah real quick. And so that was my Highlight of the debate so I had to just share that with you.

No, that's awesome, man. That's great. All right, so this clip Who will bring a charge against God's elect is to be understood who will bring a charge against Jewish Christians correct and When it says

God is the one who justifies then does God justify Jewish Christians differently than Gentile Christians?

No, he doesn't he doesn't do that differently, but it's just saying that He's trying to give

Encouragement and we see that all through the rest of chapter 8 he's giving encouragement to the Jewish believers because you got to think that the

Gentiles now are the ones that are that are Following Christ and there's a very the

Jew most of the Jews aren't following Jesus and so the the contention and the idea is like well if think about what the

Gentiles are thinking Jesus is the Jewish Messiah who's now saving the whole world and how come most of the

Jews are rejecting him and Why why? With the persecution that's happening and we see that in the end of verse 8 or chapter 8

That's this is the the context that I see. Okay. Okay So what should what then shall we say to these things if God is for Jews who is against Jews?

Yes, but you see that's a statement where it is Okay, it is specific to his audience, but you can also apply it to the

Gentile believers as well argument argument over Yeah, I mean like you said

Jeremiah that he just undercut his own argument and that's what cross -examination is designed to do dr.

White Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument Mmm, he just by simply asking questions exposed the inconsistency of his argument.

Well, yeah Yeah, that's my interpretation. It means us but it could be applied Now now here's what this reminds me of.

Let me pull this into a totally different context This is gonna sound offensive to them, but they need to understand the danger of this this is how

Progressive liberal Christians view the Bible so Paul The Bible is basically trapped in time, right?

It's it's it's Paul Writing to the Roman Christians we can maybe you know weeks.

That's all it is So it's trapped back there and that's it's kind of what it reminds me of like Oh, well, he's only writing to the

Jews that specific audience we can apply it in different ways

Well who decides how it's applied? So like I said earlier if if Paul's only writing to the

Jews then that hermeneutic must in in a historical grammatical

Hermeneutical, you know way of interpreting the Bible that is the only and that's what dr

White's kind of getting at so if you're saying that it's us Then it's only to the Jews, right

You're trying to tease out the implications of that and all dr. Why I had to do is just get him to admit. Well, you know,

I'm not saying that totally and then it's like, okay Well, I don't know what you're saying then and just so everyone knows the reason for this hermeneutic is to get around the golden chain

Hmm, it just is the that's that's why dr. Flowers did this Well, so when it says those whom he foreknew he also predestined.

Well, that's the Jews Make it that you know, it's it's it's kind of like a repackaged

Corporate election thing that our minions have done for a while, but it's like repackaged in a different form is how

I that's how I originally Took when I remember that up. I don't know if it was with Paulman, but I remember when dr.

Flowers presented that or there was one I thought and I thought that I was like What is and it's just another hermeneutic design to get around the plane

Walking and this is why they Know they they tremble and they foam at the mouth when dr.

White says over and over Can you just walk through a text verse by verse? Well, why are you calling that exegesis?

Exegesis isn't what dr. White does in his debates where you know, that's just I can read through the verse and make comments as well

You know, it's like interesting like they mock that And you know, that was the whole Romans 9 debate thing that Layton just really well

I don't have to walk through the text like you are to exegete it. I exegeted it and no you didn't

You jumped out of Romans 9 five minutes into your opening which he did he jumped right out to a different context But that's the whole point here is to let's throw this hermeneutic in there

So that when we're faced with what does predestination mean? What does called justified glorified mean?

Well, that's for the Jews and the reason that hermeneutic is there is to avoid The exegesis issue and we don't have to we're shifting the ground of the debate, right?

We're shifting it away from Exegesis and we're shifting it to and he said Jason showed his hand a lot.

Well, we don't share the same Foundational you remember how you said that a bunch of times that was another way of him saying well

We're not gonna debate the texts. I want to talk about our foundational Understandings that's just like no you're you're getting it totally backwards

The your exegesis of biblical texts determines your foundational understandings, right not the other way around Yeah Especially when your debate resolution is very specific on the

Atonement. Well, that necessarily means you're gonna go to certain verses and exegete derive the meaning from the to draw the meaning from the text on the flip side, you know

A .K. Richards and I debated man has libertarian free will so that necessarily is going to be a more

Philosophical debate now, we're we're both, you know professing Christians So we have to appeal to a revelation to make our case, but I'm just saying yeah

That's gonna be a more philosophical debate that that is directly related to Foundations, you know because when we went to a passage like First Corinthians 10 13 where you know, it begins by saying

God is faithful Well, I can immediately pause a cane say you and I have different ideas of who

God is You know, I mean so I can always remind him of that foundation because of the nature of the debate

But that better be couched within exegesis also, you know I mean like like to your point and all

I want to highlight is like you said the the sign of a failed argument is Inconsistency, I remember years ago

David when when dr. White brought that out. It was kind of like a paradigm shift I'm like, ah, like I starting to understand like why truth is meaningful truth can't contradict itself, right?

