Steve Gregg vs James White

Dr. Leighton Flowers plays a clip from an old debate between James White and Steve Gregg ( • Calvinism vs Arminiani... ) in order to unpack the distinction between the Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic understanding of Romans 1-3.
JOIN US FOR A LIVE CONVERSATION!
To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: soteriology101...
Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? soteriology101...
Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise” and his book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: www.amazon.com...
DOWNLOAD OUR APP:LINK FOR ANDROIDS: play.google.co....
LINK FOR APPLE: apps.apple.com....
To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: soteriology101...
To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: soteriology101...
For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism) please visit www.soteriology101.com
To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: / 1806702782965265
For updates and news follow us at: soteriology101
Or @soteriology101 on Twitter
Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!
To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers go here: soteriology101....
Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!
To become a Patreon supporter or make a one time donation: soteriology101...
Thanks for watching.

[@darrenbeatty1323]

Steve Gregg is the most underappriciated and underated bible teacher i have ever heard!

[@truthseeker5698]

He has several singing and playing videos on youtube.

[@tonn333]

@@truthseeker5698 why would you point this out? Is He an underappreciated payer and singer too?

[@Rawkabilly57]

I had never heard of Steve Gregg before. After listening to a couple of his debates I've observed that many people misunderstand his position on issues. So far I like him!

[@mynonameyt]

Amen to that. I'm a very fortunate man, I have gotten to know Steve on a personal level and he is very much like you would think. This guy will go anywhere he's invited to preach. His biblical knowledge is to me, Unsurpassed .

[@DAce-vu5ct]

@@tonn333 making conversation obviously

[@yvonnedoulos8873]

I have listened to both of these men for years and without a doubt Steve Gregg is usually the respectful one while Dr. James White, when pressed, becomes defensive and belligerent. It is an obvious sign of his failure to be able to grasp an alternative position and be able to defend against it biblically. He really does a disservice to himself and his ministry.

[@contemplate-Matt.G]

Amen...not usually, almost always

[@lukehelpmetakethisdangmaskoff]

Can the preaching of the false gospel contained in Calvinism be considered a ministry? Paul says he is accursed, does he not?

[@lukehelpmetakethisdangmaskoff]

@@edmcfall3519 James White tends to be a jerk to his opponents. You don't see that or were you objecting to something else?

[@lukehelpmetakethisdangmaskoff]

@@edmcfall3519 I'm sure there is a psychological term used to describe one being unable to see flaws in people they really like and admire, but we all struggle with that. I try to be honest with myself as best I can and I would hope you do as well. For example, I think William Lane Craig is an excellent debater and is extremely intelligent. However, when he said that Christians who believe in a young earth, as in about 6,000 years, was, "hugely embarrassing" I thought he was a massive jerk for believing that and certainly for saying it. I have a question; when Flowers was being a jerk, was it on his own show or in a debate? My problem with White, aside from the fact I think Calvinism preaches a false, satanic perversion of the Gospel, is that he is rude and extremely condescending to people he is debating, like Dave Hunt for example. If I'm honest, my disdain for Calvinism certainly must effect my opinion of him, but his rude treatment of those he debates should be obvious to even the most casual of observers. If he is snarky on his own show, that's not such a big deal, but to someone like Dave Hunt, who was his elder btw, was out of line in my opinion. In the end, you are entitled to your own opinion and we can disagree, agreeably hopefully.

[@dustinpaulson1123]

James White sounded like he became hardened to Steve Gregg's questions. 😆

[@mikefoht2738]

I agree. James White knows the truth that there are no absolute verses pinpointing that Christ only died for the elect. This is why he hardens himself against sound reason and begins to say simple things like all men are sinners (thinking we will all see that the next step must be that since we are sinners we cannot save ourselves and must be totally depraved). When pressed by someone, who won't back down, to answer where does it specifically state in scripture that all men are born without the ability to believe the gospel he refuses to answer the question because he knows that there are no real proof texts. Thus, he is left with saying things that we all believe while dodging the real question. On top of that he always talks down towards the person asking the real reasonable questions. The whole thing reminds me of Biden's spokeswoman who never really answers any question with real substance to it.

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

@@mikefoht2738 I think White must have been bullied on the playground as a kid. And now attempts to 'balance' the scale by pseudo intellectual efforts as best he can.

