No one is above reproach. Dr White is not wrong. John Lennox is a sweet sweet man, but we all need corrected if we're wrong about theological issues.

@kennethgee2004

4 жыл бұрын

You are correct that no one is above reproach, which includes Dr. White. Timex index 9:45 is where Dr. White is wrong about Dr. Lennox. Dr. White says that Dr. Lennox is assuming that there is some spiritual life in man in order to have them "hear" the word of God. Dr. Lennox specifically said that they were not intellectually dead. If Dr. Lennox meant partially alive spiritually, then he would have written that. The assumption is being made by Dr. White. I suspect a motive because many think that Dr. Lennox is non-Calvinist. I have never heard Dr. Lennox say much on the issue. I make no assumptions either way about his beliefs. I know Dr. White is a Calvinist as he explicitly says so. I am not a Calvinist for the reason of having free will. Ephesians 2:8-10 King James Version (KJV) 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. A person has the right to accept or reject a gift. God has ordained that all should do good works. Both free will for man and God's sovereignty is preserved.

@scottbeach5234

2 жыл бұрын

He is just talking out of pride like always. Lmao 🤣🤣. James White wants no part of debating Lennox or William Lane Craig because he can't bully either one. Lennox and Craig are out of his league and he knows it.

@joshhigdon4951

2 жыл бұрын

@@scottbeach5234 HAHAHA! White cant debate Craig? You've got to be kidding me. Craig is a lame evidenced based apologist, leaving the nonbeliever to be the judge of God. He doesn't even push the christian God, just "a" god apologetic. And if I am wrong, please correct me, but doesn't he claim the office title of apologist (as if that is a biblical title)? And again if I am wrong please correct me, but isnt his ministry a distinct ministry, not held accountable by church elders? I cant seem to find if he is even a church goer. Reminds me of Ravi....

@scottbeach5234

2 жыл бұрын

@@joshhigdon4951 That's your opinion and it's fine. I just feel the same about James White. He's LAME!!!

@joshhigdon4951

2 жыл бұрын

@@scottbeach5234 and that's your opinion. So where do we go from here? Do you not believe in godly correction? But what ponders me most is you still watching James White, Mr. Lame.....lol

@Dividing_Line_Highlights Thank you for this content, have appreciated it before and appreciate it again. When you find less time to watch a full DL these are great!

wow. Thank you. We are studying Pipers book "5 points' in our life group and a few people are having a struggle. I have watched hours and hours of your videos and this one is spot on. It will assist me in helping them through it.

@user-bf1vi6hf3n

3 ай бұрын

WHITE IS ASSUMING WHAT THE TEXT IS SAYING. THE MORE HE OPENS HIS MOUTH THE DEEPER THE HOLE HE IS GETTING INTO

We have to allow Scripture to speak for itself and submit ourselves to God's revelation of Himself through His word.

Great minds can have blind spots. The plain reading of the text leads inevitably to a Reformed position.

Its plain but difficult to accept for many christians. I struggled with this for many years and I just had to acknowledge what the Word of God is saying. My foolish pride.

Please contact Lennox, I would absolutely love that debate.

@virginiahernandez1329

Ай бұрын

white would run

James white Has knowledge,revelation and humility in my opinion 🙏

In Romans 10, Paul gives a proper response to people like John Lennox, Leighton Flowers, William Lane Craig, Frank Turek and the rest of them who are so wedded to their Autonomian commitments, that, in the words of Paul, while “they are zealous for God, THEIR ZEAL IS NOT BASED ON KNOWLEDGE… since they did not know the righteousness of God and SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN, they did not submit to God's righteousness” - Rom 10:2,3

@3artwork

3 ай бұрын

You can't just cherry-pick verses like this, brother. Verse 1 makes it clear that Paul is praying and talking about Jews, more specifically, UNBELIEVERS. Jews who believe in Yahweh, but not Jesus. He is praying that they come to knowledge (of Jesus) not just zeal for Yahweh. Context will help us not misapply scriptures. ‭Romans 10:1 ESV‬ [1] Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.