So we're looking for consistency the Word of God can't contradict itself and will vindicate itself

God He cannot deny himself, you know, no lies of the truth. So I'm starting to understand consistency is

Everything, you know and Another point is one to highlight with everything you said when really

Jason had two options he could have doubled downed and said this is Jew only and been a heretic or Like he'd like we saw him do soften his stance and just totally undercut his own position of saying well

It doesn't matter what the emphasis is of the golden chain. It applies to both Jew and Gentile.

So I have another clip that you wanted to pull up. I think this is the one with Keith Foskey Let me point out again, have you have you read

Aaron ass? I Died laughing

I was like Keith. Oh, no, man you you did a good job But dr. White's gonna give you that that stare of the exegetical stare.

So he goes on to say That he's gonna get him back. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

Keith. I will get you later for that And the other thing I just noticed for the first time is how gleefully

Keith reached for the microphone Oh That's so yeah, that was yeah,

I laughed out loud that that part of the debate was amazing, that's great So we may start winding down here we'll kind of see we're having so much fun and I see

That standing for truth is in the building. Let's see here I want to give a shout out to Donnie from Canada a

Let's see Have you been on standing for truth David no

Hey, I appreciate his channel. You need to recruit David Lewis good debater over here

He would he would be a contender for sure As we're kind of winding down though David one of the next clips

That you wanted to talk about a little bit was his view of how Calvinist preached the gospel

Do you kind of remember a little bit of what he was saying there? So I believe that was 154

Let's see here. Let's see 154 37

Okay, this will back it up a little bit But and I'll kind of move us off the screen so we can see his face a little bit

To them he persuaded people he pleaded with people To turn to Christ and believe on the finished work of Jesus on the cross and that it is accomplished for them

Think about for a moment what it means to preach a gospel that no one knows if it is efficient or effective at all

And I do have to say this is how I see Calvinism presenting the gospel because if you're honest

This is how you have to preach it. You can't tell someone that Jesus died for them

You can't tell somebody that he was buried and raised for them You can't tell somebody that he defeated sin and death for them and that Jesus is the propitiation

For them offering hope a genuine offer of hope in the gospel on the

Lord. Jesus Christ If the position of limited atonement, and I should add

Unconditional election is true You can't share the gospel this way Because it puts you in a position of potentially lying to someone who is going to spend all eternity in hell

Because Jesus didn't atone for them and the father didn't elect them. There is no genuine offer that can be given

Okay, you So just if you want to know what the most basic response to this argument is

And I don't know why it came up in my youtube feed But it was a short from Jeff Durbin for one of his sermons that they cut into like a little, you know clip

But and he's exactly right the most basic response to this. Well, you know, you can't tell people

Jesus died for you God loves you Okay, where did the

Apostles preach that way in the book of Acts? Mm -hmm that right? That's the most basic response and It's nowhere to be found

Okay, when the Philippian jailer said what must I do to be saved? Paul didn't say listen, let's get something straight first.

Jesus died for you and he loves you No, he said repent and believe

Okay. So the the proclamation of the gospel is

Jesus Will be a perfect Savior he died for those who repent of their sins and trust in the

Lord Jesus Christ and this is where let's find some some unity among Calvinist and non -Calvinist a

Calvinist and non -Calvinist Can stand on the same street corner and say if you repent and believe upon the

Lord Jesus Christ He will forgive you of your sins and he will clothe you in his righteousness that you can preach the gospel

There's well you Calvinist That's you being inconsistent because if you want to be consistent

You should stand on the street corner saying Jesus died for some of you Like that's really what he's trying to say.

And so some of it's an unfair argument like dude stop like stop You know putting words in Calvinist mouth that this is

I mean, I appreciate the argument You're trying to push us to our logical conclusion as you see the attempt, right?

but that's the first thing second thing is is your doctrine of atonement

Are you really prepared to push your documents logical? So you're telling me that Jesus died for possibly millions upon millions of people who end up in hell

Think that through for a second David made provision for all man Okay Penal Substitutionary provision you have a serious problem on your hands with your doctrine of the atonement

That's why classical Arminian ism denies penal substitution and replaces it with the governmental theory of atonement

Look into what that is But you have a serious problem on your hands. So Let's let's not let's not go there.

But like I said back to the most basic Okay When Paul is writing his letters, he's primarily writing to Christians, right?

