Examining The Leighton Flowers & James White Debate

I would say if the authorities didn't want us involved in the public square, they ought not to have crucified

Jesus in the public square. Use humanistic principles. It's the same idea. I would say what's the problem with stardust bumping into stardust?

In the cosmic picture, none. There's no problem. In the cosmic picture, it won't matter. No, Mr.

President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom. You are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.

I'm sorry, my friends, but I am tired of seeing Jesus presented as a weak beggar.

He is a powerful savior, and the gospel is not a suggestion.

It is a command. Damn it. Reverend Haller, don't you sympathize with that?

I sympathize with every single human heart wishing to know the one true and living God, but I believe there's only one way that that can happen through Jesus Christ, and the gospel is about repenting of sin, not celebrating it.

What an amazing adventure.

We will explore the spiritual abyss. You have not experienced this before.

You're going to love it. Our God is in the heavens.

He does all that He pleases. Psalm 115 .3. I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Job 42 .2. It's a very appropriate verse.

Well, we can go for a while on that. Some good ones. Beautiful text about God's total sovereignty over all things.

Hope for the believer. Hope for God's people. Welcome back, everybody, to the

Gospel Heard Around the World. This is Apologia Radio. Grateful for you guys to join us today.

I'm doing my best to speak clearly and enunciate. Good job. Life with baby twins.

No sleep. And now that I get older, if I don't sleep, I don't work. The machine doesn't work.

It doesn't work at all. ApologiaStudios .com is where you all go. ApologiaStudios .com

is where you go for more. I want to encourage you guys, after the show today, to go check out Apologia Studios.

So much there. So many resources. You can pick up all the episodes from Cultish to Sheologians to Provoke to Apologia Radio.

Right there at ApologiaStudios .com. You can also sign up for your completely free theological training at BonsonU at ApologiaStudios .com.

It is free, entrusted to us by the Bonson family. Big thanks to David Bonson for giving us that and entrusting us with that so we can give it to the world.

All of Dr. Greg Bonson's lectures, seminary courses, his stuff from preaching and teaching at church, his public debates, all that stuff.

So if you want top -tier, rigorous theological education for free, go to ApologiaStudios .com,

get your BonsonU account, and get it on. Also, don't forget to sign up for All Access. When you do, you partner with this ministry.

If you've seen stuff from Apologia, whether it's on the street evangelism, if it's the public debates, if it's stuff for end abortion now, whatever the case may be, if you've seen it at Apologia Studios and been blessed by it, it's because people just like you are a part of this ministry with us.

They're ministry partners. And when you go sign up for your All Access account, not only are you a part of this ministry with us, making all of this gospel proclamation possible globally, but you also get all kinds of additional content like Apologia Academy.

Right now, we've got a new apologetics course underway right now. It's being edited right now.

Eli Ayala from Revealed Apologetics came out and just cut a whole new course for us.

Kenneth Gentry, Dr. Kenneth Gentry, is on his way very soon from his home state of South Carolina to spend some days with us to do a course on the book of Revelation.

And it's perfect timing. It's perfect timing because his like 40 years in the making commentary on the book of Revelation is actually being printed as we speak.

And I think actually you can get your pre -orders right now at KennethGentry .com or .org.

You'll figure it out. The title of the commentary is two volumes, 1 ,800 pages.

The title is The Divorce of Israel. I'm excited, to be honest with you. I've already seen it.

I haven't got a chance to read all the way through it yet because it's PDF and I hate reading PDFs. I've got to have the book in my hand. But I've read a bunch of it and it's classic

Gentry. That's classic Gentry. You'll be blessed by it.

So Dr. Gentry is doing that. And so all that's at all access. We've got the full Collision episodes. We've got Ask Me Anything, a private stream once a month with me most of the time and all of our partners in ministry.

We can talk to each other and interact. And we also have the Apology Radio After Show. That's where that is at.

That's Luke the Bear. I'm Jeff the Calm of the Ninja. And that is Zachary Conover, Director of Communications for End Abortion Now.

So just quickly as we get into, you know, look, there's so much stuff on this already. We even question, like, you know, doing this.

Yeah, it would be a benefit to the church just to talk about it. So much stuff back and forth between Dr.

White and Layton Flowers after the debate. Lots of people making comments in the debate. So we just wanted to at least touch some important points because we hope it's a blessing to the church in terms of understanding the sovereignty of God and the grace of God in salvation.

And so we're going to do that. But before we leap into it, just wanted to announce to everybody a couple things that are happening that you can possibly participate in and be a part of with us in ministry.

The first thing is I'm going to kick it over to Conover. And he's going to tell you about what's going on with Georgia. I am going to Kentucky, hopefully to Southern in Louisville.

And all of you guys are in Kentucky. Now, I just said that right. Louisville, it's the week of the 15th.

So it's actually the 16th. So it's Tuesday the 16th. We're going to be in Louisville. We're working on it being at Southern.

So all that's underway. If it ends up not being at Southern, we're going to do it around Louisville. That's what's up.

So I'll let Conover tell you real fast what's going on with Georgia. So you guys know that G3 has adopted the position of abolition when it comes to abortion.

They've been great partners in this work. We've participated with the national conference, having booths there, having great conversations with people, and been very pleased with their direction on this and their involvement.

They are 100 % on board. So we're planning on having an event in association with them at Praise Mill Baptist Church on Thursday, April 11th, headed up by Pastor Josh Bice and their team there with G3.

So it's going to be a conference meeting for pastors and church leaders in the state of Georgia centered on networking, creating relationships there, bringing the

Church of Jesus Christ into the fight in the state of Georgia for the cause of the fatherless and ending abortion, and really supporting the necessary legislative work that has to happen there in order for abortion to end, but also forging those partnerships, educating, mobilizing, equipping the church to actually take action in the state of Georgia when it comes time to have boots on the ground, to have the church be active and involved in this fight.

So Thursday, April 11th, I'm going to be there along with another of our colleagues of the ministry.

So we're going to be teaching. You know, if you're there in Georgia, especially if you're a pastor or church leader, but if you're a

Christian that cares about ending abortion in Georgia, then you need to be there. And just an important element of this whole conversation.

We were just talking about this before the show went live. One of the common themes that we've seen in every state that we've gone to is we'll get a legislator who will be courageous enough and consistent enough to put a bill in of equal protection.

It's a bold, bold move, and we're grateful for every single one of them. They really are putting their necks on the chopping block when they do this, because it makes a lot of pro -life legislators very upset that they're having to make a clear decision on the preborn that they don't want to do.

It's too courageous of a move to simply say we want equal protection for all humans from fertilization. So it doesn't make a lot of friends, let's put it that way.

A lot of times when these legislators do this, they're doing it and they're risking their careers, and they know it.

And so we're grateful for every single one of them and for all their faithfulness, all their courage. But the common theme in every state that we've gone to from every legislator is they say,

OK, I'm going to drop it again, but sometimes they'll say, let's do it next session when you gather more churches that are willing to actually help with this.

And so that's the key issue is every legislator has always said, like, guys, I need more. I need more churches.

And there's times where we have maybe 100 churches total and organizations in the state. It's still not enough.

I mean, we all put in the work and the phones are ringing off the hook and the emails are flying and it gets overwhelming for legislators in terms of like,

OK, I need to pay attention to this. But the legislators in every state have always said to us, we need more. We need more.

