Debate Review PT.1 | James White vs Leighton Flowers & John 6:44 w/ @AKRichardson

All right, everybody welcome to the program it is Saturday and we're are we're going to review, you know

Really? It's the debate that everybody else is talking about. But so we brought Jeremiah Nortier here to To review the debate.

Well not much here just working through all kinds of Topics one of them is this debate?

I had one chance to see it and of course now I brought Jeremiah on for a couple reasons number one because we are

We're going to review it with the opposing viewpoints of the debate and I think that in of itself is interesting.

We can kind of we're gonna debate the debate Hey, Jeremiah, you're wrong. I'm like Al stop it

I'll say that that'll happen But also because Jeremiah was there he was in person

Actually, and so on that note for everybody who didn't notice I Got to just through his son this and of course the

Oh Yeah, I saw you I didn't I didn't see that the first time my my five seconds of fame right there

Yeah now How was the audio on that by the way? It was good on my end.

I just asked people Shane Fisher said fine Sparky said sounds good.

So all right because the The debate audio seemed to be quiet, but we'll see how it goes.

All right, so now you guys can ask questions I mentioned that in the thumbnail As we go through it send a question at Jeremiah or at me and I can't say that I'll Get every one of them because we are going to be primarily dealing with the debate

Material, but I'll try to pick them out as we move along to get you guys involved and we can kind of Excuse me.

We can kind of throw it back and forth a little bit We can offer some rebuttals here this is not this isn't any kind of debate it's not a formatted but Around to with a

K like that not prepared I've been trying to get you on here for quite a while.

Yes, which I do want to say That about that it took me about two months to get this new studio

BAM got some of that Johnny Mac up there And then we were gonna do a show

I contacted you had some family issues and then I had David Lewis on and you're like guys, what the heck?

I've been trying to connect with y 'all and y 'all leave me y 'all left me Yeah, well, you know

David said he was coming on but we'll have to get that going. All right, but I Appreciate everybody in the audience

Got a good number right here 14. It's not it's nothing like the apologetic dog audience, but I'm I appreciate every single

Every single person you had. Dr. Why don't here instead of me? It would be different Well, that's true.

That's true Next time he's on yours Tell him the mosey on over to just so you know, and you know this

I just want about us to know When I talked to Jeffrey Rice and dr. Watt about future debate opponents.

I'm always trying to throw a case name in there Well, I appreciate that well, so And when you guys ask the questions, we'll try to we might have some responses to each other

But we're gonna keep those briefs we can keep moving along. Well, we got one already see so let's

Let's start off. So Adam Carmichael a case faith the condition for election Well, I agree at the Calvinist here that it's absolutely a condition for Election Yeah, now this this is a good talk point because It kind of depends what you mean like faith is a response to the gospel

But unconditional election kind of pulling back the curtains and saying like who is God?

What does that eternal counsel look like? what's the exegesis in context of Ephesians chapter 1 and then obviously in John 6, you know, does that support, you know differing theories?

But yeah, that's kind of where it all boils down to Yeah, so what I have said is that When we say reformed theology so reformed theology has unconditional

Election, but that's not unconditional salvation because Calvinist and reformed, you know, some people don't like to be called

Calvinist I just mean it generally they do believe you have to believe to be saved right, but they believe

God Chooses who will be so it's unconditional election. It is not unconditional Salvation I mean and doesn't is you would you say that represents what you were saying just a second ago?

Yeah I mean I think as long as it's qualified that in real time there has to be a response to the gospel which is faith apart from works and Unconditional election really is addressing why some people believe and why some others reject

Okay. Well, let me pull up the debate. I'm starting at the cross -examination. I think that's where The best stuff is we'll go through as much as we can

So so now Jeremiah anytime you want to make a point just say stop and I'll stop it.

I do have I want to make I Really wish I knew who this person was in the chat and unapologetic cat.

Someone's trolling me hard and I love it Yeah, I saw that I got no idea never heard of them

Okay Now I hope everybody could hear this the audio was kind of soft

At least on his end. It may not be everybody else and hopefully it's not All right. So now I do want to set up some background here.

Now if you didn't see the debate Obviously, you know from the title it's a debate on John chapter 6 John chapter 6 is one of the big passages for the issues of Typically known as Calvinism before theology obviously the debate was about whether it contains the idea of unconditional election which

James White affirms and Jeremiah here affirms Which is typically known as a

Calvinistic doctrine or a reformed doctrine and actually Jeremiah is of the same both you and James White are reformed

Baptist, right? Yes, as we continue to maybe get into this

I've learned so much from dr White and I believe you because you came and visited 12 -5 when he came and spoke and so he's been very influential in my life

So yeah, I just encourage people to check out some of his books Even if you disagree, I remember

Shane Fisher has messaged me like what are some good? Resources to kind of learn the reformed

Baptist perspective and dr. White wrote the book The God Who Justifies and so I recommend that book a lot of times

Yeah now so James White believing in unconditional election believes that God Unconditionally before creation.

This is the reformed Belief that he God before creation

Unconditionally chose which individuals he would save Unconditioned means that there's nothing about the person

There is no condition about them that he that he looks for to choose them rather. He chooses for his own mysterious good pleasure about who he will save and And then the rest of the tube, of course, but this is unconditional election now

Layton Flowers, of course, I do hold very similar as far as I know view to him in general

Of course, he's a Baptist too, isn't that right? Yep Alright, so he's a Baptist too now

We would disagree on a few things and I don't know a lot about Layton Flowers debate I will say this now

Just as a little bit of a background. I used to listen in my old job I used to listen to audio all the time and for James White I listened to countless countless hours for years

Of James White not just on reformed theology, but on a lot of things that I agree with him on He's I like James White a lot

When I first started hearing about Layton Flowers, it was just because of James White talking about him, I Eventually did see the

Romans 9 debate. I mean, it's been a long time. I wouldn't too impressed again That's just from old memory there and eventually

I did cease start watching some of his videos because Everybody was talking about him with when they were talking about James White So But on John chapter 6 now

Romans 9 I disagree with Layton Flowers on His view on what it means in the passage when it says for whom he foreknew

I believe Layton Flowers believes it refers to old Israelites Yep, that's not my view.

I don't have the same view but Can I ask you a question real quick on that and you can touch on this as much as little

Are you familiar with the class like what's Classically referred to as the classic Arminian perspective when it comes to foreknowledge

Do you know if you kind of hold to that or if it's nuanced? Well, okay. So are you talking about the the belief that God looks ahead to see who believes or who will believe?

Well, it's that mixed in with God can in some way Restrain his own sovereignty well

Okay. Well that seems Sovereignty is not really the same thing as foreknowledge though, right?

Right, right as far as foreknowledge from what I understand. I mean that they believe in some cases

That God looks ahead in time to see who will believe and then chooses them ahead of time

And there's something like that Yeah, and like in our debate, I'd love to reference people to go check out on your channel or my channel

We kind of got into some of the nuances of Libertarian free will and how it necessarily relates back to who who

God is and that's kind of going back to Calvinism is I can only speak to my side a

K of When people are like why Calvinist? Why do you think these proof texts proof Calvinism and something that dr

White said many years ago. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this as he says when you look at the acrostic Tulip the five points.

He said that necessarily presupposes the s now sovereignty We all agree with that word. But what does that mean?

The reformed is kind of committed to saying absolute sovereignty Includes a divine determinism sovereign purpose of whatsoever comes to pass and he's always said that's the bedrock for Tulips, so he's always said stulip is really how it should be understood

And I've also tried to explain to people you got to start with who God is And then once we understand who

God is according to how he's revealed himself Then we just need to be consistent as we study like an anthropology and who main is from there.

Yeah, okay now Well, so just to respond to the poor knowledge thing. That's not my view.

I don't believe God looks ahead to learn I don't believe he learns I'm definitely not myself omniscient about God's omniscience

There's some difficulties there, but I don't believe he looks ahead to learn but so you asked about sovereignty and so my view is

God is absolutely sovereign now Calvinist and reformed theologians.

They talk about God's sovereignty and to me and Not to debate this issue particularly but you did ask

I believe what they mean when they say sovereign is at least they include the concept that really as you mentioned that he

Determines everything. I don't believe that's the definition of sovereignty and the idea of God restraining his sovereignty.

Well, I wouldn't say that I Would say because he is sovereign he could choose not to do certain things if he wants to just allow

His creature of man to make choices that he God himself doesn't

Determine irresistibly in some sense then he can do that. That's not a restraint of sovereignty. That's a restraint of at acts that's a restraint of Doing something, you know but he's sovereign even when he's doing that because if he wasn't he wouldn't have the ability to do that if he wasn't he couldn't

Choose to do that, but the very fact that he could choose to let somebody else choose means he possesses the right to do it

That's my view We'll have to go round two on that one of these days Okay, everybody. You heard it round two.