Not Jews. I mean There's parts of the letter that are for the Jews. Okay, there's certain parts but not the whole thing.

Okay, but He's writing to Christians. That's why his language in his

Epistles to the churches that he's planted and he's writing to or in the case of Rome There's a church there and he's writing to it because he hasn't been there yet He does write in that more personal language, right

But that's not where we're to get our example primarily in my opinion of how we're supposed to evangelize

That's the book of Acts because that's where you see Paul Peter them going out in preaching and when someone wants to know what must

I do to be saved We don't get into the first. Let me teach you the intricacies of the doctrine of the atonement

No repent of your sins and place your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Then the discipleship process kicks in right?

So, okay, I'm done. That's That was good. I was a little distracted because I think

I found my arch nemesis in the side chat and I don't know how to take this

David Lewis an Unapologetic cat. I don't think his beard is real I have no idea.

I just want to say it just got real Cat I'm getting trolled real hard here

David, where's the logo unapologetic cat? You need to come out with a logo that rivals the Yeah, pretty sure the apologetic dog would eat the apologetic cat

Whoever you are touche touche out there So I told

Do you know Dan choppa by chance a very cordial individual love watching his debates

Especially with turrets and friend they have a good friendship and they're constantly sharpening one another He may post his question on YouTube I had my

Facebook pulled up where he he makes an interesting point and I thought I would run it past you first see if you had any thoughts

He said Christ told all 12 This is my blood shed for you in Luke 12 22 verses 20 and 21

And so I think the implication is he shed his blood for Judas Iscariot So, I don't know if you wanted to maybe touch

I'll pull up that passage while you're revving engines Okay, and and then

Just just a plug for the channels called conversations in Calvinism, I think hmm.

Okay turn and fan and Dan. Okay, and if and if you're the type of person Who likes if you want a topic?

Exhausted completely in every possible angle that you can exhaust the topic that's the channel for you like They go back and forth and and they're just very careful.

Like they're not like me. I'm very well stop preaching and stuff neither of them start preaching, you know,

I mean, they're just Calmly, no. Well, you know, but you got to look at it this way too. And if you actually you know, this is anyway

They're very good big time So here's the verse

If you we want to kind of look at it and likewise the cup after they had eaten saying this cup

That is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood

And so okay, we this is this is my first take Jesus is talking about this ordinance the sacrament for you and I would point out that that Judas did not partake the same way that the rest did and Ultimately, this is signifying the blood that he was going to shed on Calvary And so just as he can be speaking to the 12th

That it's it's like all the warning statements talking about to the church that are made up of both

You know wheat and tares and you know, I'm very covenantal in my understanding of the new covenant

So I think Hebrews makes the strong case that the new covenant is Talking about the elect of God believers.

There's a reason why I'm not Presbyterian. Love my Presby bros out there, but That's effectually who the blood of Jesus was shed for Those that he saves to the utter most so that's how

I get the ball rolling in this conversation But I I do think that this would be a good verse

For the opposing side to try to make a case that there's a type of a blood being shed or about to be shed and Maybe this argument would say well this necessarily includes

Judas Iscariot. Yeah, I could see that Although verse 21 right on the heels of that statement.

There's a but Haha, but behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.

So In in the midst of saying this is my blood poured out for you he singles out

Judas So I find that interesting and Yeah, I mean

Dan I can't really say that I've thought through you know how to respond to that So and I have no problem, you know,

I wouldn't do that in the bay I wouldn't say that in the debate with dr. White, but I can say that here Yeah, so I'm not prepared to exegete that text

So When when Dan says so why don't five -point Calvinist preachers say

Christ died for you. Now. This is what I've said now Maybe you can push back of me on me a little bit David, but I'm okay with saying

Christ died for humanity Christ God Demonstrates his love to the world of humanity categorically for Jews and Gentiles So I'm over here saying like in some way.

I've been comfortable saying Christ died for he died for humanity So I'm gonna qualify it with this is

God demonstrating his love for sinners Now I always ask, you know when

I'm sharing the gospel I even ask what does that mean that everyone is going to heaven and usually even the layperson on the street

It was says well Like most people intuitively know that no there has to be some response

And so I'm okay with using a general you for you Humanity problem is when you get into the book of Romans and Paul is saying, you know us and we he's identifying with Believers and so what do you think a little bit about them?

No, I agree. I mean but So Dan so Dan clarified on one more comment there.