We need more. And that's what we're doing. We're doing. And so you can also participate in that with us right now financially to endabortionnow .com.

You can help to fund this stuff because it does cost money to do these trips, to gather the churches, to hold these educational meetings, to get the pastors together in that state.

And it's working. It is it is genuinely working, but we need a lot more. And so with that, you know, when we announced to you like G3 is connected with us,

End Abortion Now and G3 doing this together in Georgia to prep for the next bill that drops.

Dunahoo dropped the bill last session. When it goes in again, we need to have the churches there.

So if you're in Georgia, you need to come. We're inviting you. Be a part of this with us. And same thing for Kentucky.

Like I said, it's going to be in Louisville. We're hoping Southern and I will announce to you when we have all the final details.

But we need you there. If you're in Kentucky, come out, spend the Tuesday out with me.

Let's talk and let's gather together as a church to get prepped for the next bill. We have somebody in Kentucky that's going to drop it next session.

We have that commitment. But what this legislator said is we need more support.

We need more churches. We need more Christians on the ground. And so here's the invitation. Kentucky and Georgia show up.

And so you've heard the date. The date is April 11th. April 11th at Praise.

Praise Mill Baptist Church. Praise Mill Baptist Church. More info we can drop in the description with a link to sign up. Please do.

If you're going to attend, sign up to let everybody know that you are coming and that you're going to be a part of it. Send me that link. I'll put it in the description after the show today.

And so there's that. And let's get right into it, shall we? Yes, we shall.

We shall. All right. So we have recently on Apologia Radio, we're not done with it yet, but we recently did a series on the doctrines of grace.

And I think we've gotten through everything except the objections. Correct. We're going to do a show responding to objections to the doctrines of grace.

Everybody knows that we celebrate and love the truth and scripture about God's sovereignty,

His power and salvation, His grace and salvation. Everyone knows that about Apologia. That's where we're at.

It's what feeds our hope and it also feeds our mission to the world. It feeds our evangelism and empowers our evangelism.

It's why we do, it's the theological underpinning of why we do what we do at Apologia Church and all that we do with Apologia Studios.

So everybody knows, no secret, that's what we do. And so in light of that, there was a recent debate in Houston between one of our fellow elders,

Dr. James White, an elder at Apologia Church, one of... The elder elder. Yeah, the oldest.

The elder elder. The oldest. Older. Really. Really. A lot older. A lot older.

He's the oldest. Like older than all of our ages combined. Yes. Older. Older.

He loves reformational theology because he was actually present. He lived it. He's going to listen to us.

He's just going to say, you guys are so mean to me and he knows we're just joking. But he's one of our fellow elders at Apologia Church and the debate was between Leighton Flowers and Dr.

James White. Now this is the second formal public moderated debate between Dr.

James White and Leighton Flowers. I don't even remember how many years ago. Was it eight years ago? It's been a minute.

It's been a while. Years ago, Dr. White and Leighton Flowers did...

Professor Flowers did a debate on Romans Chapter 9. You guys can go check that debate out.

Romans Chapter 9, Leighton Flowers, James White. It'll pull up. It's about two and a half hours long, I think. You should be able to find it easily on YouTube.

Leighton Flowers lost that debate badly. And I think that just from any honest assessment, it was his first public debate.

That says something in terms of it's difficult to do debates. I'm not proud of my first public debate with atheists.

And it's your first time. But at the same time, Flowers' position was demonstrated to not be biblical and not be based upon the text.

And so since that time, Dr. Flowers has spent pretty much, I think the vast majority of the time on his channel really addressing the issue of Calvinism, the doctrines of grace.

I don't even know how many videos he has on about Dr. James White or how many videos he has on about me.

And he's even used at one time, and this is honestly where I just became completely dismissive to even really trying to respond to anything

Leighton says. He put up a thumbnail to one of his videos and he found the absolute worst picture of me to make me look silly in the thumbnail.

And that's where I lost all respect. And I said, I'm not interacting with a person who engages in that kind of childish behavior and needs to be clickbaity like that and use the worst possible picture he can use of me.

I just don't take you seriously after that. And I also don't take Leighton seriously in terms of interaction because he misrepresents.

He's misrepresented me. I saw one of his videos come up live talking about me once. I clicked on it and he completely misrepresented what

I was saying in my sermon about quotes from church history. I thought about engaging on it.

I thought, you know, it's not worth it. I just don't see the man as really having the kind of integrity to say, hey,

I really got that wrong about you. I apologize. I just don't see that Leighton has that kind of pattern in his life.

And typically when Leighton is refuted and he's shown to be wrong, he just doubles down and just keeps going and makes excuses.

And that's how I viewed it. And that's why I don't interact with Leighton Flowers on a personal level.

But this is a public debate, so we're going to examine some things here from the debate. And this debate is titled, oh, it's from First Lutheran Houston.

It's the White slash Flowers debate. Does John 644 teach unconditional election?

Now, it's a long debate. It's about two hours long. It's over two hours long, so we're obviously in a show today not going to be able to examine everything from the debate.

We're going to pick up on some highlights. What I thought we would start with, if it's all right with you guys, start with the rebuttal.

The opening statements, they're long. When you're doing a public moderated debate, the opening statement is supposed to be the thing that you go after as the opponents.

They give their opening, and you're supposed to zero in on the opening statement in your rebuttal and in your cross -examination.

You're also supposed to go after their rebuttal and cross -examination. The opening statements are the lengthy portion, but, of course, the real debate takes place in the cross -ex.

That's where the debate really always is, is in the cross -ex. This is

Flowers' rebuttal after the opening statement. I wanted to address a couple things in here, and then move on to just some short clips of the cross -examination.

Here is Flowers' rebuttal and the debate between Dr.

James White and Leighton Flowers. I know I do talk fast. I get in trouble for that sometimes.

I'll try to slow down just a little bit, but my opponent still hasn't. He has the burden of proof here tonight.

He's the affirmative, and he still hasn't made a case for unconditional election. The only main argument that he made is that listening and learning are passive realities.

Since when? We all intuitively know that teachers are responsible to teach, students are responsible to learn, and that aligns exactly with what the

Scripture teaches. God did not fail to do his part in teaching. Israel, generally speaking, failed to learn, which is why they're held responsible for that.

Jeremiah 32, 33 says, They have turned to me their back and not their face. And though I have taught them again and again persistently, they have not listened to receive instruction.

Does that sound like listening and learning are just passive realities? Do you blame your teachers at your school when your kids put in their earbuds and play on their phone?

Or do you blame the student? Do you just assume the teacher doesn't really want to teach them when they refuse to learn? Because that's what

Calvinism is asking you to believe. God really doesn't want them to learn. He didn't pick them. He doesn't love them. That's what he's saying.

I know he says it's all emotional. I can't help it that Calvinism makes emotional things. That doesn't make it wrong just because it's emotional.

Just because God rejected them before they were ever born, and that's emotional for you, and some of the people you love are rejected by God before they're ever born, and that's emotional for you, that doesn't make it any less true on Calvinism.

The fact is, he... So, one of the common things that I think you will regularly see from Professor Flowers, and I do want to show respect to him as a brother.

He professes faith in Jesus. I think his theology has got some massive, massive problems, especially his going after original sin and just a number of things.

But one of the common things that you'll see with Professor Flowers is you will see the appeal to philogesis.

Philogesis. The feelings. That's what he does. He pulls on the feelings.

