John 6:44 debate?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sovereign Grace

Puritan Board Sophomore
I wasn’t sure were to put this, so I’ll put it here and if it needs moved, by all means, move it.

Who on here watched that debate betwixt Dr. White and Dr. Flowers? It was clearly a one-sided debate that was won by Dr. White. Thoughts?
 
I'm in a very Arminian-leaning FB apologetics group, and when the general reception is "Well, it wasn't that bad for Leighton Flowers," "I thought he was going to get beaten much worse because he's not as good a debater," "White's behavior was unbecoming," etc. etc.

...draw your own conclusions.
 
I haven't seen much. I only wonder how and why someone would debate the exegesis of the text if they can't read the Greek... I'm sure I'll have much to talk to my friend about who thinks I follow I dangerous cult.
 
Last edited:
I’m surprised these two are still debating each other. And frankly I have no interest in watching modern day debates over things that have been settled by whole councils centuries ago. At this point shouldn’t someone like Leighton Flowers, who has spent so much energy over the past however many years attempting to dismantle “Calvinism” on the internet, be ignored and avoided (at least in the context of his online ministry)?
 
I’m surprised these two are still debating each other. And frankly I have no interest in watching modern day debates over things that have been settled by whole councils centuries ago. At this point shouldn’t someone like Leighton Flowers, who has spent so much energy over the past however many years attempting to dismantle “Calvinism” on the internet, be ignored and avoided (at least in the context of his online ministry)?
Yes
 
Thing with debates is you have to see them as a form of intellectual entertainment (heavily deemphasizing the former for presidential debates) rather than some kind of serious academic endeavor to change people's minds or something, the latter being how a lot of people approach them by default.

More like watching a chess match--or someone else playing a video game on youtube, for you Gen Zs here. Don't take them too seriously.

Only then can you properly consume them as they are best consumed.
 
Thing with debates is you have to see them as a form of intellectual entertainment (heavily deemphasizing the former for presidential debates) rather than some kind of serious academic endeavor to change people's minds or something, the latter being how a lot of people approach them by default.

More like watching a chess match--or someone else playing a video game on youtube, for you Gen Zs here. Don't take them too seriously.

Only then can you properly consume them as they are best consumed.
I think this certainly can be said about many "debates" these days, especially the ones that are online only, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Moderated debates can be a good forum to learn both sides of an issue. I think the Shisko/White debate on baptism was a very good one. White debating Dr Brown are also good. I think it depends on the people involved if they are serious or not.
 
I think this certainly can be said about many "debates" these days, especially the ones that are online only, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Moderated debates can be a good forum to learn both sides of an issue. I think the Shisko/White debate on baptism was a very good one. White debating Dr Brown are also good. I think it depends on the people involved if they are serious or not.
Yeah, learning and entertainment certainly aren't necessarily mutually exclusive... but often they will lean more to one side of the other, on balance. If you're learning nothing whatsoever by watching a debate, it's just a waste of time that might just as well be spent on Andy Griffith reruns. On the other hand, you can't reasonably expect them to have the same educational value as a serious academic book or lecture either.
 
Last edited:
Leighton Flowers should just not be taken seriously. I think continuing to engage him is fruitless, and just gives him more air time. The more level-headed Arminians avoid him because they know what he is - Pelagian. He denies any work of the Spirit being necessary to conversion beyond a mere hearing the gospel or reading scripture. Classical Arminianism, confused as it may be, affirms an active work of the Spirit being necessary.
 
Leighton Flowers should just not be taken seriously. I think continuing to engage him is fruitless, and just gives him more air time. The more level-headed Arminians avoid him because they know what he is - Pelagian. He denies any work of the Spirit being necessary to conversion beyond a mere hearing the gospel or reading scripture. Classical Arminianism, confused as it may be, affirms an active work of the Spirit being necessary.
Agree completely with this.
 
Two things are simultaneously true. James White obviously won the debate; James White handled himself very unbecomingly and needs to rid himself of his ‘better-than’ temperament that has gotten completely out of hand over the past 5-10 years. Also, James White needs to read more Rutherford and Boston; he’s not very good on the offer of the gospel from where I sit. He tends towards being a hyper-calvinist.
 
Two things are simultaneously true. James White obviously won the debate; James White handled himself very unbecomingly and needs to rid himself of his ‘better-than’ temperament that has gotten completely out of hand over the past 5-10 years. Also, James White needs to read more Rutherford and Boston; he’s not very good on the offer of the gospel from where I sit. He tends towards being a hyper-calvinist.

He's admittedly and unashamedly a high Calvinist. He is most certainly not a hyper Calvinist. There is a real distinction there, and I think Dr. White firmly lands in the one camp and not the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top