It's coming up soon. Oh, yeah I was gonna say though I forgot about this now not everybody in my audience knows

Jeremiah probably most do I mean that's not like I have a huge audience yet, but Anybody doesn't know you

I told you I'd give you a Opportunity to say whatever you want screens bigger a little bit before we dive in video.

I want people to see that studio BAM. Hey pastor Nathan who you met at 12 -5. He's working on building me

A neon logo of the apologetic dog to fit on those back panels. So look forward to that.

That's cool Yeah, so my name is Jeremiah nortier you can find a lot of my

Apologetic content at you can kind of see the name here the apologetic dog YouTube channel Look for the bearded dog and you know, you've arrived at the same place

Please know my heart even though maybe some of a K's audience and other people tuning in that that disagree with me

I don't think that a person has to be reformed in order to be saved What's at the core of my apologetics ministry?

You'll see first Timothy 620 floating around and logo on my site and things like that But Paul tells

Timothy Oh Timothy guard the deposit that's been entrusted to you and so I think he's talking about the the gospel of grace and it is a

Gospel of grace that looks to the finished work of Jesus and faith Apart from our works and so you can look at a lot of my content to see what

I mean more by that So I appreciate you having me on a K. I know we wanted to do something like this ever since our debate

I know we kind of wanted to talk about our debate from the last summer But just so much time has passed

But I had fun. That was my second in -person debate and I think that was your second in -person debate as well

It's my second the first one was not ever made public but yes, well, actually

I think that back I suppose It was a third one. I had I had one when I was really young and what

I mean, I didn't know what I was doing really but That wasn't really that didn't make the rounds either. No, you don't preach in the pulpit

So you're very articulate speaker now. I say you don't preach. Do you preach? Yeah, I'm the primary preacher at Awesome.

I did I was not where are all your sermons at then? Well, we don't record them. I mean we just it's a small congregation

I have thought about getting the camera and I thought about that recently starting to record some of those Now I'll start doing that.

All right, so So once again, this ought to be interesting for everybody because I just want to emphasize the same two viewpoints that oppose each other as the debate

And what kind of debate now? I like to be disciplined about what my what my objective is in any video or debate you know, it's we can go on forever debating with some topic or another that we reference as far as our disagreements in these issues, but I tend to Do it a little bit and then try to stay focused, you know, some people say well

Why don't you go and talk about that issue more? Well, it's just it's just because the I try to stay with the objective

We're reviewing the issues as it pertains to John 6 I'm gonna remind you again. You could ask questions throughout the discussion

We might pause and answer those as we did Just make at Jeremiah or at me and we'll take a look.

All right, Jeremiah. You're ready to start listening. Let's go All right

Here we go, this is the cross -examination and white is up first we

I don't know if we'll even get the Flowers been Dr.

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

Hey I don't know if everybody else can I can hear it, but I don't see anything. You don't see the video

Well, that's weird. I see it. Okay Anybody else? Okay.

Anybody else not see the video. So I'm wait for Well, that's weird why can't now why would they not be able to see it see you can see it just fine earlier, right

Yep, I could that's weird. All right.

Let me remove it and try it again See, I haven't used

I haven't used stream yard and so long We gotta get you with that. He came live

Yeah, is it free That's why you got a pay -to -play Yeah, all right, so I got a tab

How about now? Yep. Yep. Yep All right. Let's try it again come to Christ The drawing is the teaching just like you say in your own book you actually ask the question

How does God draw them by teaching them? I agreed with you on that point He draws by teaching and so you have to be taught like all said how will they believe in one whom they've not heard?

They have to be taught there has to be revelation has to be light Okay. Now Jeremiah if I may answer the question myself

I also would say that just as the text say says that no man can come unless drawn.

I mean, that's What are the clearer parts of the text? So that would be my answer Yeah And this is where it's so interesting because I love dr.

White and you know, he he understands the Greek Language so well, so that's not one of my strong points

So when someone says, you know, what is the drawing there's a lot of different ways to answer that and I do think one legit

Answer is kind of appealing to verse 45 But you know in verse 44 No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

So a lot of the question is, you know, what kind of ability? What kind of inability is being talked about here with no one can come and then the talking about the drawing so I Think verse 45 is kind of indicative of what that drawing looks like This is where we have to interpret and so for people, you know

Getting mad and the side chat and stuff is saying like it doesn't say that and it's like well We're interpreting what that is

And so obviously the Calvinistic perspective is there it's funny because it's verse 44 Seems like it's hitting on at least three points of Calvinism, right?

Just just on the outside looking in like I would even go to this verse to say no one This would kind of assume in some way and we can kind of draw this out in the context total gravity

Can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him. This is kind of an irresistible means that we would appeal to And then

I will raise him up on the last day mixed in with no one can come to me unless the father draws him that Also would kind of touch back on Unconditional election.

Yeah, so I was going to go into it a little bit more as we move along Yeah, my view is pretty it's pretty similar to Flowers when it comes to John chapter 6,

I believe the primary thing He's talking about here is the same thing. He's been talking about which is now that the

Sun Has shown up on the scene in Israel that God is now shifting the the people that were following him

Yahweh to the person of Jesus Christ and so one of the people has been given to him now, of course, it's understood about Jesus being divine and pre -existing but we're talking about him as the

Sun who's now has a ministry among Israel. I believe that's I Believe that's what he's talking about.

He's drawing Now, I mean some of the statements are principles that apply at all times

But I believe this I believe this motif in John Jeremiah is that the

Israelites that followed God are? Seeing the Sun and following him and so the drawing

I believe is well, I believe it's the learning and Hearing from God by having been taught by him by the scriptures and already knowing who he is and learning

You come to you come to the Sun Let me

I got a question here, let's go ahead and put it up David he says is the drawing of John 644 the same as the drawing of 1232

Are you already in the John chapter 12? I say hey you left John 6

Yeah, see that's okay no, I believe I believe and I think if I understood

Leighton flower This I would agree with him that John chapter 12 is a reference to what is going to happen after the cross that Jesus ministry was to the

Jews But I believe that the drawing is the same Yes to answer your question.

I believe it's the same in the sense that you have to learn through God's revelation

You have to be taught to to come to Christ after the cross I believe you're taught by primarily the gospel, but that also includes everything in the

Old Testament, of course because well we have it But for the Jews at the time, even though the drawings the same it was not through all the revelation

We have in the New Testament because they didn't have it I mean, it was primarily through what they had heard and learned from the father as the people of God so That's my answer to that So I have a lot more thoughts

But I'll kind of if you want I can kind of wait as we progress through the the cross X and other questions

But I appreciate a lot of what you said and it's very similar I would wonder if we would just see this as a divine act or not when we look in verse 45 about hearing and learned my

Presuppositions worldview and understand the context is this this would be divinely initiated Well, I would agree.

I think though I Think we mean different things by that, of course But I would agree with saying that now,

I guess it needs to be said the debate is about this The the unconditional election of reform theology is that Demonstrated by the text that's what the debate is all about, of course

But so that's that's what you're having to look for as an audience in the debate If you're trying to figure out what's going on which side is

Demonstrating their case now really James White is in the affirmative, right? and so It's his job in the debate and you know when

Jeremiah Gives his own comments. He speaks for himself That's what he

I think that's what he's here to do is try to demonstrate that he sees it there himself I don't see unconditional election in there.

I see it as Conditional so that's what we're talking about. Yep All right, but we're gonna we'll comment more as we move along I got

I got a lot of Monet on this side to cash in with as we go. Oh Yeah Let me

I'm gonna bring the screen back There I'm right.

Can you see it? Yep. Looks good. I mean, all right, so they have to be drawn by God So, why is it that No one has the ability to come to Christ.

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

They have to be drawn by the teaching of God So it's a matter of communicating facts or data

To someone is that what the if you want to call the gospel facts and data? Okay. I mean Got into salvation.

It's the light. It's the sword of the spirit. I Gotta say, you know, I I know why supposedly wasn't feeling good.

I mean, I I believe that but boy He didn't he does not like waiting flowers Jeremiah there.

There is a lot of tension built up from 2015 and being there in person.