Philogesis. Was that the thing you were talking about? What about the babies? What about the babies? What about...

And he'll always even... He frames the question in a cross X in some ways, where he tries to do it in such a way that he appeals to the emotions of people.

Now, we're in the image of God. Emotions are important and good, but you can properly appeal to emotion and you can improperly appeal to emotion.

And I think what Leighton does often is improperly appeal to emotion. And he's right. If it's true, it doesn't matter what your feelings are, but he does it a whole lot.

He appeals to philogesis. He tries to get to the feelings. So, I think that that's a problem, especially when we're saying, look, what does the text actually say?

What do my feelings say? What does the text actually say? Now, I want to address something because this comes up often.

The best I can get out of everything I hear in these debates and what

I've seen Leighton Flowers say in a couple of clips I've seen of him online is it seems to me that Flowers denies the doctrine of original sin.

In the debate, he goes after it. You think they're responsible because Adam sinned and he doesn't believe that.

So, the only thing I can gather from it is he actually denies original sin, but he will go into these discussions and he'll talk about people as God doesn't want to do anything with them.

He doesn't really care to do anything with them and they can't help it and all these different things.

He tries to paint this portrait that actually doesn't accurately portray what scripture says, A, about the sovereignty of God over all things.

He does all that he pleases. He declares the end from the beginning and he does according to his will and among the hosts of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth and no one can stay at his hand and say, what have you done?

So, he doesn't really ultimately deal with those kind of sovereignty claims from God in scripture, but he also misrepresents,

I think, what scripture says in total about the deadness of man in sin, his condition, no

God seeker, no one who seeks for God, none righteous, none good, dead in your sins and trespasses, by nature a child of wrath, slaves to sin, haters of God, all of that stuff.

Scripture teaches that, but it also teaches that people are made in the image of God and their vocation, their calling, their purpose in being made is to worship and glorify their creator.

And so, this is really important in terms of when Layton tries to go after what scripture teaches about the deadness of man in sin and fallenness and no one can come to me, he tries to pin it on God and Calvinism saying, well, your

God just decreed that and so they couldn't help it, they couldn't be otherwise. That is an inaccurate portrayal of what scripture says about the image of God.

Being made in the image of God makes you responsible. The image of God is not erased in the fall, right?

So when you say like, well, God decreed it so they couldn't help it. A, James is right. That means that you think that grace is demanded.

It must be given, but it also misrepresents what scripture teaches about the image of God.

People are made in the imago Dei, they're made, they know God. Romans 1, they know

God. They know God. Romans 1 says, they just don't want to have God in their knowledge.

They don't want to think about Him. They don't want to know Him and so they switch God for an idol. So being a fallen son and daughter of Adam and Eve doesn't make you no longer the image of God.

You're still responsible as an image bearer of God. You know the true

God. You were made by Him. You were made to worship and glorify Him and to enjoy

Him forever and so on. So He says, well, God just decreed that He's going to leave them in this fallen state.

He's not going to give them grace. He's going to give them justice. So they couldn't help it. I mean, why is

God blaming them? Well, because they're morally culpable image bearers of God and that image of God isn't erased.

It's not erased in the fall. They're still made in God's image. They still know the true God. They are actively suppressing the truth of God and unrighteousness.

Even being in God's world with the rain falling on the just and the unjust, they still hate

God. They're still motivated by their own hatred of God. And so I think that this is, it's a problem

I see with Flowers and how he tries to disconnect this whole discussion from what the scriptures say in total about man, image of God and the fallen nature of man.

What I hear over and over again in these analogous examples because it always tends to go that way.

Well, would you blame a student? Or would you blame the teacher if the student doesn't want to learn? Those kinds of analogies,

I think, just get at the bottom of what this discussion is all about. And that's really that a lot of people are just upset with a

God that offends their sensitivities and that does not comport with their imagination of what

God ought to be like. And so there's this remaking God in our own image, right? The complaint goes forward.

It's like, I can't believe that God would do this. This is what you're saying your God does? Like, I don't like that.

That offends me. I was like, well, when the God of the Bible presents himself to us,

I mean, offense is the natural reaction that our flesh will exhibit because of who he is.

He's not us. He's not like us. He is fundamentally altogether different than us.

That's why he's holy. So at the bottom of this, every time I hear this kind of thing, all I'm hearing is,

I don't like that. I don't like that God is totally free to do as he pleases.

I don't like that he's sovereign over all of his creatures and that it's his prerogative what happens to them, ultimately.

That's just not something I'm down with. I don't like a God that acts freely without any obligation or constraint upon his nature and his being.

I don't like a God like that. It goes to what James has said regularly about Leighton and his position is that Leighton's position is man -centered.

Man is at the center of Leighton's perspectives, not

God. It's always about man at the center. And I think that what you said perfectly illustrates that, yeah.

Yeah, I was going to say something similar. I mean, if you watch the entire debate, it's very clear.

I think you were generous. He doesn't just not like that. I think he clearly hates and despises

Calvinism. And we probably won't get to it, but later in the debate, he literally says that the

Calvinistic view of God is unfair. He doesn't like it. He doesn't think it's fair or just, which, whew, that's quite a statement.

It's precarious ground. Yeah, but what frustrates me about Leighton, if you watch the whole debate, and we started hearing the rebuttal, is when he's pressed, instead of responding with an exegetical response, he just starts issuing pot shots or just starts, like most of this first rebuttal was literally just a list of accusations against James, against Dr.

White. And it's like, brother, you need to respond to the text and be able to explain this from the text and not just take shots at somebody.

Yeah, make it about the text. I mean, the title of the debate is does John 644 teach unconditional election?

So stay in the text. Exactly. The one who has the burden to establish that this is what

God's doing, that this inconceivable concept of people being judged because of something they have absolutely no control over.

The reason that we know racism is so horrible is because you don't judge somebody for the color of their skin.

Why? Because they can't help it. They don't have anything to do with it. Well, what do the reprobate have control over with regard to their unbelief and their hatred towards God?

They have no control over it. Now, the Calvinist will say it's because they want to reject God. They hate

God by nature, by default. Yes, God decreed for them to be that way from birth.

They couldn't help it. There's no basis for human culpability. They have no blameworthiness.

They're just victims of the divine decree. So first of all, you can say all those things, but you're going to have to face the mountain of texts from Holy Scripture about the triune

God of Holy Scripture that does all that He pleases. The triune God of Holy Scripture, the one who declares the end from the beginning and does according to His will and no purpose of His can be thwarted.

You're going to come up against a mountain of texts that just speaks clearly, clearly to the sovereignty of God and salvation.

And in this case, this is what I mean. I mean, I think I'd love, maybe Leighton has,

I'll give him that respect and honor the fact that maybe he has.

Like I said, I don't do a lot of listening to Leighton just because I lost a lot of respect for his interaction over the years.

But this is the kind of statement that he makes that concerns me. You're coming up against the clear teaching of Scripture about original sin.

I mean, let's go to it, the text. Let's go to Romans. Everyone knows where I'm going to go. I mean,

Paul is explaining the gospel that he's preaching. And in Romans 5, he explains the condition of the fall.

I mean, Romans 5 is a beautiful verse. We'll memorize it as a church, an apology of church. Romans 5, one, therefore having, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. So there's the, look, whatever you get out of this episode today, get that Christian, get that child of God, is that we've been declared righteous by faith and we have peace with God.

