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 heart's desire to contend for the gospel of grace and so if you

see The Apologetic Dog logo somewhere you might see 1st 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

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 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?

Hey.

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.

We can't say too much of this.

Everyone who watches are gonna say we're biased and that's why.

Well let me say.

It doesn't matter how good Jason did, he can't.

Possibly win.

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 Breda.

Am I saying his name right?

Do you know?

Not sure but I didn't know.

That there was a background though.

There's a little background.

Jason, love him, very cordial, respectful individual,

but I believe he was critiquing Calvinism and 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 on a

radio free Geneva.

So Dr. White really brought out the Greek analysis and showing how you know you got to

do more than just going to Bible tools with.

Just looking at the Greek verb tenses.

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 live in person,

David, and you know I really Leighton Flowers was there also.

I got to have a selfie with him so and Leighton was genuinely kind and we were

talking a little bit before the debate and he let me know I was one of the nicer Calvinists 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?

Oh 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 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 become Reformed in a non -Reformed context mm

-hmm 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 shaking them like why aren't you

oh yeah tulip yeah well I was two years old you know.

You make a good point about you know a lot of is you know there is spiritual warfare at work and it's not

just the Reformed 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 Breda.

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 gets 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.

You know I'm joking.

Hey I will say I have I have some.

Stories for you along the way that I may attempt 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 Calvinist will say we shouldn't use the term limited atonement anymore.

We should use particular redemption.

Which I agree 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.

And if you ever heard that line but mm -hmm 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 preparing.

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.

And 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.

Mmm 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 521 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 is 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 521.

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 to create the church and to send the church forth to

preach the gospel and 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.

That too 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 if 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 and I'd love to hear your thoughts about it all.

Right 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 cuz 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 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.

Okay okay go ahead and stop it.

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 that 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 reformed 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 son 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 a 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's 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 under 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 the 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 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 fore knowledge of what's

going to happen in time before he creates you.

Okay 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 AK is just gonna grill

me on certain proof text that Calvinists go to so we're in for a fun time.

I know he's been itching for a round two since our last debate back at.

The summer.

Good.

So back to the point I was making so the minute that you introduce into your

theology that God before he created the universe whether you do it with an amulanistic

way or a simple foreknowledge Arminian type way the minute you say God

certainly knows.

You have to say he decreed you can find get that language out you know 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 gonna be

safe because he has foreknowledge.

So what do you do to get around it and see why did 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 you know Bohethius or whatever he's got some CS.

I'm just like CS Lewis they'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 as 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 know that 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.

I got him to laugh when I pointed this out to him.

He goes well that's the me too fallacy.

I said late and so do I have to ask the question first for it not to be the me too 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 a K but he doesn't like a I do a minterm and isn't 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 risk I respect a K.

I think he's a sharp thinker.

That's why we had a movie 12.

I've charged 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 into 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 we mean a chemistry.

We'll talk about this on his program some.

But there's a reason for that.

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 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 a K 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 a K Richardson even though we we love you.

Okay so 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's important you brought that up because that.

So.

So the non open theists 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 that

eliminates libertarian free will.

It really does it.

It.

It can't exist.

It can only exist as the they wanted 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 Leighton flowers.

Which by the way this this person asked.

So is Leighton flowers the founder of provisionism.

Yes he's the one that kind of made a counteracrostic 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 Leighton flowers.

And so I want to play this next clip.

David.

Yeah 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.

I'm 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 reform Bree.

And if you want to do a deeper dive into this Leighton 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 Muller 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 Leighton 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 Leighton doesn't come out of nowhere like he emerges in Southern Baptist life from

the traditionalist.

Southern Baptist they call themselves and props to Leighton 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.

Arminian yes that was my first ever online debate yes.

Hey I remember.

Watching that years ago thinking man David Lewis is the man 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.

It's so believable.

So David I didn't watch.

The debate but I watched Marlon's follow -up video saying hey we got a.

Buckled down on.

Well I didn't 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 there's an open theist.

Right.

Like the way.

Yeah.

Oh 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 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 huh 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 what's often.

And he's off.

Yeah he did because he kept cuz he kept saying.

Well I'm not saying there isn't a sense in which this could apply to all believers.

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.

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 the.

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 rank heresy 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 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 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 that's just that's just about the Jews of that time the hardening and that 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 X 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 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 you 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.

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

write 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.

It would not be the.

Gentiles.

And so the audience never changes until okay and wrong.

Okay.

He does not say I'm telling you Jews who know the law.

He says brothers.

And 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.

What 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 exactly opposite of what Paul was trying to do everywhere he went.

He didn't want a Jewish church in 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.

No I mean I think he.

Unconvinced himself when dr. Wyatt 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.

Have were with Jason.

Okay before we go on I just want to say a quick thing I wanted 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 yeah 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 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 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 but just so everyone understands what dr. white has

mastered after a hundred seventy 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 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. right 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.

Right.

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 per debate professor.

I'll follow.

Well 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 reviewed a couple of James White's too.

So then the cross -examination questions need to be okay.

You're asking 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 he'll go.

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.

Like 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.

But 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 and that not be challenged.