I mean is I basically had popcorn I'm just watching it back and forth because you heard little

Snippets from just almost 10 years of tension built up coming out so it did not disappoint watching these two live

Yeah now think Think ossifer says flowers is simply not as good at debating as white and I think

I can agree with that of course, I would agree with The content of course with flowers

But I will say this I in the first portion of the cross -examination as I went back and listened to it

I think flowers does very well here now in general. I think he seems to want to debate and focus on topics

I think you can do that as long as you're just saying we're in the Texas. This is what you're saying tie, you know but I think in some ways

Layton did better this go -around than 2015 and in some ways I think he got a little emotional and I think you know people are gonna interpret that the way that they want to But all in all

I think it was a really good Correspondence. Dr. White could have addressed a lot of the peripheral things he was bringing up but chose not to and this is why

I think so is He's a quote -unquote master professor in the Greek language. So for him, that's his that's his wheelhouse

Instead of kind of addressing everything else and as people see us engage you'll see that that's not my will wheelhouse

I have to kind of lean back on Immediate context kind of showing points that I see flow together and you'll see the rings in my understanding of the context of the gospel of John New Covenant fulfillment of the

Old Covenant and then just a holistic worldview altogether So now as far as what they're talking about Jeremiah, I think

I Do agree with flowers here and the things that he's saying. I think I think white is not getting it when he says well,

I don't get a little ahead of myself with some of that, but Let me just point out what of one of his points flowers points here.

I agree with which is that The the inability of the text.

Okay, there is an inability of the text. Jesus says no man is able I mean that's in the Greek.

I mean it's in the English, but it's in the Greek We got to say that sometimes it gives some emphasis, but that there's an inability of the text we disagree

Those on my side and those on your side as what that inability is now now why to ask

Well, don't they have free will which assumed because it is his that is Calvinism now

I know you don't always call yourself a Calvinist. He does and I'm referring to him. I'm a Calvinist, baby okay, there you go, but But when he says don't they have free will

I think that demonstrates a Presupposition the presupposition that he's bringing to the text which is reformed theology that this inability

Affects your ability to make choices, but it's not a it's not an inability of the will It's an inability to come without God's revelation to draw you.

So can I give you an example what I mean? Apply it to modern times. There's plenty of people.

I mean, it's in the text itself earlier, but To apply it, you know today's time there are plenty of religious people that think that they follow

Jesus that I'm sure believe Let's take all the faith healers. Let's take all the televangelists, you know,

Kenneth Copeland And I don't know if he really thinks that he's a Christian or not. I don't know.

I'm sure most of those guys do But I don't believe that they are

And I'm speaking generally, of course, but they claim to follow Jesus. They they they take his name

They live their whole life religiously quoting the Bible And so I'm sure they do to some extent discipline themselves to some things that Jesus says a lot of things obviously they don't greed might be one thing they could work on but But the point is this

They haven't come to Christ They've come to what they think is Christ, but they haven't

Learned through God's revelation. For example, their heart hasn't been changed. For example, I think many of them on greed. They're money lovers.

They're deceivers They're they're proud and vain, you know, so they haven't it isn't the revelation that they find here of The spirit hasn't done anything in their heart.

I mean they haven't been transformed by it And so they haven't really come to Christ. They think they have on their own terms

And so what I'm saying is this No man can come to Jesus unless drawn. You can't really be a follower of his unless God has actually pulled you in through his revelation

Which I think most of that you would even agree with right Yeah, because you got to think this is so loaded with Old Testament truths and history

I mean even verse 45 is a quotation from I think it's Isaiah 59 And so, you know,

I think about passages in the Old Testament at Psalm 19 Well, it's the law of the Lord that converts the soul and so absolutely in order to be saved

Believing, you know Romans 10 talks about faith comes by that hearing and I would I would argue and this is where You know

I don't put such a heavy emphasis on the the people who are Jewish because I'm over here saying well we see here

Has to be consistent even with a Gentile audience now There's continuity and discontinuity from Old Testament to New Testament to me.

That's that's wonderful. Beautiful. We see a fulfillment of that But when and I'll I'll just kind of share with you my side for some of the convincing points of you know

The the Calvinistic inability here because it's really hard I mean This is where I wouldn't mind answering a lot of Layton's objections that he brings the table as where dr

White's gonna say nope right here. Like I'm just saying I'm okay with extending that context

So this is this does seem to be a type of Jewish audience Right with the peace the the

Feast of Passover and what -have -you and Jesus is doing all these works of God in their midst

You know feeding the 5 ,000 with bread and loaves wonderful miraculous works miracles of God and so for me going back earlier in the context is important for a kind of understanding kind of this dialogue between this group of people in Jesus something

I think is remarkable is they're starting to follow Jesus for all the wrong reasons. They're thinking earthly they're wanting to have their their bellies filled up essentially and Then Jesus in verse 27 says do not work for the food that perishes and I just want pause

They're thinking earthly. This is very reminiscent of Nicodemus who is thinking in earthly categories not heavily transcendent categories

And he says do not work for the food that perishes but for the food that endures to eternal life

Which the Son of Man Old Testament reference will give you for on him. God the Father has set his seal

Then they said to him what must we do to be doing the works of God?

Now this is remarkable because when I I'm interpreting and what I'm seeing is when they say what must we do

They're thinking earthly I think they're saying what do we need to do to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to receive these spiritual realities and I think

Jesus kind of gives this working paradigm for The inability on their poor on their part.

He said he answered them This is the work of God that you believe in him who he is sent

So I think there Jesus is kind of giving the key Of saying it's not something you do

This has to be a miracle a working of God which other places the Old Testament say that he must graciously grant as a gift

But it's something that God has to work at. He's just saying I'm talking about believing in the

Son and so I think verse 30 onward kind of demonstrates their inability to Understand what he's talking about because they said what work do you perform and I'm over here like guys

He just did all these miracles in front of your eyes He did the works of God in front of you your very eyes and you still do not believe

And I want to throw it back over to you But since I'm not an expert in the Greek, I have to look to broader context

And so I think in John's account, I know I'm going a few different places

I'd probably be chastised for not staying in John 6, but when we do go back to I mentioned

Nicodemus earlier And in chapter 3 a couple things here.

We get a working anthropology of man And I know you're just gonna be like Jeremiah don't say that and I'm just saying this this is what's been meaningful for me

Just in my exploration of the text and just being prayerful and seeking wisdom But verse 19 of chapter 3 it says and this is the judgment the light has come into the world and the people love the darkness rather than the light because Their works were evil for everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light lest his works be exposed

It keeps going there But this is kind of in response to Nicodemus to which

Jesus said You can't even see the kingdom unless you're born again And so kind of pushing the context even further back to John chapter 1 12 and 13 my interpretation

I know you're gonna you're gonna get me for this But I think verse 12 that says, you know, you must receive

Jesus in faith But believing in his name to have the right to be a child of God I think verse 13 essentially tells us who those people are

It's those people that it's it's not a natural will of man like these Gungus movers these grumbling

Jews in in John 6. No, this has to be the will of God You have to be literally born from above and so my point is okay

I know I've rambled and preached a little bit here But this is the type of divine act that I see working with giving the divine revelation

People can hear the gospel people can be confronted with the law and the prophets But not everyone believes and some people even mechanically go through the motions, but the heart has to be engaged

There has to be a work of God in the heart to believe Jesus So sorry that took so long

That's all right. Well, let me say this first as you mentioned there in the beginning I do believe What Jesus is saying about being drawn applies to everybody

Jew and Gentile now what I was saying is at the time It just isn't happening for the Gentiles.

It comes to the Jew first. That was Jesus ministry And there was something unique And I think this really applies really when you're talking about some of the earlier passages is that the people of God?

Israelites who were faithful to God and had been transformed in a heart by the scriptures and their lives

Would also also come to the Sun those are the people of God being given to the Sun But yes when

Jesus says things like no man can come to me except drawn I'll raise him up in the last day and all those statements

I do believe those will apply to everybody just not it at that time not to the Gentiles That's where John chapter 12 comes in David Lewis had asked about that so I agree with almost

As far as I remember most of what you said So we believe there's an inability the text We believe that these people cannot understand the difference and this is the debate is why it is

You see it and here's what I'm going to say for John chapter 6 to establish unconditional election

It has to somewhere tell you that Those kinds of things it has to tell you in some words

You know, I'm not saying verbatim, but somehow it's got to communicate that people cannot make choices

To believe the gospel that people that it's not up to people. I mean in whatever way you would want to word it

But the focus remember is always on verse 44 This is this is why they're debating that verse because that's at least white

I don't know about you, but at least wide and most Calvinists that I've talked to believe That's the at least the most powerful verse they say well, there's unconditional election.