He said I was responding to David's point about acts. So I mean my pushback to Dan my point about acts and I wonder if Dan agrees with me so our main example of apostolic preaching to unbelievers is acts, right

I Mean, you're gonna keep that apologetic cat. Just keep I like that so much

I'm probably that they're the rest I'm like, I gotta figure out who this is and it does have a little logo with a cat in the middle

I didn't just notice that So yeah, so so Dan my point is that when we're asking

Where should we take the model for how we should present? The gospel which is what

Jason's point was you can't present the gospel That and dr. White's made this point over the years and many times

We don't like Calvinism because we can't preach the gospel the way we want to preach it

Which is the seeker sensitive easy believe ism pray this prayer after me and you're definitely saved

God loves everyone gospel, which I Yeah, I Calvinism definitely doesn't allow for that type of preaching and I don't think good solid classical

Arminian guys like Dave Wilkerson or Guys like that preach that way either personally didn't but I guess my point is

Yeah, what I think the book of Acts should be where if we're gonna ask the question Well, how do you preach the gospel to unbelievers?

Well, that's the book of Acts even that Passage Dan's bringing up that isn't exactly giving us a pattern for how to preach the gospel

To unbelievers right in the sitting around the Lord's table. All right, go ahead. You got you got what do you got? I think

I figured out who the unapologetic cat is anyway It They shall rename nameless, but I know

Yeah Yeah, let them have their anonymity Maybe they could come on and just have that logo as their face and not show their face.

I'm so proud of this person David Man, you've been a champ. Thank you so much for coming on and doing this debate review for people that are tuning in at The tail end.

I just want to show them the graphic and encourage them go listen to the debate Between dr.

James White and Jason Bretta. I might I might be mispronounced it but I'm emphasizing that bread very very insightful debate in terms of clarity from dr.

White when we start hearing things like the Trinitarian harmony and Jason very respectful very

I would say he's he's a sharp individual definitely pushing the provision list understanding of things and Definitely distancing himself from kind of the reform paradigm.

So if you've not watched the debate we did give some spoilers, but we definitely want to encourage people go check out that debate and Go listen to the whole conference because this was the last event of a conference called why?

Calvinism and so to your point that you kind of began with props to Jason for coming into the lion's den of a

Calvinist conference and Going up against dr. White who's defending essentially limited atonement

Definitely one for the history books. I know dr. White is Approaching 200 debates.

I have a theory. I'm also not a betting man David but I really think he's trying to get to the 200 mark and it'll be interesting to see if he keeps cranking him out

Or he slows way down or he just says hey, I'm retiring But just if he even if he retires even

Michael Jordan came out of retirement for a season I've heard dr. White talked about how there have been some athletes that played longer than they should have and he doesn't

Not that he's LeBron James, but I know dr. White wants to finish. Well as I've heard him say

Absolutely. So a couple things I'll say in closing So He has a debate coming over late in flowers, right?

Is that this Thursday? Yep. Sure is In your boy. I will be there. Yep It'll be live -streamed at one of the

Lutheran churches that have the same place. Yeah, the same place as Trent horns, right? Yes, so so if you if you tune into that debate just I want you to watch

Because we know what dr. White's gonna do he's gonna do what he always does he's going to go he's gonna flow, right

Let's see if Layton flowers learned anything from his Romans 9 debate Is he gonna just come in there like literally and I mean, you know,

I'm not like Layton I've been on this program a bunch of times but like he literally did come in there with a three -ring binder and just read pretty much everything verbatim his opening statement his

Rebuttal his final statement. It was just read is he gonna cuz cuz I'm sorry as far as debates go

You've lost the debate I don't care what you present if you don't Engage the argument of your opponent you it's not a debate and then

Jeremiah if you listen to I think it was the last dividing Line, it may be one or two ago did you hear dr.

White's proposal for how he wants to do debates possibly moving forward a Three -day debate like they used to do back in the day where it would be like six hours of debate everyone goes and Relaxes and you can go study and you can go respond to your opponent and then come back the next day do another six

I I would love that. I am Jeremiah to be honest with you. I am kind of getting sick of this debate format

Hmm, like I really just don't think it gets the issues on the table. And I think that's what dr White was saying.

He was making that point like this debate format at the end of the day Doesn't really do justice to the topic if you had a one again

I think he I think you know why I think he got the idea because he did a back -to -back with Trent Horne Mmm, and Trent Horne is actually a really good debater.

He is he flows he flows with the argument He just doesn't have a can thing He'll he'll he does good in cross -x and he'll take the cross -x and work him into his closing statement stuff like that So that I would love to see like this is better than presidential debates.