[@jolookstothestars6358]

Brother that is too funny because its so true. I'm trying to rap my head around how to debate these guys. Its like taking to a brick wall that talks back.🤪

[@isaiah345-6]

@@mikefoht2738 That's incorrect Mike - there are 100s of verses that prove his sacrifice was for ethnic Israelites only - your only argument is the word gentile NOONE CAN CHOSE CHRIST (John 6:44) NO MAN can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (John 15:16) Ye have NOT chosen me, but I have "CHOSEN" you (Isaiah 44:1) for Jacob my servants sake and ISRAEL whom I have "CHOSEN" (Romans 11:1-2) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he "FOREKNEW" (Romans 8:29) For whom he did "FOREKNOW" he also did PREDESTINATE to be CONFORMED to the IMAGE OF HIS SON (Ephesians 1:4-5) According as he hath "CHOSEN" us in him BEFORE the foundation of the world, that WE should be HOLY and without blame before him in love Having PREDESTINATED US unto the ADOPTION of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

[@isaiah345-6]

@@jolookstothestars6358 Christ Isaiah Peter the angel of the Lord n Paul make it clear that Christ's sacrifice was for ethnic bloodline Israelites ONLY CHRIST (Matthew 15:24) I am NOT sent but unto the Lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL ISAIAH (Isaiah 53:5,8) and with his "STRIPES" WE are healed He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of "MY PEOPLE" was he stricken PETER (1st Peter 2:24) Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that WE, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose "STRIPES" WE were healed GOD'S ANGEL (Matthew 1:21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save HIS PEOPLE from THEIR SINS (Matthew 2:6) 6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule MY PEOPLE ISRAEL PAUL (Romans 9:3-5) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for MY BRETHREN, my kinsmen according to the "FLESH" who are ISRAELITES; to whom pertaineth the ADOPTION, and the GLORY, and the "COVENANTS" and the giving of the LAW, and the service of God, and the "PROMISES" whose are the fathers, and of WHOM AS CONCERNING THE "FLESH" CHRIST CAME

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

Gregg took white to the woodshed . White pouted and acted rather childishly in this debate especially when pressed on what the text actually says . Thanks Leighton GOD bless you brother .

[@Jason-L-Ledford]

Dr White knows what Dr Gregg is saying is true but want admit it because then Dr White would have to admit he's wrong.

[@verwesne8121]

I spent some time with Steve Gregg a few years ago for a couple of days in California, talking a lot about biblical topics, theology in general etc. Even years later, I can say that I never encountered a more humble, kind and spiritually wise man than Steve Gregg. He really is a man you can mold your own walk of faith after. I can’t speak highly enough of this man, also I can recommend his published literature like his amazing book on Revelation where the various Christian views are explained and passage by passage put into perspective. He is not promoting one interpretation over the other, but simply explaining how each chapter is interpreted by each school of thought. It’s really amazing.

[@kennykim9811]

May I ask what his book name is? I would be interested in getting a copy for myself.

[@andrewyannucci6480]

Completely agree. I thank god he led me to him thru a debate with Doug Wilson on Calvinism. He has a website called the narrow path. 1000’s of recordings verse by verse and topical. He also has a radio program you can call in and ask questions. And The book is called revelation: four views.

[@connerdill9940]

You can also find a lengthy series of videos on youtube in which he teaches through all of Revelation as he understands it.

[@isaiah345-6]

@@andrewyannucci6480 Christ Isaiah Peter the angel of the Lord n Paul make it clear that Christ's sacrifice was for ethnic bloodline Israelites ONLY CHRIST (Matthew 15:24) I am NOT sent but unto the Lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL ISAIAH (Isaiah 53:5,8) and with his "STRIPES" WE are healed He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of "MY PEOPLE" was he stricken PETER (1st Peter 2:24) Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that WE, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose "STRIPES" WE were healed GOD'S ANGEL (Matthew 1:21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save HIS PEOPLE from THEIR SINS (Matthew 2:6) 6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule MY PEOPLE ISRAEL PAUL (Romans 9:3-5) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for MY BRETHREN, my kinsmen according to the "FLESH" who are ISRAELITES; to whom pertaineth the ADOPTION, and the GLORY, and the "COVENANTS" and the giving of the LAW, and the service of God, and the "PROMISES" whose are the fathers, and of WHOM AS CONCERNING THE "FLESH" CHRIST CAME

[@isaiah345-6]

NOONE CAN CHOSE CHRIST (John 6:44) NO MAN can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (John 15:16) Ye have NOT chosen me, but I have "CHOSEN" you (Isaiah 44:1) for Jacob my servants sake and ISRAEL whom I have "CHOSEN" (Romans 11:1-2) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he "FOREKNEW" (Romans 8:29) For whom he did "FOREKNOW" he also did PREDESTINATE to be CONFORMED to the IMAGE OF HIS SON (Ephesians 1:4-5) According as he hath "CHOSEN" us in him BEFORE the foundation of the world, that WE should be HOLY and without blame before him in love Having PREDESTINATED US unto the ADOPTION of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

[@wagesofsin623]

Steve and his Narrow Path resources have been a treasure. And a very pleasant dude.

[@mikepagliassotti]

You mean his Wide Path way of theology. Remember God love everybody!

[@cookiain]

The debate I’ve been waiting for without even realizing it!