You can't come to the Sun unless God chooses Well, it's God is drawing but it's not an inability of a person based upon or there's at least not what the text say

I'll say it like this Jeremiah Let's say for the sake of discussion that Unconditional election is taught in the

New Testament. So I'm gonna say for the point I'm about to make you're absolutely right as a reformed theologian

Unconditional election is taught and They're gonna get it. Someone's gonna get a clip of me saying that and it's gonna be me

Yeah So let's say for the sake of discussion that it is true What I'm saying is you couldn't establish it here because the question is not can a man come unless drawn the question is

Does God based that drawing on an unconditional election that he made? Well, that's what the text doesn't say it just says you can't come unless drawn.

But remember we all agree with that The flowers was agreeing with that in the text.

I mean in the debate Um Got chime in a little bit. Go ahead

Interesting part in the cross sex. I don't know if you're gonna play it but white did kind of ask for a standard that would convince white or would convince flowers that unconditional election will be true and the verbiage was if this drawing is a divine act and And we may have to play it to see exactly what white said but flowers said if that's a divine act

Then yeah, then Calvinism is right and this teaches unconditional election. So I like to say the burden of proof is saying hey

Is this a divine act that's compelling to a lot of people if we can establish that or maybe in your case?

What kind of a divine act right? Well, yeah, I'm not sure what reference You're making the flowers and I'm not saying he didn't say something like that Not what

I would say. I believe it's a divine act. I believe David Lewis, I think asked us earlier.

Do I believe God has to work internally or something. I think you said Absolutely, and the way all these things that God has done are divine acts when he sent the

Holy Spirit to the church and moved apostles and prophets to preach when he inspired men to write down the message and when even by Providence You could scald

Providence by the way a divine act To preach the gospel. I mean when God is acting

Even providential doesn't have to be supernaturally. It doesn't have to be miraculous anything God is doing is really actually a divine act.

I think what is being asked is about an internal supernatural act Now I'm just going to tell you now that is a that's the big debate though.

See I Believe the Holy Spirit works in us. I Circumstances of life all kinds of factors that can influence your

How you think in things that you know life circumstances that could bring you to your knees and soften the heart

God could do all kinds of things But as far as an internal work, I believe the primary thing about the brings about regeneration

Primary things that brings faith is the work of the gospel And this is we listen to flowers

Say well, it's not just information and data It God's the

God's Word the gospel is powerful Even human words have a lot of effect on other humans, and it's very much more so Infinitely so the gospel of God.

I think yes, it works in the heart to create faith. I don't But see the thing is

I do not believe as reformed theology Says that it's this mysterious

Supernatural work of the Spirit in the heart. I don't know where that is taught Even if it is, it's not taught in John chapter 6.

I'll let you respond to that Yeah, no, I appreciate a lot of what you're saying. A lot of it goes to I think holistic worldviews.

I think Yes, we do have to exegete the text But if we're thinking holistically a whole counsel of God, especially in the media context

It's gonna color how because to me Well, I see no one can come to me

Jesus says unless the Father who sent me draws him I'm over here saying wow It's so clear to me that there's an inability that no man can come to this saving knowledge to to learn and be heard

Unless there is some type of divine act and in for me and I'll just lay my cards out

I'm not I don't presuppose a libertarian free will so my framework is just saying okay there

There is an inability on man until God moves and when God moves Jesus is the perfect Savior to raise them up on the last day.

So the Holy Spirit's assumed here The Holy Spirit will be mentioned in later chapters of John For me what's something that that did get brought up in the debate a little bit?

okay, so this quotation of I Think it's Isaiah 59 here when it says it is written in the prophets and all will be taught by God Everyone who has heard and learned from the

Father comes to me Okay. So if this is quoting from Isaiah, I believe this is in the context of the new covenant

So this this is where it gets really important for me and kind of overall systematic theology biblical theology

So we're starting to look in multiple passages and the prophet Isaiah about the new covenant

An eternal covenant a covenant of peace or Shalom that can never fade or pass away

This this is so important because God promises in the new covenant that he will write the law the

Torah on their hearts and so we would see this as a divine act that God is doing what's interesting is

These are Jewish people here in John chapter 6 and yet they're rejecting and so I would

I would Interpret that they have heard the law in the prophets, but they do not understand now later in John We need some of these hearing yet not

Understanding seeing and not actually perceiving because Jesus has to be lifted up for all men

I'm saying in the new covenant though that heart of stone is replaced with the heart of flesh

This is new covenant language. And for me, it's effectual divine acts all over the place

But you can see in my response. I Would kind of go elsewhere like this quotation out of the prophet

Isaiah is very important from my understanding of the new covenant to his Jew and Gentile That's why

I'm over here saying yeah, the the audience relevance may be the Jews, but the new covenant is made up of believers

That God has written his law upon their hearts taking out that heart of stone giving a heart of flesh That's both

Jew and Gentile. So I said a lot there. Sorry, okay That's all right, you like to apologize you apologize a lot.

Hey listen, I'm mad I'm like, ah Why do to that's the art? It's the art of the word

But okay. Well again, I agree with most of what you said. I just want to say We both believe in an inability

The see that's what the debate is. But what is The basis for the inability is it because God has unconditionally

Chosen certain individuals and not others before the foundation now that's unconditional election But it doesn't say that in the text now.

It could be true for the sake of argument Let's say it's taught in every other passage in the

Bible, but it isn't said there It just says you can't come unless strong which is that's the agreed part of the debate that's that's what we all agree to but The unconditional election is the presupposition that that drawing or the reason they can't come is based upon ultimately the an unconditional election of God and then also the tea and then so forth now those

I argue Jeremiah Cannot be established from the text and I want to say again though that I also believe these things are divine acts.

I Just don't believe I don't assume that And it is an assumption from the text not necessarily.

I mean you would say that you've got other texts But as far as the passage, I don't presuppose that this

Divine act is irresistible and I don't believe it's based upon an unconditional election

So and that's important for the audience because I get that a lot. So let me repeat it again. We all agree that Salvation is a divine act and the transformative work of the sinner into a saint is a transformative work of the

Spirit and I believe that no man can come unless drawn but I do not presuppose from the text

John 6 that it's an Irresistible draw and that it's based upon an unconditional election

So I'm just trying to make myself clear I have a question What's your understanding earlier in the context when

Jesus answered them? This is the work of God that you believe in him whom he sent.

I believe I've kind of debated that back and forth in my head. I think maybe at least two things that could be

That he could be saying what kind of everybody is saying that he's trying to say. Well, here's the work

If you want to do a work here's the work believe now, you know, that's why some people will say well even faith is a work therefore

Well, I'm not sure. I think another option though is what he's saying is Well, you're asking what works you could do and you're asking due to the works of God Let me tell you what

God himself has done if you want to ask about God's work. He's saying here's what he's done Getting you to believe that's what he does.

That's his work that you need to be focused on and so I haven't made a decision there

And hopefully people see how you know Even if they're not convinced as I'm kind of drawing out the the circle of the context people might be like, okay

I still reject all that reform theology stuff I can at least see better where they're coming from about what kind of inability is established here in the context my other question is

Verse 45 that's citing Old Testament promises of the new covenant what is your understanding of When the prophets or the promise of the new covenant says that God will write the

Torah on their hearts and then Ezekiel 36 Parallel says I will take out the heart of stone

Give them a heart of flesh and then the next chapter talks about the the valley of dry bones

Just kind of what do you look at because to me that's that's the divine act that I see taking place.

Okay Writing the Torah on the heart. I Could preach on this all day.

I got videos on this. So I got to be brief okay, so they have the law in the heart is the difference between having an external to you or written on in their case stones and having it

Without the need of external control because it's it's who you are. So it's like this. It's what the Sermon on the

Mount is about the Sermon on the Mount is is the difference between External control a law out there outside of you that says do this don't do this and you got to look at and say

I got To obey this I got to do that based upon get rid of that It's who you are. Now. It's in your heart.

So The law in the heart just simply means you don't need a law to tell you Don't murder your neighbor.

Don't steal his things. Don't commit adultery with his wife Because law being on your heart means you don't want to do those things

You you love your neighbor because it's now a part of who you are. It's internal control Without the need of external restraints of law

So when Jesus says you've heard that it has said, you know, do not commit adultery

But he that looks upon a woman has committed adultery already It looks upon a woman to lust after her that's important has committed adultery with her already.