We have true shalom with God. And in verse two, through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand and we rejoice and hope in the glory of God.

So he begins to explain all of this and gets to verse six. For while we were still weak at the right time,

Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person, though perhaps for a good person, one would dare even to die.

But God shows his love for us and that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since therefore we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more now that we are reconciled shall we be saved by his life.

Then he goes in to this description of the fall in verse 12.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more having the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man

Jesus Christ abounded for many. Did you get that? For if many died through one man's trespass.

Who's that? Adam. Adam. And what's it talking about? Adam's sin. The fall.

And it says, if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man

Jesus Christ abounded for many. Do you get the point? It's a contrast. Adam's a type and here's

Christ and so Adam gives us one trespass and death spreads to everybody. Many died, but now the gift is different than that.

This is a gracious gift through this perfect Adam and it's done differently. It's death from the one

Adam, life from the perfect Adam. Do you see it? And you could say, well

I don't like the fact that I'm not really responsible for Adam's sin. Well then, then you're missing the point

Paul was making there too. You're also not, you're not, you're not a part of or responsible for all the things that Jesus did.

But he gives that to you freely. So you get death from one, life from another and I just don't see any way around this.

So why go after it so much? I mean, I, you know, I would love to hear

Layton talk about it, but how are you not Pelagian? I mean, how are you not

Pelagian? Are you Layton? Are you Pelagian? Because denying original sin,

I mean you're coming up against the scriptures themselves and you're coming up against what the church has taught through the centuries.

And so it's, it's strange to me because I keep seeing Layton coming after original sin. He doesn't like the idea that people actually are fallen in Adam and that, you know, they were responsible and it's part of the fall and Adam's sin.

So, and the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin for the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

For if, because of one man's trespass, Adam, and his sin, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who received the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man,

Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification in life for all men.

For as by the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience, the many will be made righteous.

Here's my point. All his attacks in his rebuttal stage of the debate, they're not against Calvinism.

Right. Do you get the point? So, everybody that, you know, look, I'm going to be gracious.

If you're a fan of Leighton and you like his position more than you like the reform position, I just want to encourage you to see this.

Like brother to brother, okay? Brothers to brothers and sisters. He's not attacking

Calvinism here. I mean, when he goes after original sin and Adam and his guilt and spreading to all of us, he's going after Romans 5 and that's my point of this rebuttal.

It's strange to me. It's like, this is a different, this is a different situation. Like, you're not just coming after Calvinism here.

You're coming after the doctrine of original sin. You clearly don't believe it. You don't like it. He's hostile to it.

And there's a connection between the rejection of original sin and understanding and fully appreciating the graciousness of grace.

Yeah. Which is what the text in Romans 5 illustrates. Yeah. I thought it was interesting the example that he gave about skin color.

Mm -hmm. In other words, the implicit accusation is that God shows partiality. Mm -hmm.

Right? These people cannot decide whether or not they're born with a certain skin color, so why is God holding them accountable?

Are you saying that he's partial? I think that's implicit. That's the accusation when, like Romans 2, which is three chapters before Romans 5, specifically says that Jew and Gentile are all equally condemned because God shows no partiality.

Mm -hmm. The law condemns everybody on the basis of the nature that we inherit from Adam, and that is the beginning of understanding what grace is because no one is owed it.

Right. God shows no partiality, so he has to condemn us all equally because all of us have sinned.

Right. That's the point. And if all of us have sinned, there's only one way we can be made right, and that is through God's gracious condescension in revealing himself and providing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for sinners.

Right. Adam gives you this condemnation and death. Jesus gives you the free gift of righteousness and eternal life.

Right? So delivered to you from Adam, delivered to you from the perfect Adam, Jesus. Right?

Yeah, and I think this, again, is what I know gets frustrating is he's built this straw man caricature of what he thinks and claims that Calvinism teaches even though Dr.

White or we or whoever is, at time and time again, like, this is not what we're saying. He continues to say this is what it is and try to burn it down.

And as I was listening to this, it reminds me, like his example, it reminded me of the, kind of the alcoholism perspective where it's like, well, they have a disease,

I can't help it. You know, they have no choice. The disease of addiction. Yeah, and so, you know, they can't help that they're, like, that's the straw man he's building of Calvinism and we would say, no, one.

Now, they, but even someone in that, even someone that is, you know, drunk, to use biblical terms, like, they're still accountable for their sin, you know?

So, I don't, I don't know if that's making sense, but as he was saying that, I was thinking, like, that's, it's like he's using that model to try to say, this is what we're teaching, even though time and time again, we're saying, no, they cannot choose unless God chooses them and allows them to believe and regenerates them, but they're still accountable for their actions.

Yeah, and clearly, the point I want to make here, clearly, is that Leighton is going against, he's coming up against the doctrine of virginal sin.

Yeah. And that's something that's believed by Arminians, Catholics, Reformed.

I mean, so, you're, when you go after that, you're coming against something that, you know, is embraced by people across broad theological spectrums, because the text clearly teaches it.

And so, I just wanted to at least put that out there. That, I found that just odd. I was like, wow, Leighton really doesn't like the doctrine of virginal sin.

And, that just is a point that comes up a couple of times in the debate. There's no reason to feel, might as well feel sorry for this crowd of unbelievers, because they're walking away in unbelief because, secretly,

God didn't really pick them. Jesus doesn't really love them. And, the reason they're walking away is because they weren't picked.

But, that flies in the face of the context. Because in the context, over and over again, he says, you refuse to come to me so that you may have life.

Just like he says in Ezekiel, I don't, I don't desire the death of anyone, declares the sovereign Lord. Come to me, repent, and live, holding out his hands to them.

How do you reconcile the passage over and over and over again of him longing to gather the children under his wings, but they're unwilling?

Now, Layton's been in this for long enough to know the response to those verses.

And, specifically, the last verse that he quoted. Matthew 23, right? I do believe that Layton has done his homework in terms of probably, he's probably read

The Potter's Freedom. I'd give him that. I think that he probably has done his homework. He's read Drawn by the Father by Dr.

White and all that. So, I want to say that I trust that he's done his homework on this. And so, I know that he's listened to people refute the usage of that passage of scripture.

And it's odd that he brings it up here. In Matthew 23, when Jesus is indicting the covenant breaking

Jews and the leadership of Jerusalem, and he gives the seven woes, Jesus then says,

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who stones the prophets and kills those who are sent to her, how often I would have gathered your children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

The whole context there is Jesus is indicting the leadership, the covenant -breaking leadership of Jerusalem.

He gives them the woes. He tells them about the burdens that they won't actually carry. He's indicting them.

He is giving the woes to them. And then he says to the leadership, he says, how often

I would gather your children, but you, you were not willing. He's talking to the leadership of Jerusalem.

This is not some universal peanut butter passage talking about God's desire to save people and you just really can't save people.

The passage says nothing about that. Nothing. So why bring it up? Leighton, you know the passage.

You're well aware of it. I believe you've done your homework at least on this subject. You've listened.

You've read, I'm sure, The Potter's Freedom. So why use a passage that you know has been abundantly and consistently refuted as able to be used in this context?

The passage is about those covenant -breaking leadership in Jerusalem. And so, it's just interesting that we keep using the same things that have been so clearly refuted.

And you were just, you just refuted again. You gave the rebuttal. Here we are on your show once again refuting a passage that has nothing to do with what you're saying.