@osks

2 ай бұрын

@@3artwork I suspect your quarrel with me is not about my interpretation of Romans 10:2,3, but about the fact that I dare to call out men like John Lennox, Leighton Flowers, William Lane Craig, Frank Turek and a great many others who, like the Jews who Paul had in view here, all preach a ‘gospel’ of ‘bootstrap salvation by works’… Like the Jews who displayed an earnest and sincere zeal for God, these men too have a real (and admirable) zeal for the Lord However, and like the Jews, theirs is a zeal not based on knowledge… the knowledge (mediated by Christ (1Tim 2:5), communicated by the Spirit (Jhn 16:13-15)) that salvation is entirely an act of God’s sovereign grace (Genesis 1:1 through to Revelation 22:21, esp Rom 9-11)… So, there is a broader principle at play here… mere zeal and sincerity, whilst admirable, counts for nought for so long they insist upon subordinating the sovereignty of God to the ‘sovereignty of man’…

@3artwork

2 ай бұрын

@@osks umm, I don't know why you're assuming there's a quarrel. I'm just pointing out that the knowledge the Jews lacked was a knowledge of Christ as the Messiah. If Paul was arguing that they don't have knowledge of God's sovereignty (ie are damned), as you say, why is he praying for them?

@osks

2 ай бұрын

@@3artwork Like Paul, we unceasingly pray on bloodied knees before God that He has claimed, especially those who matter to us, as His own… It is God who saves - Psm 68:20…

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” Romans 3:23-24

@virginiahernandez1329

Ай бұрын

GOD DESIRES NO MAN TO PERISH

What app does white use for reading?

A 45 minute highlight? That's almost the whole program lol

@SerendipitousProvidence

Жыл бұрын

Lol

Yes, the is a discussion of issues in Systematic Theology amongst professing Christians. We ought to avoid demonizing our opponents, even if our opponents attempt to demonize us. That being said, the errors of Lennox's book are nothing new. 1). He hardly even attempts to answer the question: how does God know stuff? He merely alludes to Molinism, and the 'God is outside of time' view (which still doesn't answer the question). Both of these views conclude that God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the creation and creatures for His knowledge of it/them (both William Lane Craig and Pastor Mike Winger have said the God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the choices that men make in time, and the events that occur in time for His knowledge). 2). He presupposes that his false definition of human libertarian free will is the prerequisite which establishes the concept of responsibility. Dr. Robert L. Reymond destroyed this presupposition in His Systematic Theology book. Because the synergist has a false definition of 'human free will' (taken not from Scripture, but derived from the philosophically speculative ether of error), he also has a false definition of 'responsibility'. Human Free Will, defined biblically (cf. Jn. 8:31-38): 1). A will that never assents to any errant proposition as if it were true; and, 2). A will that never wills to do anything other than that which is good and well-pleasing to God. Jesus possessed THIS definition of Human Free Will; Jesus DID NOT possess 'the power of contrary choice' (the false, synergistic definition of 'free will') to sin, or to err. The glorified saints in the eschaton will also NOT possess 'the power of contrary choice' to sin or to err. We will be "like him": not sinning, and not assenting to error, falsehoods, and lies. Responsibility, defined biblically (Heb. 4:13; 1 Pet. 4:5; Rom. 3:19): "the obligation to give a response, or render an account to an higher authority for any and all infractions of the law(s) imposed upon us by a lawgiver". Notice: 1). LAW is the prerequisite which establishes responsibility. Without some law, or group of laws/imperatives/commands/'ought' or 'ought not' statements, there is no such thing a responsibility/accountability/liability/culpability/blame or fault. Law is the prerequisite which establishes all these. 2). God can NEVER be accountable or responsible for anything He says or does! Because there is no higher authority to whom God will be obligated to give a response, or render an account, the very concept of 'responsibility' can NEVER apply to Him. Secondly, there is no law that has ever been imposed upon God, or ever can be imposed upon God (unless one is a Mormon). He ALONE is AUTONOMOUS ('a law unto Himself'). God cannot be blamed or held accountable for anything because there are no laws to which God is subject. (Jesus, in His humanity was subject to the law, of course; but here I am speaking about the eternal deity...the Triune God; not about Jesus' humanity). Again, nothing new in Lennox's book; just the same old presuppositions that synergists have held for centuries, if not millennia. Hope this is as edifying as James' masterful takedown of the flawed interpretation of Scripture that Lennox attempts to give in his book. *Soli Deo Gloria*