Don't get me wrong. They're terrible. You have two minutes Like that's retarded like it nothing's even happening there

But I think that that's a great idea to like maybe that's what dr. White will do when he's 60

He'll just demand like okay from now on the only debate I'm accepting is a three day four hour day back -to -back you know on one topic and we're gonna exhaust the topic because see it would be interesting right if Jason was able to come back the next day and Exegete Hebrew 725 right because he said one which which you know, you know people that was what dr

White picked on and stuff like you know, that's what your graphic said that to exegete the text, please Now, okay.

Give the guy a break. Now. I know I agree if If you've listened to dr.

White for any amount of time on this topic, you know He was gonna go to the Hebrew 725 like you've clearly never even engaged in his material

If you don't know that's exactly where he's going so he can't preach a message that says sorry

I actually I'm glad you brought that up I hated to ruin your train of thought but that was one of the last clips

I wanted to bring out kind of clipping because your graphic says that you're yeah We had so many clips that I wanted to cover but yeah, this was kind of the big moment in the whole debate where you know a lot hangs on Hebrews 725 about how essentially

Christ saves to the uttermost and that is That chapter is talking about how

Jesus is a perfect high priest and basically cannot fail to save and so I believe it was at one hour and 26 minutes

Let's see here 26 Yeah, well you're and while you're queuing it up.

The other thing that's so important about dr. White's argument is the type Of the

Atonement in the New Covenant is found in the Old Covenant of course with the high

Priest and the Day of Atonement and his whole point. He didn't really articulate it

Maybe he did in his opening statement. I forget but I've heard dr. White really dig into this a lot of different times the

You cannot divorce the sacrifice that was offered on the altar From the priest taking the blood of that sacrifice into the holy place

There's not two things going on there. The sacrifice is made that applies to one group, but then it's there's a different group

It applies to when it gets to the holy place. No, it's the same Group, and of course, what's the type?

What's the anti type which is Christ he offers the sacrifice right and then he ascends where?

To the holy place the perfect You know that it was the tabernacle which is a copy of it the part to present his blood and now he's interceding for us that's the whole point and Any perspective that tries to separate that and says well

This Christ offered his sacrifice for all Right and now he's interceding for all

Okay, and now you have this situation where Christ is up in heaven and Once again, the only way to get around this is to be an open theist

Christ is up in heaven saying father I've presented my blood for them. I'm interceding for them and God the

Father says well, they're never it's never gonna be applied to them Because they're never gonna accept it.

I Mean this disharmony to me. That's very straightforward Inconsistency unless you just want to straight -up say no,

I think that the Father wants to save some the spirits trying to apply it to Father wants to save all the spirits trying to apply to I mean even

Dan had it. I'm closing the side chat I figured I figured I had to open it and I wish

I never figured out over but But anyway, okay, that's go ahead and play the thing.

But it's just that this is why dr. White is correct When he just beelines to Hebrews 7 in this topic like because it cannot be answered by the non

Reform. It's just it's just fair and that's and this goes back to John Owen, of course Yeah, you know if you really want to get the full orb see how

John Owen deals with it as common Do you have some John Owen back there? Yeah, I got the complete About And I and I was convicted by Carl Truman Because on a thing one time he was like all these pastors by the complete works of John Owen But they could probably resell them and put at a brand new condition

So I've I'm several hundred and I'm proud of myself, man. I'm I have a goal

You know, I got Calvin's commentaries and I got Owens works I've started volume one on both.

I'm at almost page 500 of Calvin's commentary in Genesis And I want to tell you something right now if you want a devotional commentary

You cannot get better than Calvin People think Calvin's dry and all it's

Calvin, you know by the way James Arminius himself said Calvin's commentaries are the best thing written other than the

Bible Arminius said that This is Arminius after he became an Arminian, you know, whatever.

Yeah And then I'm like a couple hundred Owens a lot harder He's a trudge, but I'm a couple hundred pages into his first volume.

So anyway When we when we need to do something again and what

I'd love is for me and you to pick a topic out and really Study through either

Owen or Martin Lloyd -Jones or you know One of Calvin's commentaries and me and you just kind of show people the treasures that are found there

Amen I think I think we could do a lot there but yeah, we'll kind of wrap up with this last clip and to me this was kind of the

You know the moment the debate where we're kind of like, okay One side is prepared to demonstrate their position from the text and the other one is simply dismissing the the systematic theology with their own

Systematic without any kind of exegesis No No okay, then please look look at Hebrew 725 and Exegete that verse for me.

Tell me tell me how Why the first part of the sentence is not connected to the last part of the sentence?

Yeah, well, I I don't think I would be able to do the proper justice like today to do that But what I'd love to do is to return to that at a later point in time and do a proper exegesis

I'd be glad to do that So, you know I don't saying you will not exegete a verse a verse that is specifically on the subject of our debate this evening exegete one single verse is going to be difficult because you need to properly understand the context and the context truly matters and so I'd rather have more study to do that first and then provide that kind of response.