And it just keeps getting used. And so that's, that's a struggle for me to see that.

Repeated by Isaiah as well. Again, it's Dr. White's burden to establish that this verse teaches unconditional election.

And I never have seen it even mentioned so far. Notice it also says in Isaiah 55, 3 that I mentioned,

Incline your ear, come to me and hear that your soul may live. That seems to think that you're responsible to incline your ear and hear.

So as to live. Dr. White says it's just a passive reality for the ones who were picked. And if you were one of the blessed ones to get picked, then you will incline your ear to hear because he'll cause you to incline your ear to hear.

So all the ones who don't incline their ear to hear, we can just say, well they must not have been picked. Again, never established in the scripture at all.

It's just presupposed. But we should expect that from a presuppositionalist. Because that's what presuppositional apologetics is all about.

Not only do they presuppose everything when they debate atheists, they presuppose stuff when they debate theology too.

Tell me that you have no idea what presuppositional apologetics is about without telling me that you have no idea.

Right there. I'll go out on a limb here and say based upon that, right there, that Professor Flowers has never read a book on presuppositional apologetics.

He's never studied it. You made a huge mistake there, Leighton, and misrepresented presuppositional apologetics.

First of all, the title presuppositional apologetics is not something that Van Til invented himself. It was a title used and ended up being adopted about his position.

But it's not about just simply presuppositions and just believing things ahead of time and then just using those across the board.

Presuppositional apologetics is something that's more in a very ancient tradition about a philosophical way to approach the question of epistemology, a theory of knowledge.

How do we know what we know? And it has to do with the preconditions of intelligibility. It has to do with the foundation of how you know.

And so presuppositional apologetics is very simply, here's for the audience, very simply, that God is the reference point for truth.

That when God speaks, what he says is the truth. That God's word has a self -attesting authority.

And so what we don't have the right to do is reason our way up to God. What we have to say is that scripture is very clear.

It's abundantly clear that Jesus says, I am the truth. Scripture teaches that Christ is the foundation of all knowledge, that in him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Scripture says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Scripture tells us very clearly that God's word is the truth, that God is the truth, that when

God speaks, doesn't have authority. Let me just say, that's the easiest way, that when God speaks, does

God's word have authority? Is God's word true? Now here it is, ready?

In reference to the unbeliever, is God's word the truth and is it the foundation of all knowledge, despite the unbeliever's rejection of it?

And the answer to that, every Christian should answer in the affirmative. Of course God's word is the truth, regardless of their objection to it or their resistance to it.

And so listen, presuppositional apologetics is really talking about an epistemic question.

How do we know, with certainty, and that's what it's about. And so he clearly doesn't understand presuppositional apologetics and know, to connect that, presuppositional apologetics, which is about the preconditions of intelligibility, it's about epistemology and a theory of knowledge, it's a revelational epistemology, to connect that and say, well he's a presuppositional apologist, and so of course he's presupposing

Calvinism and just putting it on the text. To connect those two things, one is about epistemology and it's a grounding for epistemology and a theory of knowledge, how do you know what you know, and to say, and therefore, because he's a presuppositionalist, therefore he presupposes

Calvinism and just puts it onto the text, shows that you have no idea what this realm of discussion is about.

And what I would encourage you to do, Leighton, and I'll even buy the books, and I mean that graciously to you, I'll send them to you, I'll send you five or six great books on presuppositional apologetics or revelational epistemology so that you can actually learn about what it is about, rather than going and making public errors like this that are now on record.

Leighton, you don't know what you're talking about with presuppositional apologetics, and it's clear to me that you've not studied the subject, and so the fact that you brought it up here and you connected it to Calvinism and all this and say, because look, just because the word presuppositional is there, again, it wasn't something

Van Till coined himself, just because the word presupposition is there doesn't mean, and therefore,

James just presupposes Calvinism as he goes to the text. Right? I mean, seriously, let's try it another way.

Let's just try this discussion another way. So, let's say you're debating somebody, Leighton, let's pretend we're on the same team for a moment, okay?

In the discussion of the Trinity, let's say together, Leighton, you and I are on the street, and we're out doing evangelism, and we're calling people to repent and believe in Christ, and someone comes up to us and they deny the

Trinity, right? Now, they come up to us and they say, I don't believe in the Trinity, I believe it's false,

I believe it's just tradition, and what you're doing, guys, is you're simply presupposing the tradition of the

Trinity and you're just placing that on the text. What would you and I say to that, Leighton? Wouldn't we say the same thing?

Wouldn't we say, no, no, no, no, no. No, it's the text that teaches the

Trinity. How do we know that we are doing that? Like, how do we know that this is

Christian belief? From where do we get that? We would say, we believe in the Trinity because the

Bible teaches the Trinity, and we would give examples, texts from Old and New Testament that there's only one

God, Isaiah 43 .10, before me there was no God, neither shall there be after me, Isaiah 44 .6, I am the first, I am the last, besides me there is no

God, is there a God besides me? Indeed, there is no other God, I know not one, he is God alone in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is no other.

We would just go verse after verse, one God, monotheism, monotheism, monotheism, oh, and look, the

Father is called God, oh, and look, and Jesus is called God, and look, Jesus calls the Father God, the Father calls

Jesus God, Hebrews 1, the Holy Spirit is called God, and yet there's a distinction in persons, and so we would say, we believe in the

Trinity because the Bible teaches the Trinity, and lo and behold, yes, praise the Lord, through conflict throughout the ages of the

Church and throughout the centuries, through conflict, the Church has defended what the Bible says about the triune nature of God, and we've formulated creeds, and we've had councils, and we have confessions, and yes, it's a

Christian tradition, but the fact that it's a Christian tradition doesn't mean we impose the tradition onto the

Bible to try to find it in the Bible. No, the Bible teaches it, and then the tradition forms, and guess what?

We would say, as Reformed folks, that's precisely the issue with the doctrines of grace and Reformed theology and Calvinism.

We're not saying, here's our theological system, we're running off to the Bible to see if we find it. We're saying, look, the

Bible consistently teaches something about the nature of fallen man. It teaches something about us being haters of God and not righteous and non -God -seeking and not able to come to God apart from the drawing of the

Father. It says we're dead in our sins and trespasses, that we're enslaved to our sin. It says we're haters of God. It says we're enemies of God.

That's what the Bible teaches. Sounds a lot like what happened when they described total depravity and total inability, right?

And so that's what we're saying, and again, to say, well, he's a presuppositional apologist, so he's just presupposing

Calvinism and going to the text with it. Again, shows that you don't know what presuppositional apologetics is. You should be embarrassed that you made the connection there.

You should be embarrassed that you demonstrated publicly that you don't know what it is and you haven't studied this subject, and that's just not how this works.

It's the text that creates the system. That's where it goes. And, Leighton, you do the same thing with the

Trinity, and so let's be fair to one another. Well, I think this claim is awfully ironic.

One, you know, he accuses James of not showing the text, which, and he says there's nowhere in Scripture does it teach this, and I was like, well, actually, the text in question, pretty clear that it does teach this.

James has explained that time and time again. And if you guys listen, the show we did before this debate, I warned everyone.

I said, he's going to be doing some ballroom dancing in order to make this work, and that's exactly what he does. He, when he actually attempts to get into the text, he goes to the very last verse, right, and he puts his presupposition in the last verse.