I’m sorry, but Lennox wrote such a beautiful book that grabs your mind and heart so effortlessly because it rings so logically true. He makes such a compelling case for free will that anyone of any educational level can grasp and see how true it is. You TULIP bros get so down into the minutia of the Word trying to prove YOUR view of sovereignty that you start to resemble the catholic priests who only gave the mass in Latin with no regard for the laymen hearing your preaching. Determinism requires biblical backflips and a rejection of God given common sense to fit into the Biblical story. I went down this Calvinist rabbit whole for a couple of years and the number one thing I came away with is that most hardcore TULiP believers come off as arrogant know-it-alls. Doesn’t ring of much Jesus to me.

@AgeDeo2009

Ай бұрын

May we be like the Berean believers who received God's Word with eagerness studying it daily. (Acts 17:11) Careful exegesis and hermeneutics of Scripture is essential to arrive at clearer knowledge of the truth, my friend.

@misse8787

15 күн бұрын

Depends on your definition of the term "Freewill." Historically "free will" meant that one had the ability to makes decisions without outside influences or coercion to make that decision, whether good or bad. In this sense only God has "freewill." Everything we (the created) do in life is contingent upon something in the background influencing and persuading us to make choices, whether, right or wrong, good or bad, trial and error. God on the other hand does NOT have this problem. He is not influenced by His creation. God is All Knowing (and already knows beginning to end and end from beginning). He is All powerful, and present everywhere, He knows the outcome of the future because it is written. Scripture is our final authority for knowing God. Only God declares beginning, middle, and end, God is not coerced or offended by humanity like we are depended upon His mercy and grace. So does God have Freewill ? Yes, because there is no one beside Him or higher in authority.

I have a couple comments. The first is a broke away from the Catholic church and my belief in God after the huge scandal of priests raping boys and the church covering it up. About 4 years ago I happened upon a video of John Lennox. I have listened to most of his videos, debates, etc since this time. He not only brought me back to Christianity, but I am now trying to convince others as well. So I have the upmost respect for him. I understand exactly what he is saying the moment he starts talking. I would suggest his logic and my logic are on the same wavelength. Secondly, I listened to this video for about 25 minutes. I honestly could not understand much of what you were talking about. I kept saying aloud "please get to the point"? Maybe we are just on 2 totally different wavelengths. Next is what is the point of arguing, I would suggest, aggressively with John Lennox? Many times Lennox just wants to get people to open their minds and think about what he is saying. As I said, he opened my mind and brought me strongly back to Christ. It seems you should be out there, as he is, arguing with Atheists. They are the ones truly corrupting the minds of people and turning them away from Christ. The one thing I can understand is that you have a differing opinion then Lennox. That's ok. Maybe sum it up nicely in a few minutes. Of course he is not right about everything. He is human. Just like you are not right about everything.

@Christian.Portugues.Francisco

3 жыл бұрын

Hello Mike. I would say to you that you need to come to Christ by his grace and by repantence and Faith. There is no men that can do what only God trough his word and the power of the holy spirit can do. If the Lord used John Lennox to speak to you that is great and i don´t want to take anything away from it! Still we have to see, that doctrine matters and as fare as i can see, this is the Main issue in the Reformation and the Gospel. Im not yet sure which possition to take. I´m reading, hearing and praying for guidance. And i can not deny, that this is the Text where only one side can positiv exeges this text(vers by vers/as far as i can see) Maybe you should take your time to read by yourself as i do and follow the text as it is. Shalom!