I'd hate to do a throwaway statement I'm not trying to win an argument I'm not trying to win an

Argument in a debate. Yeah, that's now To be a little charitable

When you don't know you don't know I remember in my debate with Lutheran We were debating double predestination and you know

I'm trying to show how God is sovereign both over the elect and the reprobate but just in different ways and Lorraine Botner's book was

Awesome along with Martin Louis Jones on Romans 9 like those those are the best resources that I use for that But I remember asking the

Lutheran. What is the lump of clay in Romans 9? He gave a throwaway answer and I said, yeah.

Yeah, but what's the lump? He just looked at me He said Jeremiah, I don't know and we kind of had a moment of laughing like hey, it's okay

Like let me offer you my understanding. Yeah, we had a we had a cordial interaction and we kind of built on it

So there's a sense in which you know, I don't want to speak out of my rear on things if I don't know but It as much as I want to build

Jason up and say I respect Like some of the things that he did on the the flip side. I want to say like dude

You you should have done your homework Getting into a debate with James White.

That's why I think about Brian. I don't know I'm just saying if you wanted to make a name for yourself Sure debate

James White and kind of don't address his arguments and just pray you make it through with As you're getting hit by a train left and right, maybe you'll survive.

So that's what it looks like from the audience It's just like a oh, oh So it happened and it was it was a fun experience

And there's a lot of people that they don't care how you did in the debate as long as you got up there

So yeah, there's a couple things. So number one, I totally agree with you He should have done his homework

Like I said, there is no way that if you had a month or two to say, okay

I'm gonna find what James White says about limited atonement and Find his arguments that you would not come across him a whole bunch of times talking about Hebrew 725 like there's no possible way

Lesson for you Debaters who are trying to get in the game. Okay. Mm -hmm. Talk to your opponent

Before the debate have a good couple hour conversation if they're willing Hey, can you tell me what some of your arguments are gonna be?

Can you tell me what some of the scriptures you're gonna use are gonna be so I can have a response, you know Could you maybe even give me some of your opening statement now?

Some people won't do it. Some people will I don't know I'd be curious of how dr. White how he assesses whether he's gonna give an his opponent that much information ahead of time

Or not if he would always do that or if he would resist doing that to certain Kate. I don't know

Well, that's a good idea to get tell me tell me your thoughts about this If you are the affirmative defending a position will know your position very well, obviously, you know

You're gonna be showing your position in a lot of the opponents. So do your homework there But if you're taking the negative

You are taking on the task of showing you have to still main your opponent's position to pick it apart

So I'm saying like when I was debating the Lutheran we're actually friends And so I told him

I don't understand the Lutheran position enough to debate it from the negative So I said you're gonna have to tell me what you disagree with the

Calvinist reform perspective so I can defend it More so in a debate and that's where he was just like, oh, well, how about double predestination?

I was like, yeah, that'll be good because I had to do so much homework David when we were debating, you know is

Lutheran's view of baptism biblical Well, I was taking the negative and I know we don't believe the same thing

But I had to read the Book of Concord. I had to really figure out the new one and I learned a lot I mean, that's what you have to do and with like a

K You know, I took the negative there and that was a little bit easier because I know what libertarian free will is but to your point

Jason was the negative and dr. Wyatt has written on the forgotten Trinity So it gets brought up on the harmony and the

God who justifies That's important in this conversation and then the potter's freedom that's where he really makes dr

White has preached the same thing for 40 years of ministry. And so you got to do your homework

Yeah in debating Calvinism. So and so here's the other thing you bring up a K like Hope a

K. I'll take this as a compliment So the other thing Jason did there was just a major Tactical error when it just comes to style and what you're trying to present.

Okay, can you imagine? Jeremiah if you said to a K in cross X a

K exegete Hebrew 725 for me. Can you imagine him not doing that?

Even if he was not prepared, you know Aka is gonna exegete that he's gonna at least

Filibuster, okay so So what Jason should have done there is he should have tried to exegete it and it would have been better for dr

White just to be like well, that was a terrible exegesis. That would have been better Right. Mm -hmm, then well,

I'm not even gonna try now You know that like you said that could seem humble and self -deprecating and stuff, but he should have at least

Like, you know, let's talk about the context. Dr. White basically stuff It's like he was in the UFC ring with a guy and dr

White just basically stuck his chin out and said take your best shot Like said look man,

I'm giving you so why don't you exegete like and what the other thing? Dr. White was trying to do and this is where I'm sure he gets frustrated

He did all this preparation and that's what he wanted the debate to be about right?