Reads it in. And then goes, works backwards in order to make that work. So it's awfully ironic that he's accusing

James of reading Calvinism into the text when that's the very thing that he does and that he can't answer for. Well, he does it in a moment here, too, with John 3.

Let's get to it. Let's do it. What do they do? They presuppose Calvinism. They presuppose

Stulip. S before Tulip, the sovereignty, meaning, right, determinism.

They presuppose that when they walk into the text. And so they believe God decreed for everyone to be born, unable to believe truth revealed by God unless you were picked before you were born and irresistibly caused to believe.

He starts with those presuppositions. And if those presuppositions are false, then don't you all agree that would lead to a bad interpretation?

Of course it would. And I have every right to challenge his presuppositions. This happened in the Romans 9 debate, too.

I challenged his presuppositions and what does he do? He doesn't exegete the text. He just jumps all over the place.

He just, nobody can follow what he's saying. What's really happening? He's not engaging with the point of discussion.

The question of the debate is not who can read through the Bible and tell people what you think it means. The question of the debate is which of these two chapters establishes

Calvinism. And Dr. White is not engaging that debate. Listen, I have presuppositions, too.

We both have traditions. Dr. White's known for saying, hey, your tradition will guide your exegesis. It'll guide where you go.

I agree with that. But he has to recognize he has a tradition, too. It started with Augustine. And that tradition is an

Augustinian tradition of TULIP. And he reads that tradition into, he whitewashes

John chapter 6 is what he does. And he brings his Calvinism into John 6 so when it says no one can, he reads the

T of TULIP. Was that supposed to be like a pot shot? Like a whitewash? That's what he does. It's counseling.

Or, or, John 6, 44, no man is able to come to me, no man can, just happens to teach what people are saying with total inability.

Maybe, maybe the Calvinists are just trying to be honest with the text and saying, look, the text says no one is able.

I think it means that. Right? Like, maybe that's what, maybe that's the case. Is that we actually want to believe that text that no man can come to me

UNLESS the Father who is in me draws him and I will raise him up. Um, maybe it's not as nefarious.

Maybe it's not just so much about presuppositions. Maybe it is exegetical. Maybe it is what the debate is about.

That the text says no man can come to me. I do appreciate that Leighton is willing to say that he has presuppositions and he has traditions as well.

That's good. We should all be honest about that. The question is whether our traditions are actually being informed by and founded by the text.

But, uh, I want you to pay close attention to something that happens here. He's arguing that it's James who's reading his tradition into the text.

Whitewashing it. And what I want to, I want to ask everyone to do. Whoever, look, it doesn't matter who your favorite is in the debate.

Okay, listen. I want to ask everyone to do is just ask the question as you go through this debate. Ask the question who was trying their best as a fallible human being to stick with the text and let the text speak, right?

Like, be consistent. Read it in a line. Make all the parts come together so that you're not tearing it up.

Just ask the question who's letting the text speak and not reading something into it like you're going to see in a moment here.

He sees, unless they're given by the father, he reads the unconditional, the you of the tulip. And then he sees, unless they're drawn, and he makes the word draw into a irresistible force and now he has the

I of tulip. All established right there in a neat little package. And you may say, well, Leighton, don't you have presuppositions?

Yes, but I don't have to get my presuppositions from Augustine. I don't have to get them from even Paul or a

Calvinistic reading of Paul. I can get them from the book of John. Because you know what my three presuppositions are?

Okay, here we go. So ready? Leighton makes a claim here that I'm not reading my presuppositions into the text.

I just have presuppositions that are just from the text. Okay, so he says he can get them from John. Let's see if he's doing that.

Let's see if he's just letting the text feed what presuppositions he's committed to.

Here we go. John 3 .16. God loved the world and everyone in it. Stop. Now I'm reading from the

English standard version. Sorry, that got me. I'm not sure which version Leighton is reading from, but the whole contention here is that I've got presuppositions, but I'm just letting the text make my presuppositions.

I'm not reading something into the text. For God so loved the world and what? Everyone in it?

Wait a second. It sounds like you've got a system and you've got a tradition about what the word world means there and you just literally extended it into the text.

Yeah, I took some liberties there. You took a lot of liberties, and everybody who has this memorized from every football game that there is knows that's not how

I memorized it. I think the text says for God so loved the world. Here we go. Christ came to die for the sins of the world and everyone in it.

I don't know which version of the

Bible we're reading, but that's not what the text says. He's literally, look, brothers and sisters,

I'm going to show as much respect to the man as I possibly can. The point he was making is that James is reading his system into the text and Leighton's saying,

I don't do that. I just get it from John. And as he quotes from John 3, 16, everyone in it

Everybody that hasn't memorized is squinting right now going. That's not how

I haven't memorized because what's actually happening is he's displaying in his rebuttal as he makes an accusation against Pastor James that it's actually

Leighton who's doing that with the text. He's literally reading his presuppositions and traditions into the text and going so far as literally to add words to the text as he's quoting it.

Maybe he's reading conflate in 316. Yeah. The LFV. So that anyone whoever can believe so as to be saved.

Those are my presuppositions. Except in this very debate. You were corrected

Professor Flowers when you tried to accuse Pastor James of how did he?

How did he say it? Like a reframing John 3, 16. I was thinking about that. And then and then Pastor James corrected you and said, no,

I'm just accurately translating the Greek. It's every believing one so that every believing one would have everlasting life.

And so actually this is the most spectacular example of a person who is projecting.

You are saying this guy is doing this when in the debate. Nobody can find an example of Pastor James and Pastor James is not perfect man.

He's not the perfect debater. He's a fallible human being. No one's saying that at all. But you're projecting saying this is what he's doing.

But if everyone watches the debate they'll see that actually Pastor James was trying to fight very hard to make sure he's just going to the text and drawing from it.

But in that very example, Leighton, you do the very thing you're accusing

James of doing. And that's a problem that really is genuinely a problem. You made some mistakes here in your rebuttal.

Look, we all do. We're all fallible human beings. But Leighton, you made mistakes here with a lot of confidence.

And you made some serious mistakes of misrepresentation. And at this very stage here you demonstrated that actually you are the one that's tradition driven.

And we can move on. Anything else you want to add to that, guys? No. I think it's clear enough.

So next point is this was this is a tough part of the debate.

So if you guys haven't seen the debate yet, it gets some sparks fly.

Some testy. It gets testy at a few points. And this point when I was watching this live, when

I saw it, I was actually shocked. I saw James' face here, how shocked he was that this happened.

I was very shocked that this happened. Over the course of a few weeks or maybe a month or so before this debate happened, there was this

Balgate, there was this controversy surrounding children who die in infancy and reform theology and there was this sort of back and forth.

But it's not the kind of thing that belongs in the debate on John 6, 44.

What's the text teach? It was a changing of the subject of debate. It was adding something in cross -examination that doesn't allow for people to have an appropriate opportunity to have a presentation that can make sense of any of it.

In other words, I would say this was an abuse of this moment and I think it's not helpful to the audience and it happened.

He brings up the issue of children who die in infancy. I'll just say quickly because I know we're probably low on time and I've gotten asked about this but I think that Dr.

White exhibited a lot of patience during cross -ex. One thing that Layton doesn't understand in cross -ex is it's not a time to be preachy when he's supposed to be asking the questions.