What he's saying is okay It's fine. You scribes and Pharisees are righteous. You haven't committed adultery

But inside you are you don't have the law in your heart. You have it outside. It keeps you from externally doing it

But you're no different from the adultery on the inside and he wants the law in the heart So that's what the law in the heart is. It's it's it's when

Christians Am I being brief because I still got more say I might not be brief

So, I think we agree the Imago Dei has the moral law already written on the heart

What's the difference between the moral law already been being written on the heart versus something that's being promised in the

New Covenant of God Will write his law on their hearts Well the Old Covenant You could be in the

Covenant without actually having a heart for God You know Children were born into the Covenant and they had to be taught to love

God taught to do the things in law You had plenty of unbelieving Jews that were part of the Covenant pretty wicked people that follow

Moses out of the land of promise so being in the Old Covenant did not did not make it certain whether you would have a

Heart after God that you would put his law in your heart in the New Covenant You don't get in until you've already begun that process

You hear the gospel and you have a change of mind towards your sin That's repentance. Your heart is already starting to change you put your faith in Christ only people in the

New Covenant are those who have had a Change of heart of the process goes on and the

Old Covenant you could be in it without the change of heart You can't be in the New Covenant without the change of heart Yeah, so it sounds like with what you said.

I agreed a lot with that now I do think You know, I do think Ezekiel 36 to 37

Jeremiah 31 that's a distinctly New Covenant language that God is doing like so I'm just saying

I think what we disagreed in there It's kind of that relationship between regeneration and faith.

So because I think I hear a lot of what you're saying I think I agree, but I'm kind of interpreting what you're saying.

And so yeah, you have you have different presuppositions We both say we both say God putting the law of the

Spirit on the heart is Something the Bible says that he does You and I both agree that some type of divine act, but we're still gonna interpret that differently, right?

I would say that you presuppose it's irresistible and based upon an unconditional election and effectual, baby Well, that's what

I mean by irresistible. Yeah Why but yeah, so that's that's the difference you believe it's effectual meaning irresistible

Most people don't know what effectual means, but it's an irresistible thing and it's based upon an unconditional election

Those are not my presuppositions, but we would agree on that Now but some of this drawing stuff keeps coming out here in this cross -examination.

Let's let's get back to that I mean, I got to pull it up again. All right, so I have to move my window share a screen

And here we go. Can you see it? Yep, looks good It pierces in through not only bone and marrow but into the heart and it affects our lives just like you know

You may say the sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me words have power okay, so Okay, I just want to make a quick comment here because I haven't gotten far again, but I've got the same question before from my

Calvinist friends. Jeremiah. Maybe you've thought the same thing The question that he got is it's just a matter of hearing data

No, it's a matter of learning and being shaped and Internalizing what

God's revelation tells you and it changing your heart Now even

Calvinist, of course, I understand you guys, of course believe that it has to do the same thing but again presuppositions are different you believe it's

For those unconditionally chosen that will be an effectual irresistible thing. I believe the person has to let it into their heart

But The John chapter 6 doesn't tell us which is I think the point of the debate

But so it's not a matter of data And you did mention that Israel all at Israel had heard and this is well,

I don't want to get ahead That's actually what they're going to talk about. So unless you want to respond to what I just said Just in brief

For me what's compelling is I would say it has to be a work of God And if the bar is this is a divine act and we're not necessarily presupposing a libertarian incompatibilistic worldview to me

The inability I see is no man can come to God Learn the truths of salvation that the types and shadows were in the law and prophet

They can't embrace those truths unless the father Draws them to the son whom the son will save indeed and raise them up on the last day

And so I just want to repeat kind of put that back out there to say like that's that's a compelling reality for me that I see in the text.

Yeah, but I would say though again, though We're kind of Yeah You do what you need that's all right.

Well, we'll We'll have plenty of opportunity a person who is drawn Again looking at verse 44 a person who is drawn by the father by the father to the son is being taught by God Being taught the gospel by God the

Father Well Hebrews 1 says in days of past God spoke through the prophets and other various means but in these days

He speaks through his son and then of course the Apostles and the bride so in that day in John 6

It's the transitionary period of being taught through the prophets and the law and now it's transitioning through being taught through Jesus and the bride of Christ through the gospel that's being sent to all of creation.

So Everyone who is drawn by the father to the son Does is that is that today is that all people or now he's asking kind of what we talked about So I'll answer for myself and I think really this is what

Layton flowers meant is That the drawing what Jesus says about drawing and all that is is always true.

It's just happening with Israel only in his ministry, which I think is kind of undebatable and he his position which

I agree is That after the crucifixion the gospel goes out and draws the Gentiles as well

The Jews Have not have only had so much time with Jesus at this point and they were hearing and starting to hear him preach

For the first time, you know since he's at least since he started his ministry Jeremiah, but the point is

There were faithful Israelites and there were unfaithful Israelites already when

Jesus came on the scene the faithful ones were only faithful to God because God had taught them through the prophets and the law the scriptures what we call the

Old Testament and when they hear Jesus teaching in his ministry Like the people who came to him for food

They hear the teaching if they had already been faithful to God if they already had a love for God They're gonna hear truth in Jesus Teaching as well.

They might not understand it all. I mean just they probably did not understand everything in the Old Testament either but the son would appeal to them if they had already been appealed to by the father and if those who were

Already been taught and Shaped by God through their scriptures would naturally draw to the

Sun. That's how God is drawing so I think that's what James White is not understanding about what flower is the same

Get that James White. Yeah For me and you can you can you can torch me for saying this.

I do think audience relevance here is a Jewish but This is salvation language believing in the

Sun And so this is this is promised in the New Covenant like you rightly pointed out in the

Old Covenant mixed covenant covenant of Condemnation ministry of death ain't gonna save anyone but the oracles of God promised

Salvation in the New Covenant. That's why now we we have some shared principles here what's being said here in John is also going to be true after John chapter 12 because the

New Covenant contains both Jew and Gentile and I believe that that can only be made up of believers

So like when we do I blame Layton Layton Layton brought up the book of Hebrews Hebrews talks about how the

New Covenant Has a mediator Christ who cannot fail to save to the uttermost.

Dr. White would say pantalos I love it when he does that And then my point is the

New Covenant is made up of believers who have all of their sins forgiven So point is that would be

Jews that were under the Old Covenant trusting and the promises of Messiah to come

I would argue they need a divine act in order to believe those types and Shadows that are promising the

New Covenant So there is some relevance before the cross here But everything we're learning in terms of anthropology,

I would argue would have to be equally as true for Gentiles that come after you know, essentially, what is it

John 12 32? But you but you do understand that I also believe there has to be a divine act for somebody to believe

Yeah, and we do mean different things by that and that's that's why I think a little bit the the debate thesis

Proposition question could have been worded a little bit better because I tell people I just tell people look if we're gonna debate on a single

Point of Calvinism, that's a package deal Like I was already telling you I see at least three points of Calvinism in one verse and so and even dr.

White in this He started talking about an anthropology and total total depravity

And so all that's kind of baked in when you're talking about one subject You do have to kind of talk about more and so for me for me

What's really important is verse 45 is a quotation talking about the eternal covenant of peace, which would be the new covenant

That to me is huge in terms of what kind of a divine act is going on I we would differ on this.

I would I would see a mankind How can I say it that you wouldn't agree? that's that's in Adam unable to positively respond to God, you know in an unregenerate state and Therefore they're like a dead corpse

Spiritually that God has to bring to newness of life the Ezekiel 36 30 37

Jeremiah 31 so to me that does to your point That's that's kind of in my mind when

I read these texts and I'm curious just why? It dawned on me to ask you when you're reading

Back in John chapter 3 about like to me. This is this is strong Total depravity language when it talks about Jesus had come into the world and I know

John 1 talks about specifically of the Israelites I think you would agree with me This would be kind of talking about all of Anthropos all of men not just the

Jewish people that have hardened themselves to the Messiah but they loved the darkness rather than light because their works were evil and I'm saying like to me that that kind of feeds into this

No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him Yeah, by the way, we got a

Mick Jagger in the audience. That's pretty that's pretty interesting. We got who we got Mick Jagger in the audience.

I Don't know this this person. Well, he's a singer for the Rolling Stones. Oh Man, I can't believe he's here.

I know I didn't know he was interested in this but But Well, once again we we we can agree on most of what we're saying it is the presuppositions behind it which

And I could take the time to go and argue for my presupposition and you could of course the question of their debate is

Right, you see why it has to establish the presuppositions Well, he's got to establish that they're not just presuppositions.