Yeah My opening statement was taking time to explain how

Hebrews 7 in the context and 725 especially teaches particular redemption and You won't even address it now and I don't think it's an excuse at that level

Okay now going on a YouTube debate and you've never debated before and it's all crazy like, okay

But if you're gonna debate, dr. White you need to be prepared For his arguments like we've and we're going back to that same point

But I think it's a very important point and I think I'm sure Jason learned the lesson I'm sure he was like, oh geez, I should have which

I'm sure dr Flowers is I don't think he's gonna make that same mistake in his debate coming up Thursday.

I'm pretty sure he's gonna be more prepared To you know answer dr. White's questions about the exegesis of John 6

Yeah, well just to echo your point is know your topic know your position know the opposing view and once again to a case credit in my preparation for the debate, he has hours of Anti -calvinism content out there and so, you know,

I did I listened to it on times two and took notes I had transcribed all of the stuff so I could copy and paste it in a document and it felt like I was

I knew how he thought by the time the debate rolled around and I knew we were gonna go to 1st

Corinthians 10 13 and my point is That's how it should be You you ought to know your position.

Well when you're the affirmative and if you're the negative Steal man your opponent and to me if you're not if you're not trying to go to the verses

Improve your Position your bigger position from the immediate context. It's like then you're not really engaging with the debate really at all

Yeah, and if dr. And I've heard dr. White say this a million times. He there is He will never debate someone who has nothing out there in the public domain

But he's not gonna do it if there's no books written if there's no content on like he's just no

I'm not gonna do it There's no point because there especially if he's gonna take the negative

Right, like I'm not gonna I need to know what your position is. Well, do you have any books? No, I haven't read any books.

Do you have any YouTube content? No, my channel's got like three subscribers You know, I'm working on I got like five videos up like, you know to him

It's like and that makes the point right? I'm not gonna debate you now. I think if he's given the affirmative

That's a little different right here It's like I'm the one setting the tone and you're gonna have to respond to me, you know, which is this past debate

But yeah, it shows that if your opponent's not willing to read your content, then you're kind of wasting everybody's time

I'll tell you something else. That's pretty savage. You're familiar with dr. Jason Lyle. Yeah, sure

He will only debate people that have a PhD Yeah He has said and his point is is you have to show that you've done the work

Like I love how in his mind is that excites him that you have a PhD in you know

X topic to debate and I was like Bros a savage and James White says that Jason Lyle is the smartest and most humble man.

He's ever met That guy's great, man. Yeah, check out his content and and the other thing about dr.

White I think that's important to understand like you and I You know when it comes to these debates

We're in the we're in the full -blown all we've known is the Internet and you know

This stuff's gonna go be live streamed and YouTube and those dr. White's been debating since the you know

Late 80s early 90s when none of that stuff existed So yeah, and you wonder how it changes that you're prepping your dynamic if you're like, well, this thing might be recorded but By the time it goes out on the internet somewhere

CDs are released or some tapes or something the debate will have long been gone and then people can digest it

I think the medium to Affects a lot of this. So there's a lot of these debates. I think Marlon's channel is good

Marlon I like Marlon's channel because he gives a lot of people at the opportunity To get on there a lot of times when you watch what goes on there.

You're like, yeah. Well Sometimes there's guys that get on there who and I'm not saying I'm any better. Sometimes I can sound like a fool but You know, you got to really know your stuff to debate.

You can't just be a You're gonna know your material pretty well. Oh Yeah, well,

I mean Marlon's channel and Donny's channel at standing for truth have been awesome platforms to you know and they tell they both told me they try to get people that are equally matched and We can see why that's so important So David are there any kind of final thoughts that you have that you'd like to tell people where they can find you at or anything?

Like that. Oh sure. Yeah much my channel is

Apologetics from the attic and that's because where I'm sitting here is on the third floor of my house over in the corner

It's not quite the attic but that's just a name. I came up with you know, whatever But uh, yeah,

I have a YouTube channel. I'm up to almost 200 videos close to 200 debates, but you know

But uh, you know, I'm on Apple podcasts and I put all the audio up. So I yeah, I do stuff walking through Romans right now

Doing stuff on like what's plagianism semi -plagianism semi -augustinianism Augustinianism walking through that You know systematic theology

You know, I got a lot of stuff I got against Roman Catholics atheists You know progressive

Christianity I got stuff in there too. So I try to mix it up a little bit because I've really taken dr. White's advice

You don't want to just have your channel or your apologetics ministry focusing on one narrow thing that's the other reason why dr.

White's so good is because He'll say he he he I think he said in this last debate

Didn't he take that doctrine to a debate with a Muslim take take your presentation to a

Roman Catholic, right? People underestimate how important that is Your argument may sound real good to your echo chamber

But the minute you take that outside of your echo chamber to a Roman Catholic or to It will fall apart and that's where dr.