He didn't really allow James an opportunity to answer questions and he was using that time to just preach and make assertions which is not how it's supposed to work.

I just said that if these are actually descriptions of the effective actions of God that the debate is over, that my understanding is correct, and I'm simply asking you, it is fundamentally necessary for you, if you're going to deal with the text, for you to be able to explain why the scriptural citation from either

Isaiah 54 or Jeremiah 31 is different than you have to explain why you're making that distinction from the text or just admit

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

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

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

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

Nice cover for not being able to answer the question, but I'm done. Thank you. So, got a little heated there, and no, didn't answer the question because if anybody goes to John 6 and just says let the text speak, you'll see that it's very, very clear that the text clearly teaches that the father draws, the father teaches, they listen, they learn, and it's as a result of this perfect will of God for the people given to Christ that he's going to raise up, and it's something that's effectual.

The father draws, Jesus raises him up, and this was the hymn that couldn't come, that had no ability to come, and Layton doesn't like that.

Layton doesn't like that sinful man has no ability to come. He doesn't like that being heralded.

He doesn't like people to hang on that, but the text says it. It says the father draws the one that has no ability to come, and Jesus raises him up.

That's what the text says. So, but it gets a little further here. This is what happens as it switches. All right.

Let's pick up back with Rob the reprobate. Okay? Let's say

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

He's born that way. He can't help it. False assumption. I'm not going to bother with answering questions based on false assumptions. I'm using your words.

By default, they are unable to believe. That's your words. There's a lot more to the expression of default. Okay. Thank you.

All right. So, this man, Rob, was guilty because of Adam's sin.

You mentioned that. And so, if Rob had been aborted when he was a baby, or he died when he was an infant, would he have faced the same fate as a non -elect infant?

Oh, my goodness. Mr. Moderator, are we going to stick to John 6, or are we going to start wandering into everything?

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

No, but we came here to debate John 6, and you're trying to drag it onto other things, which is what you've done before.

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

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

I'm demonstrating by this line of questions. It's demonstrably unjust and inconsistent within the ranks of Calvinism to say that people are condemned for something they have no control over, and what better illustrates that than an infant that dies?

So, in reality, in reality, what you're really coming against here is a doctrine of original sin.

Does everyone understand? That's the issue, and so if you're a Christian, whatever side you're on, whether you're the

Calvinist, whether you're Arminian, or whether you're the Provisionist, or like I said, even Roman Catholic, in terms of like they believe in the doctrine of original sin, we have to understand that the problem here for all of us is that we live in a fallen world and we are sinners against a holy

God, and this is a question about original sin. Are people born in sin?

Is Romans 5 true on the face of it? Is that true? So here's the point.

How does this belong in a debate over John 644? That's the question first and foremost.

I thought we were supposed to be doing John 644, and you're bringing up this whole discussion over here and talking about infants and their salvation.

We're talking about the doctrine of original sin. That's a whole different debate. Have a debate on this subject if you wanted to.

I mean, I've done a lot of funerals for dead babies. I've stood over the bodies of dead babies and buried them, and so it's a very sensitive subject for me.

I've had children die in the womb, and so this isn't the kind of subject I think we need to just play fast and loose with.

But here's what I think everyone has to get. If you believe in the doctrine of original sin, no matter where you're at on the theological spectrum of Calvinism or Minnianism or whatever, we all have to deal with the issue, right?

It's an issue that Scripture doesn't talk a ton about. Not directly. Yeah, not directly.

You've got great examples of God, you know, saving people, saving babies and filling babies with the Holy Spirit from the womb.

But look, I'll just throw out one thing on this. First of all, this does not belong in the debate on John 644.

There's no way to make excuses for it. It doesn't belong in the debate on John 644. Not if you actually want to know what

John 644 teaches. But, you know, if we want to engage in philigesis, okay,

I get it. If that's how you want to appeal to the audience, you can But if you believe in Romans 5, if you believe in Romans 5, that death spreads to all men, then you've got to deal with this problem, not just as a

Calvinist, provisionist, Arminian, you've got to deal with the problem. And I actually think the

Calvinist has the most hope here. Because we believe that God has a free, totally free, sovereign will and power to give grace and mercy and salvation to whomever he pleases.

And we believe that it is God himself who draws the dead sinner. We believe that it is God himself who regenerates the dead sinner.

We believe that it's God himself, Philippians 129, who gives the gift of faith. And we believe that God can do that in a baby and in a grown adult.

It is God who has the freedom to do all those things. So actually, I think that the Reformed position, the

Calvinist position, is the most hopeful position for children who die in infancy. Because you would have to say, look, yeah, we're all born in sin.

But you know, you need to listen, you need to learn, you need to respond, you need to have faith. So where's there hope for the infant in that system?

In the womb? Or in the early stages when they're born? Where's the hope for them in that system?

From the Reformed perspective, if you want to have this conversation, I think that we have the most hope in this area, that God has the same freedom to save infants as he does adults.

And he's, look, he's given us an example with John the Baptist. John the Baptist is filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.

And so I tend to just simply say, the judge of all the earth will always do right, and God has the power to raise every baby to spiritual life and to grant faith to them.

It doesn't matter if they're in the womb, in the earliest stages of gestation, it doesn't make a difference. God is powerful enough to do the saving and the drawing and the regenerating.

I think it's my system that has the most hope for infants who die in salvation, in, sorry, in infancy.

And so, anyway, my point is, you know, how does this belong in the debate on John 644?

It doesn't. And, you know, I saw, I didn't, I didn't really watch the video, but I did see the thumbnail, like the mocking thumbnail.

Leighton loves to do those things. The mocking thumbnail of like Pastor James, like tattletailing on Leighton.

He was like on the board, right? White board, like I will not tattletail or something like that. And it's just like, you know, look, that's, that's bad.

That's not the way to handle this. Like James had a right to appeal to the moderator and simply say, hey, this is going off course.

We're not in the debate anymore. He had a right to appeal to him. That's not tattletailing. You're in a public moderated debate and you're changing the subject of the debate.

It's right to appeal to the moderator. That's why the moderator is there. Yeah. He said it's demonstrably unjust for God to do this.

What do you think about Romans nine? Kind of goes back to the Romans nine debate. There's that section that is talking about Jacob and Esau in the womb before they had done either good or bad.

God's purpose and election would continue. And it specifically says in that, what shall we say then?

Is there injustice on God's part? By no means. Right. Whereas he would answer the question, yes.

Yeah. There is injustice on God's part. Yeah. I just think it's interesting that a precise example of God's purpose and election is given with two children in the womb before they were born.

And had done anything good or bad. So that God's purpose and election would continue because he shows mercy upon whom he will and compassion upon whom he wills.

That's what the text says. Yeah. I was just going to say we got some latent apologists in the chat

Oh, good. Hi, guys. Welcome. I'm glad you're here. Last point here. Let's just play this last point.

Had you come to me, I would give you life. It's over, repeated over. Even John eight, as you like to preach about, if they belong to God, they would come to Jesus.

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

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

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

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

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

A remnant do listen and learn and believe and therefore he reserves them. They're the lost sheep of Israel and those are the ones he's going to bring to his son.

So just quickly, reference for everybody to read. John 10 is one of my favorite passages in all of scripture.

It is so sweet to me, so precious to me. It's the place that I go often when

I'm dealing with the conflicts of this awful sinful fallen world. It is a precious, precious section of scripture to me, always will be.