@danielomitted1867

2 жыл бұрын

I got the point about 12 minutes in. Basically John Lennox is misrepresenting (not intentionally Im sure) reformed theology and mishandling the relevant texts. Im glad God used John Lennox to bring you into the faith but that doesnt mean John Lennox is always right. As Christians we must strive hard for Gods truth.

@chrismachin2166

5 ай бұрын

John Lennox wants to believe Faith precedes Regeneration. Biblical truth is Regeneration precedes Faith. We don’t have the ability to come to Spiritual life because we are dead in sin and trespass,only God can free us with the undeserved gift of saving Grace.

Thankyou for an accurate exegesis of John. I totally accept that only those who have been chosen of God will receive eternal life...and those who have not been chosen, will not. Unless one has been regenerated by the Spirit they cannot see the Kingdom of God. An unregenerated person who believes that they can decide to become a christian, is a contradiction in terms. At best, they can be a nominal Christian which means that they are not a Christian. Roman Catholicism is full of nominal christians. As you say, Christ said : you cannot hear my words. They were not chosen by the Father.

@SerendipitousProvidence

Жыл бұрын

And why were they not chosen by Father?

@jaggedlines2257

Жыл бұрын

​@@SerendipitousProvidence Read Ephesians 1

Debate him face to face.

Yeah James White doesn't have a Calvinist set of presuppositions.

@rlh125

3 ай бұрын

Sorry, but it isn't that easy.

@MB777-qr2xv

3 ай бұрын

@@rlh125 I've heard James White say that if a man brutally rapes a young girl, God caused it. If not, it is just a meaningless, random act.

@misse8787

15 күн бұрын

Now that's funny. Lol, not.

Men who insist that man has a role to play in salvation deny the grace of God in salvation, because they insist that God should respond to whatever action THEY took in order to save them from amongst everyone else. In other words, they demand that God respect them while condemning others who didn’t do the thing. The Bible teaches that the gift of salvation is free and is given apart from works. Apart from works means “according to God’s choice.” It doesn’t mean, “stop working and start trusting.” If you don’t believe the same thing the apostles did, how can it be said you have obtained a faith of equal standing as theirs? 2 Peter 1? The apostles would never teach that Jesus died for everyone and people CAN BE saved IF THEY do x, because that is not what Jesus taught them about the purpose and meaning of his death. What’s stunning about White’s position here is that he claims there is some sort of “core of belief,” which evidently he believes Arminians hold. What is that core of belief? Is it just historical facts about Jesus, COMBINED with the false doctrine that Jesus died for every sinner? Is that what the “core belief” is? I would submit that Paul and Peter would never agree with that, if only because they taught that salvation was secure for God’s elect. As such, what’s all the debating for James? If Arminians already believe the gospel, then all you’re doing is insisting on right doctrine. If what you’re teaching here isn’t gospel, then it seems like you just like to listen to yourself talk.