He's bringing to John 6 for unconditional election He's got to establish it from the text. I don't think he can't

I think I'm sure you would say that he could but that Is there debate and I want to emphasize the what

I'm saying Jeremiah about the Jewish thing? Primarily where why that has to be understood is is in the earlier verses when

Jesus says no All that my father gives me now in 44 and 45

Those are pretty much universal statements But the context is important When you talk about those earlier verses because I believe the people that the father has given to the son are not those he is unconditionally chosen

I Think that's the presupposition. I Believe it's in the context of the earlier chapters of John and through the whole book

It's the faithful Israelites that are going to transition to Jesus of Nazareth And so I don't want to take the time now to go through the other chapters and John the debate that I'm just saying

So like you and me for the sake of time, you know in a debate Jeremiah, I will I will always say for debating a passage the passage in the whole book is legitimate for Debating because it's the whole context and then other references to other books is fine

But you don't know you don't you don't then make those the focus I think sometimes flowers does that but anyway but in our case

Only using John 6 because we don't have time to have a debate ourselves except for in brief here So just using that one chapter.

I would say that This is what white has to be able to do from John chapter 6 that statement earlier in John because this is one our

Calvinist friends use All That my father gives me will come to me the presupposition for reform theology is that's those he is unconditionally chosen well, even if that's true in other parts of the

Bible now, I Of course, you know, I don't agree with that. We're just assuming our theology here

Yeah, even if that were taught in other places in the Bible, it's not found there

Okay, I'm just doing I'm determined to do man when I read that You heard it here folks he just conceded someone's gonna make that into Yeah, and so Another hour or so because next clip

I may go get some more coffee I'll play the next clip if you want to do that. I'll just say this point

That's what I'm wanting people to keep in mind and when you do a debate I got a debate by the way I tell you what go get the coffee.

I'm gonna plug the upcoming debates plug some my debates coming up, too Yeah Let's see

If I do that then people gonna watch yours because it's on the same day as mine I can't have that but no actually so yeah, well, so northier hair has a debate

In Jonesboro again, I went up there last year in April on April 5th

He has a debate with on baptism as a 12 -5 church, which is where I went to debate him on libertarian free will

So he's got that on April 5th But I have to say you guys make sure you record it Because you don't want to watch that because I got a debate on April 5th

Although they might not be in the same time So actually I got a debate now The reason I brought it up was not just randomly plugging a debate is because it's a debate on passages

So on April 5th on a standing for truth YouTube channel, I got a debate with Tommy McMurtry Who I believe is a

Baptist don't don't quote me on that, but he's not he's not a Calvinist But he does believe in once saved always say we're debating once saved always saved and just like I did with David Lewis Which is a debate.

You should go see that debate ahead of David Lewis. It's on my channel We're debating three passages each three passages for once saved always saved from McMurtry and then

I will present three that I believe Refute it and I've said all that I'm plugging my upcoming debate to make this point that I started to make which is when you do a debate on a passage

Don't debate topics. And so this is what I would have pressed white to do. I would have said okay now, dr.

White You have to be able to establish Certain things in the chapter itself if you're going to say that all that the father gives me will come to me

To argue that that Establishes unconditional election you have to show how it does you have to argue that somehow that means well

That's those that he's pre -chosen before the foundation of the world unconditionally

To to be the people of Christ. Well, it doesn't say that it just says the father's people will be given to the

Son We all agree on that you have to establish what is really just a presupposition You have to establish it from the text and then the drawing in John 644 all no man can come to make sure the father draws me since we all agree of what it says

The question is is the drawing irresistible and is it based upon an unconditional election? well, you've got to be able to establish that if you're

If you're affirming that unconditional election is in the passage, which I don't believe white can anyway

I want to ask the chat. Did he say anything about our debates being on the same day and You gotta have to see a

K's and record mine Absolutely, I record you because we don't want to miss it but Something else was gonna say to this is a little bit of the harder burden

I think when being the affirmative because in debate Everyone has to agree with what the

Bible says Okay, so that's where it's it's good If you know certain verses that are kind of obscure and you know the context real well

Sometimes what I try to do a K is I try to ask a question question where I'm quoting a verse

Verbatim because if someone says I disagree with that. Well, they've lost that point altogether You know what?

I mean? Because you can't disagree with what the Bible says we're disagreeing on its meaning and so the harder burden of proof sometimes is the affirmative because We're we're having to defend a interpreted phrase

Unconditional election where I think sometimes it's easier and I'm gonna put myself on the spotlight to say this

I think it's easier to say well the text don't say that and so you're gonna have to prove it

And so when the the proof is given Sometimes it's easier to say well, I didn't say that either and what

I mean is so like when you and I debated Well, the text doesn't say anywhere Libertarian free will and so I try to guard myself from saying well it don't say that it don't say that and so like in our

Debate you even said, you know, that's kind of a presupposition that you take to the text And it gets into bigger worldview ideas and things like that so I think what

I'm trying to say is the affirmative has a hard job and rightly so and so The the negative is trying to cast doubt on what the affirmative is saying

That's the whole point of a debate And so what I want to echo to people kind of as we're kind of echoing our sides here what

I think is strong language of a Particular kind of divine act that needs to be said.

So notice what I'm saying is This is the the standard for light and flowers for Calvinism, but for a

K. He's being a good philosopher He's saying what kind of divine act I like that is for me earlier in the context about Believing that you believe is a work of God now

I would say for a lot of people that is very compelling evidence of what it means to interpret that God is teaching being taught by God and those who have heard and learned.

It's not just a an Assumed to get into this and an assumed anthropology that says you have a categorical ability to deny or reject

I'm saying if that's not in the forefront of your mind. It seems to me smoother to say okay, this this is talking about a divine act of people under the the old covenant that are hearing the promises of the new

Covenant that are responding in a positive way. They were in an They were in a state where they could not respond.

They loved darkness But now they're born again barring language earlier in John and like a can

I agree? I think the whole book of John is fair game Now you do want to ground? Your main points in the central passage and so if I'm gonna leave

John 44, I want to go to verse 45 I want to go to maybe verse 65 in in this chapter

I want to go back up to verse 37 all that the Father has given to me will come to me and whoever comes to me

I will I will never cast out and what I'm trying to just remind the audience is what's what's compelling to me is that the work of God is that you believe and so believing is a work of God not of man, which

I would argue kind of fits the context. I'm gonna go get my coffee So don't say mean things about me.

Okay. Well, I Don't want to debate it. I will say this though. We can go see

Jeremiah and I debate libertarian free will I Believe because he said that I said that we presuppose libertarian free will

Well, I would say that everybody does until you're taught differently and I think that's that's natural and it's default and it's

Because I think any other way causes Logical problems Jeremiah disagrees with that, of course, and he's not particularly there at the moment

I didn't want to get into that but you can go see our debate on that matter And that's what that issue is.

Okay. So while he's still gone, let me just say this I also got another it's not a debate.

It's a discussion on Marlon's channel another debate channel called the gospel truth in June with Corey minor from Smart Christian Channel, we also going to debate one saved always saved

Now those are very two different debates really because well, they're not very different But there are two different versions of one saved always saved

Corey minor holds what is closer to a Calvinist perspective He claims he's not a Calvinist, which is fine

Tommy McMurtry isn't a Calvinist. So he it's it's a different view It's you could fall you could you could become a rebel sinner again be an atheist and still be saved

He'll speak for himself. Yeah, that's coming on June 21st. Well the one of Corey minor June 21st

April 5th the one for Tommy McMurtry Alright, but anyway Let's let's get back into this

Say nice things No No, I I just I mentioned something about them watching our debate on free will

Ah, you know what? I want I want your debate or the debate on your channel

I want those to increase some views and the one on mine. We only have about a thousand To me that's that's a banger.

That's one that should go down in the history Yeah, yeah, you need to tell people who can watch it on my channel, okay, let me see here

Okay Is there's what what what differentiates as to who is being drawn by the father

Well, we live in the church age so that the drawing is by Jesus to himself Jesus draws all people once he's raised up and he's been raised up and so he sends the gospel to go into all creation and through the bride and through the gospel the gospel of Jesus Christ through The pop teaching of the

Apostles. We are now being drawn through the teaching of Christ So the father is no longer drawing people to the

Sun Well, there may be people who read the Law and the Prophets prior as people in the Jewish tradition May come to Christ through the tea

Okay, I would have answered this differently and I don't speak for him. I don't even know him but God draws through Revelation But the way he drew the

Jews at the time of the ministry of Christ Was primarily through the Old Testament scriptures because that's most of what they have had.