But in John chapter 10, the Lord Jesus, you'll remember everybody. He says that he's a good shepherd. He lays his light down for the sheep.

He says that his sheep hear his voice. He says he has other sheep that are not of this fold. He must bring them also. And then in John 10, verse 22, it says at that time, the feast of the dedication took place at Jerusalem.

It was winter and Jesus was walking the temple in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, how long will you keep us in suspense?

If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them. I told you, and you do not believe the works that I do in my father's name.

Bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

You do not believe because you are not among my sheep. His whole argument there is they belong to God because they believe, because they listened, they heard, they believed.

So they belong to God because of what they did. He's answering their unbelief and he says very clearly, he says, you don't believe because you are not among my sheep.

My sheep hear my voice and they come. So Jesus has it the other way, doesn't he?

He has people given to him by the father. He has sheep who will hear his voice and he says over here to these ones who do not believe, you don't believe because you are not among my sheep.

It's not because they don't listen? Right, exactly. So it's exactly the reverse. So Layton's position, take it, you know, give the man the respect for putting his position out there, but take his position and what he just said in terms of like which order this comes in and then go to John chapter 10 and say is that how

Jesus explains this? And I would say no, I think the text is very clear. Reserved because of what they do, right?

They're the ones They refused to bow and need a bell. That's what they did. What they did is why they were reserved by God, right?

They responded in faith just like Doesn't the text actually say I've kept for myself?

That's a good point. Yeah. Doesn't the text actually say God's power. God is saying

I have kept for myself 7 ,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal?

I did this. Yeah, that's what God says. It's his doing. Scripture says. So you are introducing a distinction between Pontus and Pause when there's only two words in between them because you seem to be saying everyone hearing from the father is different than all who are taught by God.

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

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

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

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

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

Tulip would be true and I don't think your presupposition is true. And there was a debate folks.

That admission I think is what people have to take and say, okay,

Leighton grants it. If that's what the text is actually saying, if that's how the text is coherently communicating this idea of drawing and listening and learning, that admission by Leighton I think gave the whole debate.

If what Pastor James was saying in terms of walking through the text and pulling all the text together and saying they're all connected, they're all speaking here, a consistent message, if that's true on James, his exegesis is true.

If what he's saying is true, then the debate goes to Pastor James in terms of does John 644 teach unconditional election?

Yes, it does. And Leighton admits that. And so I think that's where people have to go is listen to the debate and say, okay, who is handling the text the most faithfully?

Who is letting the text speak? Who is reading things into the text? I don't remember Augustine being brought up by James in terms of something that he was following or how he got his understanding of the text.

Let's just put all the stuff aside and say what's the text say and who's following it most closely and being faithful to it.

just a pot shot where James is trying to say this is what the text says and then it's just like, oh no, you just want to say what

Augustine believed, as if to say your belief of the text came well after the text was given.

Yeah. So we just wanted to spend a little bit of time today talking about the debate.

We're going to actually head over to the after show at apologiastudios .com. Do a little bit over there at the after show, apologiastudios .com.

Thank you, guys, everybody who's part of All Access with us. And let me turn this down.

We actually have some super chats, but before we do the super chats, we've got to let everybody know about a couple other things. Support the people who support

Apologia Radio. Go to ionlayer .com, i -o -n -layer .com.

Go research NAD benefits. NAD benefits, you're going to see a ton of really great information, how it can bless your physical well -being.

Ionlayer .com, solid Christian dudes, amazing, amazing technology and product, where you can get all the benefits of NAD without IV treatments, which is extraordinarily painful, not just because of the prick, but because of NAD going in your system that way.

It actually is very painful, difficult, but the benefits are amazing. You can get it through a medical patch that you get no pain, only the benefits of NAD.

Ionlayer .com, type in APOLOGIA in all caps in the coupon code, you're going to get a discount, and I'll be blessing

Apologia because they bless us with everybody who starts that Ionlayer kit every month, and it's a blessing.

I've been doing it for a long time now. It's truly blessed my life and my wife's life. We absolutely are committed to doing it.

It's fantastic. And so look Yeah. I just want to direct everyone to go to amtechblades .com.

We just love Bill. We love what he's doing. It was funny if you guys watch last week, I had the our

Germans were here and I was like, hey, check out these blades. And Peter was like ripped it out and slice his finger.

They're very sharp. Got to be very careful with these. But Bill's amazing. He's a good brother, an expert in killing people, things and animals and all manner of things.

You know that this blade was made by somebody who knows how to use it. He's a Navy SEAL. Dev grew

SEAL Team six. One of the most legendary Navy SEALs this last generation. You know that you know that that blade was made by Navy SEAL.

Trust me. Absolutely. So you go apology in the coupon code to get 5 % off and he matches that with 5 % in abortion now, which is amazing.

We didn't ask him for that. That was his little throwing, which is great. And of course, please visit heritagedefense .org.

If you're homeschooling your children, you need to sign up with them. I keep saying that I mean it. I'm not just trying to not just trying to sell a product.

We actually I reached out to him and was like, can we help promote you guys because people need this. So you can go to heritagedefense .org

put an apology in the coupon code and get your first month free. Thank you everyone for the super chats. Andrew Harper.

Thank you brother so much for that super chat. Jeff, would you ever debate latent? If so, what topic appreciate the ministry answered that Andrew at the beginning of the show today.

Just go back and listen to that. No, I wouldn't debate latent. Just like I said, the beginning of the show.

I lost a lot of respect for interaction with him in the past with, you know, finding the worst possible picture of me to put up where I look silly and goofy to put it up in his thumbnail to get clicks.

I don't have any, I don't have any respect for that kind of interaction. And I've just seen things over the years where he will misrepresent and essentially lie about what you were saying and teaching and he did it in one of my sermons about church history.

He misrepresented me completely and I don't have respect for people like that in terms of any investment interaction.

Look, and here's the thing. To be honest with you, I just adopted twins, preemies, spent over two months in the hospital and they're home now.

One still, you know, medically fragile and got some medical difficulties. We're still getting adjusted to that as a family.

I've got all of my responsibilities to my family, to other to end abortion now, to Apologia Studios, and now

I have Durban 2 .0. Most of my kids are grown out of the house, have their own kids now, and now

I have a brand new restart, Durban 2 .0. I've got a four -year -old boy we adopted and I've got twin girls and so we're trying to figure out how to manage all these things right now.

So any investment I have in a debate at which I have some plans and some ideas for some wouldn't be with someone like Leighton.

And I don't mean that as a brother in Christ. He still professes the faith, but in terms of an investment in interaction with somebody who behaves that way, no.

Dennis, fine art, thank you. Thumbs up. Right on. Thumbs up.

Thank you so much. Bless you guys. Don't forget everybody. If you just get into this, we need you to help us with End Abortion Now.

We've got bills across the country right now. We need your support. Endabortionnow .com is where you can go to sign up with your church to get free training and resources to go save lives yourself.

And please go there to give financially. It is a huge, huge undertaking to do what we're doing.

And it takes a lot of support, a lot of prayer, and it requires a certain financial foundation to do it.

And we need that help from you guys. Endabortionnow .com. Don't forget to show up in Georgia on April 11th.

Praise Mill Church at what time? We'll put the link in the thread.

six, but let us get you there. Yeah, we'll put the link in the thread. We'll put the link in the thread. We'll put the link in the thread.