What a complete and utter waste of time. Jesus when talking to the Pharisee and the Jews in John is not talking about Salvation through His shed blood. The context He is talking to them about is Him as the Jewish Messiah, the one who would sit on David’s throne. This is how many Jews and His disciples perceived Him. His entry into Jerusalem was staged as such to fulfil prophecy. “Behold your King comes, lowly and sitting on a donkey and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” And the crowds shouted “ Hosanna to the Son of David (the promised Messiah)! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” The development of his atoning death came after His resurrection. That is why later on in John, Jesus said to His disciples that there many other things He needed to teach them, but they couldn’t bear them at that moment, but He promised the Holy Spirit who would begin to unveil that mystery of His atoning death and His church to them (Eph 3: 3-6). It is clear from Acts 1 that the disciples did not understand that mystery yet, as their question to Him after His resurrection was “Are you now going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?” Which would be logical because the 40 days Jesus was with them it states He spoke to them about the Kingdom, not the Church. After that they basically thought, well you entered Jerusalem to be King, they killed you, now enter the second time and claim your throne. Of course Jesus refused this. Why, because they did not understand about the Church, and that through its revelation He would make one new man from both Jew and Gentile through the preaching of the cross. To immediately establish His throne would have not allowed that to happen. Therefore He tells them to wait for the descent of the Holy Spirit to empower them to be His witnesses to allow those purposes to unfold. This happened on the day of Pentecost, which is again just overly Jewish and not talking of the atoning blood. Peter never mentions the blood as a means of forgiveness. It is actually the continuing of John the Baptist’s call to Israel to repent and be baptised in preparation for the Messiah, but this time in the name of Jesus the revealed Messiah, for the forgiveness of sins and that times of refreshing might come. Those Jews who came to John the Baptist received forgiveness but now they receive the forgiveness in the name of Jesus and receive the promise what the Baptist proclaimed, that He who is preferred over me will baptise you with the fire of the Holy Spirit, and this is fulfilled on Pentecost. It’s Jewishness is confirmed because Peter quotes Joel and David and all these promises were to do with the Messiah of Israel, that is why Peter says in v36 of Ch 2 “ Let all the house of Israel therefore know....” Nothing of Gentiles. That would be developed later by the Holy Spirit. Dr. White is imposing his systemisation of salvation on a scene in John 5,6,7 & 8 that is not talking about it. This is exactly what the Jews were doing to Jesus. He was not living up to their systemised version of who the Messiah would be. Hence the rejection of Him as the Jewish Messiah, not universal Saviour dying for their sins. The Jews or the religious leaders had no concept of a universal saviour. It was contrary to their thinking. This had nothing to do with spiritual deadness on the Jews part, but with doctrinal bias and blindness. Their not seeing was not due to spiritual deadness but due to the fact they didn’t want to see. That is why Jesus said as Dr. White kept on harping about in John 5:44-47 about that Jesus needs to give you life before you can believe but it is not about that at all. Jesus said “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and not seek the glory that comes from God...” They cared more about their theological schools they came from and their status in the community. Just read Alfred Edersheim’s book “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah” to get a full understanding of the arrogance and pride of the Jewish ruling class both religious and political. It had nothing to do with the inability to see and understand the truth but in their pride they willing, and to use the words of Paul from Romans against the pagan world in Romans 1:18 that they “suppressed the truth”. They could have believe if they wanted for Jesus said in John 5:45 “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you, Moses, on whom you set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words.” They had Moses telling them who He was but again it must be taken in historical context that by this time both the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud were seen to be more authoritative that actual Scripture. Jesus “You make null and void the word of God through the traditions of men.” And therefore as stated it is pride, wilful spiritual blindness, not their incapacitate not to believe but their wilful capacity not wanting to believe. Also in John 11 and the raising of Lazarus has nothing to do with the teaching of regeneration. It was Jesus’ confirmation to Mary and Martha that He will raise to life physically all those who will come to believe in Him and die before His return.

@shopson6991

3 жыл бұрын

This does 👉 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:63, 65‬ ‭ESV‬‬ 👆 No one can go to Jesus without it being granted built the Father. You must be born again by God. Jesus is clear that must be granted by God. If you believe that everyone can come to Jesus then you are going against what Jesus said...... Your problem is the Bible not us. 🤷‍♂️

@marksorenson5871

Жыл бұрын

Yeah- youre an Arminian. You deny the Sovereignty of God and the depravity of man. Rome agrees with you😊😂

At time index 6:38, Dr White is playing fast and loose with the definition of free by trying to equate it to ability. The two are not equal.