That's what they grew up That's what they had already been taught They were just beginning to hear the ministry of Jesus. I mean

You know, he didn't even have a ministry longer in three years, so the drawing is the same

It's just at that time It was a new unique in the sense that it was those who had already learned from the

Old Testament scriptures hearing Jesus speak and they were attracted to him because he comes from God, you know

If they if they loved God's Word in the Old Testament, they loved it when they heard it from Jesus Jesus said in chapter 5

Jeremiah he said if you believe Moses you would believe me now That's exactly what

I think he's talking about if you if you believed God through Moses But when you hear me, you're gonna believe me because I come from the same

God And so I think that's that's the point. So I would say if white were to ask me

God draws the same way just it's at that time. It was not through a complete

New Testament revelation like they have So that would be my answer to that My answer would be very similar,

I don't know if that's a type of dispensational Understanding coming out from him because for me it's real similar what you said

The same principle applies Old Testament to New Testament justification has always been by grace through faith and I believe ever since the fall of man there has been a depravity that really is an inability for man to choose

God positively and So for here, yes, I know there is some relevance to the

Jews but I'm saying not to press that too hard because even under the Old Covenant in the

Torah the Prophets and the writings you have the promise the Proto Evangelion that has had stacked progressive revelation building on it enough to save Abraham to save people under the

Old Covenant, but I would argue it's always the New Covenant that is Salvific and that New Covenant contains both

Jew and Gentile So that New Covenant is ratified in the blood of Jesus But Saints in the

Old Testament Jew and Gentile they they have their forgiveness of sins on credit

From the New Covenant that is about to come so so for me and my systematic theology

Pressing the the Jewish audience here to me is and to use Leighton's own words against him is almost a distinction without a difference

In passing I gotta say by the way I was assuming that Mick Jagger was not the real name now if it was he might be insulted whoever that was not

I was just Assuming you were using a pseudonym there. So I hope I didn't offend Mick Jagger there if that there's real name

He's probably heard in his whole life if it is to chime in real quick Dave David Lewis is saying make a

K answer some Okay, what's one of his questions here

I will say David's resend those maybe that you want him to answer resend them

Because I don't I don't see them here. Okay, so back to what you're saying now, I don't understand

What you're pushing back on there now you you keep saying well, I wouldn't press that too much So, I don't know if you're responding more to what flowers was doing or what

I'm saying No, no more more towards light and you and I actually are closer in our answer of saying salvation namely justification has always been divine revelation

And I'm over here saying that that's never changed salvation has always been a new covenant idea

Old Testament Saints We're saved in the revelation of the promised Gospel so type shadow substance to come but justification

Salvation has always been the same whether Jew or Gentile so to press In my opinion

Leighton is kind of making a moot point here of just saying well This is primarily in focus about the

Jews Well, this is the same problem that Jason Bretta in a previous debate with dr. White on The atone limited atonement essentially he was trying to say that the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8

Is mainly about the Jews and this is this is coming from Leighton flowers You got to be so careful because you're about to I think you've even interacted with hyper dispensationalist that believe in different Gospels old

And so that's that's some of the entailment Depending on how far you push what

Leighton is say not you but what Leighton is saying because we're over here saying well if we go One step further if this is talking about the

Jews, is this a different anthropology than the Gentiles? And then I say no, we're like, okay great doesn't really matter a whole lot of what's being said now.

It's Leighton dispensational most Southern Baptists are Dispensational even even old

Johnny Mac unless I left Yeah Well, so I when

I hear Leighton flowers talking about I don't hear him so I hear him saying the same point that God draws in the

New Testament just as he did with Jesus. It was just that there he it happens to be in a ministry

That's drawing only Jews. I Mean, maybe you know more about flowers than I do But ask a quick question just kind of this these were thoughts our have

I was having during the debate So since this is a Jewish audience Do we think they've already heard from the law and the prophets like can we kind of assume that based on this being a

Jewish? audience Ask it again So this is a Jewish audience. Is it kind of safe to assume that they've already heard and are familiar with the

Torah? and yet They they are walking away. We see later in the text that and that is the point

Those Jews that had already heard and learned from God Are those who had already been hearing and learning from the scriptures that had learned to love

God and learned about God? So when they hear Jesus Since he comes from God himself.

In fact, we know that he is God then they're attracted to him Those Jews earlier that are on all the ones that later end up leaving him are those that never did learn from the scriptures

Which is exactly what Jesus had already said in John 5 if you had believed Moses You would believe me the reason the people walk away is because they weren't really faithful to God at all they never had learned even from their own scriptures and And and and they in the answers right there

Jesus asked the disciples at the end of John 7 chapter 6 do you also want to go and He said you have the words of eternal.

I've seen G Paul Not Paul Peter had already been attracted to Jesus words. Why because he had already heard and learned from God in the first place

Through the scriptures that they had to learn their whole their whole lives. I Didn't see David coming back there.

And yeah, we'll see Well, this is where I do think our presuppositions kind of color because when

I when I when I hear that I'm saying notice the distinction between the Apostles with Judas Iscariot and These Gungus moving

Jews. They they are not of God in the sense that they are rejecting his divine revelation

It's the the Apostles minus Judas Iscariot That have that divine work of believing in their heart a work of God Like I said, we we understand that we can push the can down the road a little bit further about what that means but I'm saying to me that's the that's the difference in the immediate context of why some are responding and why some are rejecting and the promise here for unconditional election also mixed in with Perseverance of the

Saints is they will be guaranteed to be raised up on the last day All right.

So in other words That that is the difference between our viewpoints is you have these reformed presuppositions about it being an effectual call which

Irresistible and based upon an unconditional election, you know, and the total depravity thing comes in there

As a part of the unconditional election all that's something I would like to chime in And I think you're more consistent with on your view than lighten flowers because he has people

You know libertarian Lee categorically coming to Jesus by means of God's revelation but he does not believe that they can walk away and I'm over here saying to me that does not make any sense.

If you have limited Oh once they'd always say and what I'm saying is I think your position is being more consistent there

Because if you have the libertarian free will to come to the father and even though it's it says unless you're drawn but if if in that drawing really means that your cooperation people get mad,

I'm just saying just in a way that You have the ability to choose

Apart from any God's work in eternity past. However, we want to spot splice that out

I'm saying well, then did you lose that once you come to Christ? Layton would say maybe not lost it, but no, it's impossible to be lost and I'm for me

I'm saying he can't make that point consistently unless his anthropology changes and his understanding of God changes as For you, you would adopt a few of those similar principles

And then I think you would make the consistent point of saying you you didn't lose that libertarian free will once you got saved therefore

John 666 many people left and walked with them no more.

They said we're out Yeah Yeah, and I would word it a little bit different but sure yes

So I've often said Jeremiah kind of in reverse. I've said this on my show a number of times if you're going to believe in Once saved always save Be a

Calvinist and believe it I always say you shouldn't believe it at all because I don't believe it's true But if you're going to believe it the only consistent way to believe it is

Calvinistically And I have to see I believe that the Calvinist makes sense within their system of once saved always saved what they would call perseverance of the

Saints what you would call but other types who are not Calvinist should believe in Once saved always saved

I think that it just doesn't work like it works for the Calvinist now I don't think it works at all. But you know what I'm saying, right?

No, and the reason why I don't really like once saved always saved now You gotta think reformed has read because usually what's meant by once saved always saved is you go say that prayer, right?

ask Jesus into your heart and God's just waiting he's wooing you with the Spirit and We're over here saying man.

That's that's not how we view Salvation we see King Jesus Breaking through the the stony heart and rescuing a dead soul bringing him to new life

And I don't even like Perseverance of the Saints because it seems like you're looking to your own merits in your own efforts to carry yourself to the end

Rather, I think a better term would be Preservation of the Saints because I think it's the

Holy Spirit carrying us along in spite of ourselves To the end. So anyway, that's why

I have a little bit of beef Not not with you saying once saved always saved but people that are of the

Southern Baptist Type or provisionist crowd as Leighton flowers has kind of coined

So tell me if you knew this about Leighton and props to Leighton for this James White For the past number of years has been roasting

Leighton saying quit telling us that you're not Armenians quit telling us that you're not Calvinist. Tell us what you are and so I think

Leighton kind of coined the the term provisionist and his acrostic is provide and It's different than obviously tulip or the

Armenian system but all what that means is they reject prevenient grace and they just believe man's

Categorical ability not only exists with Adam but was never lost after the fall

That's something that even our classic are many are Armenians would reject that I do believe even the will and choice of man

Was lost at the fall, but God gives prevenient grace through the proclamation of the gospel.

I don't know enough about The package or the system of provisionism to know

Whether I could say I'm a provisionist. I don't know. It's a new term. I probably never use it Anyway, I don't believe in preventing grace.

That's for sure though. None are many and you're a half step closer to the Leighton the flower patch kids as I'd like to say

Let me get this back on there. I never did see David there, you know, I he lost his chance

All right Teachings of God the

Father, but it's as you know, that's a triune God So God may draw through various means in the

Old Testament. It was that as Hebrews 1 says it was the father so true So it's not so actually verse 44 isn't

Continuing continuing true today. Something has changed to where When Jesus says

I will raise him up on the last day Who is it that Jesus will raise up on the last day?