White is is also thinking of His positive presentations have to apply in all contexts.

It's not just I'm gonna change my Presentation because it's to this group and you know

You can't do that you have to be consistent across the board and people underestimate how important that is

When you're doing apologetics Excellent point and to kind of echo that this is not gonna look of the best, but I have a debate coming up David Lewis and Let's see.

I think it's April 5th. Can you see that on your screen? So this is April 5th

I will be debating on baptism with a Church of Christ minister at 12 5 church live and in person and we will broadcast this

On my youtube channel here, but to your point though about being able to defend it kind of on all platforms

I will be vindicating Sola Fide, you know to say that baptism does not justify us before God are participating in the ceremonial

Act of baptism, so I'm gonna define terms. My point is is I don't want to be a one -string banjo always

Talking about the Church of Christ, even though I evangelized them heavily even dr White began

Alpha and Omega ministries evangelizing the Mormons, right? Latter -day Saints and so but but the backside of that is being able to vindicate a

Position against all these different oppositions like you said so people go check out

David Lewis Who's in the attic? What is it again? Apologetics in the attic? Apologetics from the attic apologetics from the attic calm

So I'm talking about yeah Well, David, thanks for having me on brother. I really appreciate it.

We'll have to do it again You made me laugh and you're like, oh, no I'm gonna be nervous to being on the apologetic dog and I'm like, yeah, right

Man you're big you're big you're big deal man. You said in a Q &A panel with dr.

White's in there Did you by the way, did you watch the Q &A panel yet? Yeah So did you hear the first thing that I said?

It was so funny and it just felt like the biggest tea at people were kind of like The beard the beard.

Yeah, people are like what's the deal with the reformed community? Are they biased against women and children and people without beards and I said something like let me just tell you this

I didn't know I could grow a beard until I started reading the form of theology. I look back and dr

White was rolling laughing. I was like, yes And then Keith didn't Keith riff off that with his

I have a beard because I have two chins Dude Keith Keith is a

Naturally hilarious individual got to really talk with him more and he interviewed me

The content hasn't released yet, but he asked me a really good question Why do we see

Church of Christ as a cult and why do we see Lutherans as being Orthodox? Because you know the whole baptismal regeneration thing so people can look forward to that content releasing soon because I've debated both

Church Christ and Lutherans to your point you better be able to deal with opposing religious systems and worldviews and you know to vindicate the position that you're holding to To give

Keith a plug real quick. I know we should we should go What's his name his channel you're

Your Calvinist essentially conversations with Calvinist or something

But anyway, yeah people people will find it Keith Foskey He's on all social media platforms.

If you have non Calvinist friends, okay If you share his parody videos with them, it's a good

I mean, I'm serious like yeah Like if you he's got hilarious videos where he's making fun of all the denominations

You can share that with it. Like if you have a non Calvinist friends like I hate Calvinism Okay, check this guy out and don't even tell him the guys at Calvinist.

You know, I mean I just show it to him and Like it's just hilarious and he makes fun of all the denominations including the reform.

Mm -hmm, and that's a little Gateway into maybe they'll check great boys other videos.

It's just a good idea. Just it's a good little little way to To do that, but he's got a point

Well, David, we'll have to do this again soon, man Yes, sir. All right, you take care.

Have a blessed rest the evening. Yeah, you too. I see ya All right, everybody well, thank you for lasting

I think roughly two hours This was an awesome time getting to hang with my boy

David Lewis brilliant, man, God has blessed his heart and mind with Just being equipped with the scripture and us doing this debate review

I hope I hope the love came through even though we were, you know criticizing Jason's position

There is a level of respect and charity and I believe he's a brother. I believe he holds to the correct

Gospel of grace that's to be received by faith That's not a work that we do but we disagree on perhaps the nature of how some of that cashes out at least

But I hope this has been official to you If you've enjoyed this content at all if this has been profitable or if you've appreciated other videos of the apologetic dog

I would please ask you to subscribe and like this video But just because it helps the growth of the channel and if you want to help support the apologetic dog in other ways

Visit my website. I do have a website out there theapologeticdog .com and I tell

I've been telling people recently You got to go check it out now because it's really bad does not look good but it's getting revamped and so you got to be able to see the before and after and So I'm looking forward to that.

I have a lot of more goals. So like this The studio here at home allows me to produce more content.

So I hope to be putting out more content on a regular basis Look forward to doing episodes with my wife.

I believe we're gonna be doing some episodes called wifey unchained So, I don't know if y 'all ready for that, but it'll be good.