@Henry._Jones

Жыл бұрын

Except that all the critics of reformed theology predicate their criticism on exactly that equivalence - that "total inability" precludes freedom. Moreover, White isn't making the equivalence you say . . . he's simply recognizing that the critics make it (and they do).

@kennethgee2004

Жыл бұрын

@@Henry._Jones Nut he is making that equivalence. Calvinism states that we are not free to choose to be saved. Free will means that we have a choice. Deterministic means that everything was chosen by God. The Calvinist would say that ordained the saints before the foundation of the world, so we are determined. The issue there is John 3:16-17 wherein it is who so ever believes is saved and that this choice to believe is not all the world and not just some elect. Verse 17 is clear in that, but they both also say that not will be saved. Primarily because they choose not to believe. We se that also in John as he describes how men love their evil deeds so they choose darkness so that their deeds are not exposed. The light came into the world and was rejected, which is clearly a choice. But let me rewatch this and show you exactly how his statements are equating free will with ability.

@kennethgee2004

Жыл бұрын

@@Henry._Jones at right around time index 5:00 Dr White throws out John 8:43. His conclusion is that we do not have a capacity to understand the words of Jesus. I agree with that as to the sinner the word of God is not understandable and appears to be foolish. There is where the Holy Spirit is drawing men in and letting them see the issues with sin and their need for the Savior. WE know that God searches out the lost. We are called in the Great Commission to preach to all nations and people the gospel of Christ. I note that this means we preach to everyone and not just a select few.

@Henry._Jones

Жыл бұрын

​@@kennethgee2004No, he does not make that equivalence. There's a nuanced but important difference in his position. I'll come back to that point in a minute, but again, keep in mind that calvinism's opponents assume this equivalence themselves when they criticize reformed soteriology (and so criticizing that equivalence is inconsistent with that assumption). Namely, calvinism's critics argue that the doctrine of total depravity necessarily means a lack of freedom. This point doesn't logically float unless one assumes positive moral ability as either equivalent to, or a necessary precursor of, genuine free will. So, the anti-calvinist critique depends on this equivalence. White, and the reformed position, on the other hand, make a **distinction** between volitional freedom of the will, on the one hand, and moral capacity/willingness, on the other. Neither White, nor the vast majority of reformed theologians, argue that man lacks volitional capacity. They instead argue that men lack **moral** capacity, i.e. inclination towards the good and true. As such, White is the one actually making a distinction between "freedom" (volitional capacity), which even the reprobate has under calvinism, and, on the other hand, moral capacity (i.e., willingness), on the other. It's important to remember that Calvinism does not posit that our "choice"/faith is somehow absent in the salvific paradigm, but rather, that our faith response is (and must be) enabled by God. And the universality of the Great Commission is both a command and a means, but does not operate as any sort of proof of either side of the debate regarding election and regeneration.

@kennethgee2004

Жыл бұрын

@@Henry._Jones Yes, he did make that direct statement at around time index 5:00. Dr White states that Jesus is saying we lack the capacity to understand His words. How can you say that Dr White is not making that statement. when he clearly says it? Truth matters. You cannot deny that this is exactly what Dr White said and he is using scripture of John 8:43 and John 8:58 to reinforce the point. I believe in total depravity, but I do not believe in a lack of free will. Yet, I do criticize Calvinism. I do hold that positive moral ability exists within God. We are made in the image of God and thus as a moral agent we could have been sinless. When we go to Heaven we will be sinless there. No, my criticism does not rely on positive moral ability. My criticism is that Calvinism states that man is incapable in any way to reach God. Calvinism denies that man is able to receive the gift of salvation. Calvinism comes close to denying that God can be sovereign and create man with free will. John 3:16 clearly states that who shall ever believe shall be saved. We have accepted the moral good of God and thus are saved. Gid does not force us to believe. I think the point you are trying to make is not what Dr. White stated. He is in error and you cannot accept that because would mean part of what you believe is in error. The point that none seek after God is also clear in the Bible. There is no need for Calvinism if that is all that is implied. The Bible is clear that God seeks after the lost. It is the good shepherd that seeks out the lost lamb. Jesus came to seek that which was lost. The Great Commission does not say to preach to the elect. This is the major point of Calvinism is that it is the elect that God calls and as such is limited atonement. According to John 3:16-17 God gave the gift to the world. The only thing is that the gift means that you cannot reject the person of Jesus as He is the gift. Onr must believe in Jesus in order to be saved. We preach so that all may hear the message.