Everyone who comes to him in faith everyone who comes to him faith and yet in verse 44

Who is it that Jesus will raise up on the last day? well in first 44 like you you acknowledge the difference between the context of Chapter 12 and chapter 4 is chapter 4 is still prior to the crucifixion.

I think you mean chapter 6. I'm sorry Yes chapter 6 44 and so in chapter 6 He's drawing those who believe in the father who have listened and learned from the father.

He's drawing them to the Son and They will be raised up in the last day. For example

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

Today is through the gospel of Jesus Christ. So you and I came through the drawing of Jesus So we didn't come through the drawing of the prophets.

So everything in in John 6 has now changed Is is the eating eating of the flesh drinking the blood

Has all of that changed now that Jesus is doing the drawing route And there is still the point we've kind of talked about symbolism to listening and learning to the drawing that comes through our

God either Through the prophets or through the Apostles either one is still God doing the drawing. It's just a different means at different times

Okay, and so they're still eating the flesh So this is we can't touch on this earlier but to me this is where this is a weak point to stress too much with the

Jews because If it's the Jews only Well, then now you have a huge disconnect with the the

Jewish audience and the Gentiles and I just want to kind of echo verse 45 is so important because this in my view is indicative of the

New Covenant which necessarily includes Gentiles So as long as you know, we're not radical dispensationalist saying that you know, there's two different Gospels the drawing is

Happens by divine revelation and then I would add and the effectual work of the

Holy Spirit and so that's kind of the reform Perspective as we look at verse 44 and 45 together

By listening inclining their ear to hear the gospel just like when they incline their ear to hear Moses So they believe

Moses they would believe Jesus. So so did any so Did every person who was drawn by the father?

Okay now they're getting into some things here that I think are real important we can really do a lot with We might even be able to really challenge each other to in this part to the

Sun Come to the Sun in that context. I have no problem with that interpretation because he's not drawing them

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

Well, obviously we have interpretations of both verses and they correlate together

Now White is going to say some things that are pretty pretty mistaken here but I think what he's trying to I think the point white is trying to press with this question is like he's

Backwards like the flowers is backwards interpreting it right now. I would I would disagree that that's what flowers are doing it

I think anytime that Jesus says something and then Doesn't a way to make it clear that's legitimate to say was obviously what it means.

He just clarified it, but I believe that he's And when Jesus has draw,

I think anybody could admit that that statement of the self isn't quite ambiguous I mean Jesus doesn't say anything just within the statement of what drawing it

I mean who if all you knew about the Bible and you read that statement from Jesus You wouldn't know what in the world the draw was

I mean it has to be either clarified or you could use further context which I would say you can get from the previous chapters but I Never liked this idea that well if the next statement afterwards explains it.

Well that comes after it. So you're backwards interpreting You know, that's that's that's called me. That's what the

New Testament does Jeremiah the New Testament clarifies many obscure prophecies and Prefigurements and foreshadows in the

Old Testament. It makes it clearer. So future revelation can clear up things in the past anyway

To to add to your point if I could clear up what I think dr White means now he said at first and I have to say a second to bring clarity.

I Think what he means though is the assumption

This is just my thought I think what he is accusing Leighton of an Anticalvinist is there's an assumed anthropology in verse 45

That's unargued for all the time and then that shoehorned back into verse 44

I think that's the type of pushback. He is meaning here because what you said is absolutely true

In fact, I believe what's necessary for a reformed hermeneutic now We all should be agreeing with the grammatical historical method of interpretation, right?

If we're not that language If you're not speaking that language, then nothing is intelligible like that's transcendental for human

Communication has to be what we're doing it right now. But what's what's also necessary in the reform paradigm is what's called a

I'm trying to think of there's a few different ways to saying it a a Christocentric hermeneutic now you may agree in part with this

Class Dispensationalists do not agree with this and so the reformed, you know say like this is distinctly reformed

But maybe they're shared principles But in order to understand the Old Testament You have to take

Jesus with you into the Old Testament like on the road to Emmaus Jesus said, you know he expounded on the the

The Hebrew Scriptures the law the the prophets and the writings. He showed them that it all pointed to him

I believe it's John 5 earlier in the context or earlier in the book verse 39 The the

Jews had twisted the the Hebrew Scriptures thinking that they could obtain eternal life But it was they that testified of Jesus.

So kind of the hermeneutic we're saying is is Christo centric redemptive historical

Hermeneutic meaning when we go to these less clear passages that are types and shadows in the

Old Testament We're taking the New Testament with us. We're taking Jesus with us And as dr.

White has said in the past modern -day Jews, they're reading the scriptures with one eye closed They can't look at Isaiah 53 with its fulfillment.

So anyway, I agree with you in part that In order to understand the old you have to have clarity from the new but with dr

Why I think he's challenging the priests the precepts. You notice it's a presuppositional battle, right?

Even though dr. White's the affirmative. I think it's fair that he challenges maybe because check this out.

Do you dr? Why do you remember what? Dr. Flowers said his ultimate presupposition was I laughed

I almost wanted to stand up and be like, ah But he said he said his presupposition is

John 316 Yeah, of course like like you got to be careful on the presuppositions and I get it

I mean the negative has to kind of say that to some extent but we all have presuppositions and so we rightly can challenge those as we go, but that's that's what

I see a lot happening a K is When a meaning is attempting to be drawn out and we use modern vernacular

The other side says it don't say that and we're like, we know it doesn't say that verbatim

But like you and I are talking about we're talking about well, what is the substance that substance carry over into that vernacular?

Yeah but the significance of this debate is James Wide has to be able to demonstrate

Right that unconditional election is not presupposed in the text. He has to establish it by the things that is the debate now

He's cross -examining flowers. So he's it's fine for him to also challenges his interpretation

But flowers could at some point say I may be wrong, but you're not right either, you know

That wouldn't be me. That's the advantage of the negative. They they get to cast out and They're not technically defending anything, even though I I actually think everybody's defending something

You just got to be able to know how to shift the burden of proof properly What else was

I gonna say? And listen to them reminded me a lot of our debate as well. Just talking about presuppositions and so forth

Yeah, cool. We were debating a topic which is a very whole different ballgame now

Yes, so when I debated David Lewis, I would often say when dealing with his passages I would say I'm not claiming to be able to prove my position from this passage.

I said, but are you proving yours? Well when he had his three passages he had three passages for perseverance of the

Saints I had three against them and then when I would debate his we were talking about his like John chapter 10

I would make cases in Romans 8 I would say Even if your view is taught elsewhere

You must prove it taught here and I could say it could be it could fit.

I think I even said this to him I said your passage if your view is true could work with it, but it has to prove it

That's what the debate on a passage is. Yeah now and one more point I just want to make sure everybody knows

I'm not saying well, you don't know what the draw is until verse 44 It's it's quite clearly stated

But I believe that you can gather it from what has already been said in the previous chapters that it's those faithful Israelites Who had already understood

God were being attracted to Jesus. Go ahead Yeah, this may be brought up later in the cross sects

So I won't go super in -depth here. But one of the questions was from flowers to dr

White is do you believe that draws here is synonymous with regeneration?

I think he was even quoting one of dr White's books and Dr. White just said hey, that's not the language provided to us revealed to us

So I'm gonna deal with what John is saying here, and I've often thought well even white would agree the drawing here entails

Regeneration or the being born again back in John chapter 3, but the I thought why is the term drag?

Kind of being brought out here and in reformed theology. We're saying God's not working against man's will he's working through Man's will and I think this is you can respond to it

We can go back to the video, but I think this drawing not only Necessarily entails regeneration in the reformed sense, but it also includes the providence that leads up to That regeneration therefore it's it's much broader and in scope than just being born again

So anyway, I just want to throw that out there Yeah now primarily what Jeremiah and I have done in this debate we haven't really done a lot of debating each other

We've kind of offered opposing viewpoints at times but because we're trying to just comment on things about the debate, but That's why

I just kept saying The debate here's what

I would have done with white I would have said all right, dr White do you believe in unconditional election? You believe it's established from John chapter 6 debate is about What's that?

You would have said prove it buddy. I would have said all right Which part of John 6 pick one and we'll go to that and we'll do it and whatever line he would say

I would say all right, but but how does it prove I'm gonna get your election, you know So if he had said well, he says all that the father gives me will come to me

I said, okay. Well, but how do you know that those the father gives me are unconditionally chosen? Where part of the text says that and that's why