Okay there's my little soapbox but I just want to point out people don't realize how much is going into how

dr. white does what he does to get in then and then his final statement is always this

ground -and -pound thing where you're just like I was wincing it you know.

And poor Jason man oh 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 that 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 utilize all your good time on those.

And so Nate Sala would say.

You've got a flow during the cross exam.

He does say that that and they'll say that when he's reviewing a bait that didn't flow at all

there was no flow.

There 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 I think he's getting to the.

Point where you're saying there's an exegesis of John 3 or 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.

Let's just anyway.

Okay good well before we move on you know I talked 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 can then 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.

Hmm.

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.

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 been 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 built.

And well now you just leave 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 know that 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.

Ok Jesus just got done telling Nicodemus unless you are born again

you cannot see or enter the kingdom of God.

Any further explain that which is flesh gives birth to the flesh equals flesh.

Spirit equals spirit.

Ok.

The reason why you must be born again is because you're born of the flesh in 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 would have been born again.

That's why they do it.

And one more thing I'll say.

And what.

I'm not a betting man but this Thursday this Thursday I

predict I'll give people two to one odds.

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 crisis 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.

No no.

I love you bring out those those points.

And the bronze serpent I mean it's such a good Old Testament principles 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 316

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 never done debate on the conditional just as the so the

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 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.

119 54.

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 316.

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 got a pause.

You I got a pause you real quick because I want 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 Britta and then we heard dr. White's 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 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 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 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 as a heart

attack he looks at me like this he goes am I dreaming am I really hearing what I'm

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 and 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 they're at the conference 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 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. why.

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. what I said do it in love.

I said please do not hold back.

Wow.

So so we have you know dr. why I wanted to check his sanity and he

probably saw my beard in the back row.

I was like you know what 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 there the Jew most of the Jews aren't following Jesus and so the contention and the idea is

like well if you 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.

We see that in the end of verse 8 or chapter 8 that's this is the the context that I see.

Okay.

Okay 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.

And argument argument over.

Yes 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.

But it could be applied now.

Now here's what this reminds me of.

Let me pull this into a totally different context.

Okay 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 we 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. way 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.

Because you know 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 I don't know it was with palm and I remember when I was presented that

or there was one I thought and I thought that was like what is and it's just another hermeneutic design to

get around the plane walking.

And this is why they hate.

I 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 exegete it.

And no you didn't.

You jumped out of Romans 9 5 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 going to debate the texts.

I want to talk about our foundational understandings.

That's just like no 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 aka Richardson 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 1st Corinthians 1013 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 him.

So 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 double downed and said this is Jew only and been a heretic.

Or like you 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.

Became the position that was held to let me point out again.

Have you.

Have you.

Read Aaron ass questions.

I died laughing I was like Keith.

Oh no man you you did a good job but dr. Watts 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

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 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 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.

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 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 it.

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.

So if it's a penal substitutionary provision you have a serious problem on your

hands with your doctrine of the atonement.

That's why classical Arminianism 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 hand.

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 and 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's all I have.

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 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.

An unapologetic 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 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 church 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 and.

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 I'll 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 that 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 this 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 tears.

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

uttermost.

So that's how I get the ball rolling in this conversation.

But 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

aha 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 debate.

I wouldn't say that in a debate with dr. white.

But I can say that here.

Yeah.

So I'm not prepared to execute 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 lay person on the street was says well no 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 so I mean my push back 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 gonna leave that there 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 believism.

Pray this prayer after me and you're definitely saved.

God loves everyone.

Gospel.

Which 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.

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 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 by 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 provisionalist 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 the 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 talk 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.

And your boy I will be there.

Yep.

It'll be live streamed at one of the Lutheran churches that have 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 Leighton 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 Leighton.

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

Mmm.

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 cuz 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 -ex and he'll take the cross -ex 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 725

right.

Cuz 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 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 it.

Yeah 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 Hebrew 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 1 hour and 26 minutes let's see

here.

26 yeah.

Well you're.

And while you're queuing it up the other thing is 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 there 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 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 should.

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 cuz 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 who.

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 now I 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.

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 in 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.

Connecting.

It.

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 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 gonna 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.

So 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.

And he gave a throwaway answer and I said yeah.

Yeah.

But what's the lump.

He just looked at me 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 looked like from the audience is just like oh oh.

So it happened and it was it was 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 a 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 you're 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 you 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 aka 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. white 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 gotta do your

homework.

Yeah.

And.

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 that you know a K is going to

exegete that he's going to 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

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 that talked about the context dr. white basically stuff.

It's like he was in the UFC ring with the guy and dr. white just basically stuck his chin out and said take your best shot

like he like said look man I'm giving you it's 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 now 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

1013.

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 steel man your opponent.

And to me if you're not if you're not trying to go to versus 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 doctor 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.

Mmm.

But he's just 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 they're.

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 now.

I haven't read any books.

Do you have any YouTube content now.

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.

I'm not gonna debate you now.

I think if he's given the affirmative that's a little different right.

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.

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 if you 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 the opportunity to get on there.

But 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 Donnie'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 Augustinian ism.

Augustinian ism 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

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 a 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 no that 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 in 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 evangelize them heavily.

Even dr. white began Alpha and Omega ministries evangelizing the Mormons right.

Yeah 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.

What what.

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.

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.