I certainly cannot read Greek, but I can identify wordplay: @4:44 Dr White reads "you are not ABLE" but immediately substitutes the word 'able' for 'capacity'.... Ability = Actual skill, either mental or physical; native or acquired. Capacity = Potential to develop a skill, usually mental; native, as opposed to acquired. John 6 does NOT teach humanity doesn't have a capacity to hear Jesus'words, as Dr Whute and Calvinists claim. A prime example of a Calvinist changing definitions, or actually entire words in this case, to impose upon a text to understanding and desired erroneous Calvinistic conclusions

@rpavich

10 ай бұрын

Yes it does…clearly for sure…

@rpavich

10 ай бұрын

Sorry, nope

@3artwork

3 ай бұрын

It isn't that big of a deal if it's rendered as capacity. If you say "you don't have the capacity to hear my words" still doesn't explain *why* they don't have the capacity. Dr. White never touches on this at all. John 6, though, does "everyone who has listened and learned from the Father comes to me". Simple as that. You are not able to come because you haven't listened to the Father

@3artwork

3 ай бұрын

Dr White would say you don't have the capacity b/c you aren't elect, but John failing to mention it in the text would be such a glaring omission, it would be unexplainable, so Dr White never addresses it

Lol. You won't debate John Lennox or William Lane Craig because you won't be able to bully them like you do to others you debate.

By the way, Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him." Notice it does NOT say, "... unless the Father forces him.

@rlh125

3 ай бұрын

That is an absurd argument. You have obviously spent no time seriously listening to the arguments that Calvinists put forth. Your arguments are about 1/4 inch deep. I encourage you to do the hard work of really listening to Calvinist's exegeting the scripture instead of lazily dropping one-liners in the comment section. Dr White dives into things in great detail.

@DBHunter1

3 ай бұрын

Does God will all to be saved? If so, then you either believe God's will can be thwarted (contra Daniel) or God has 2 wills.

@MB777-qr2xv

3 ай бұрын

@@rlh125 I've listened to John Piper say that God controls even the movement of dust particles in a beam of light in a darkened room. I've heard Jeff Durbin say God is not partially sovereign, not half sovereign, but sovereignly, sovereign. I've heard James White say that if a man brutally rapes a young girl, God caused it. If not, it is just a meaningless, random act. So yes, I have spent serious time listening to the claims of Hyper-Calvinists like Jeff Durbin, John Piper, and James White. Why are you so angry? Was my statement wrong when I said, "Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him." Notice it does NOT say, "... unless the Father forces him."

@MB777-qr2xv

3 ай бұрын

@@DBHunter1 The Bible says, "God is NOT willing that ANY should perish, (Hell) but that ALL should come to repentance, and be saved." But Jesus Himself says, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight is the road and narrow the way that leads to life (eternal life) and FEW find it." So God's will (that NONE should perish) is NOT happening if many are on the broad road leading to hell.

Oh Jesus,... I know what Dawkins will be like after being converted 😂. Dude.. Do you realize how self refuting you are?

Good ol Augustinian NON-FREE free will😂😂😂😂 GOD decides EVERYTHING we decide😅😂😂😂... LET'S NOT BE TOO MYOPIC TOO EH LOL

Dr... You need to brush up on your Bible... GOD SAID, "THOU SHALL NOT COVET.". 45 minutes, highlighting yourself. 😂, it's clear, what kind of person you are,. Just from your innuendos.