[@lindaphilippi507]

I have never heard anyone handle James White so masterfully!!! Most debaters are too polite and allow JW to interrupt and dominate so he thinks he wins! SG held his ground and didn't let JW manipulate the real Truth and use sarcasm to intimidate.

[@JayJayPee123]

Steve Gregg is head and shoulders above most bible teachers because he QUESTIONS and TESTS everything and isn't married to a system of theology, and hasn't limited himself that way. The same cannot be said for James White.

[@shellymcgrew4412]

I usually hate commentary on what other people say but you do it very well and actually help me to understand what’s going on between the two debaters. Good job!

[@first3numbers]

He said James White was throwing a hissy fit even though there’s no video. Crazy how he even does eisegesis on debates…

[@hiswill-r122]

​@@first3numbersyou can't tell that he gets flustered and irritated by the audio?

[@rosapederson722]

Thanks again Leighton, for spreading the truth about our amazing, loving God, who wants all men to come to the knowledge of the truth. It gets somewhat lonely here, where most of our Christian brothers and sisters are reformed. Your channel has encouraged my husband and me to love and respect those that disagree with us. God bless you brother!

[@bayesianhulk]

Never heard of Steve Gregg before this video. Thanks for sharing. Again it's made evident that James White is not serious.

[@Myrdden71]

I think it's made it evident that James White is dishonest.

[@LukeSmith7777]

I highly recommend Steve’s book Empire of the Risen Son; wonderful look at the Kingdom.

[@a.k.7840]

Oh, he's serious, but taking him seriously is difficult if you're a critical thinker.

[@rogerecoff8725]

James is serious, he is just not humble

[@johnfal1849]

Steve Gregg's website is the narrow path. Highly highly recommended

[@TKK0812]

Usually the “Why you gotta be so rude” broadcasts cause me (not effectually) to focus on James White and his poor arguments/understanding. This broadcast however reminded me just how brilliant Steve Gregg is.

[@Leah-fw5kn]

What is so hard to hear..... is James White's REJECTION of what scripture actually SAYS. He makes God into WHAT he wants not what the Holy Bible says WHO he is.

[@martdavid84]

Steve Gregg is my favorite Bible teacher EVER, hand down! His book, “Empire of the Risen Son” is a phenomenal MUST-read.

[@adamcarpenter1869]

I enjoy Gregg’s eschatology…and that’s about it.

[@martdavid84]

@@adamcarpenter1869 You obviously haven’t heard him teach anything else.

[@adamcarpenter1869]

@@martdavid84 yes I have. His eschatology is excellent. That about all I reference of his. No Bible teacher is perfect. We all know that. I really enjoy James White but disagree with him on eschatology. I get something from both of these Bible believing men.

[@LordBlk]

​@@adamcarpenter1869 smart way to be. For we are each priests are we not. Being humble is a fruit of the spirit I'd say, my real problem isn't this debate, but the infiltration of the woke. There is some occult influence when you see crt in the church. Or basically how Anti Christian Marxism and wokism is in its origins of philosophy.

[@beedee777]

I totally agree about Steve. I finish the first “Empire of the Risen Son” books. He really made me understand the Kingdom and our responsibility towards our King as His Followers. Great book. I’m eager to start the second one.

[@finalstartfitness4473]

Steve Gregg has got to be one of my favorite people to learn from of all time. Especially love learning eschatology from him.

[@penbenner2319]

Hey hi brother may I introduce Andrew Farley to you I’m implementing that Andrew is better it just he is my best Bible teacher

[@edeancozzens3833]

Amen to that. He irons out the wrinkles. His 12 lectures on WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF ISRAEL blows Christ-rejecting Zionism off the table.

[@ruthmayforth5933]

I agree he is a good Bible teacher - although I am not sure how he ended up being a partial preterist, so I disagree with his eschatology there, I think.

[@chaddonal4331]

@@ruthmayforth5933Gregg says that history of Scripture led him to partial preterism. Consider Luke’s parallels to Matthew 24 (through v. 35ish). Notice how they are speaking of the same event/time period. One can imagine what Matthew is talking about, it notice the clarity that Luke offers. Then consider Gentry’s arguments for the early dating of Revelation. These have been influential to Gregg.

[@sorenrousseau]

James white: pouts..mm you didn't let me finish my non sequitor. Me say no fair!" Baby wants his bottle 😂

[@briankregg6329]

Wait, James White doesn't know what he's talking about, say it ain't so??

[@medleysa]

You always pick thumbnails of James White looking grumpy or pissed off. I mean, he usually is, but dang.

[@faithandpractice]

Normally pausing and commenting on a debate like this would drive me crazy but not so in this video. I truly enjoyed you pausing and drawing out certain points. Good job.

[@jsse2704]

One of the major errors that Calvinists make is demonstrated right here with Gregg and James White. The calvinist tends to think that when the scripture says, " None are righteous no not one", that somehow means that all are totally depraved and completely unable to respond to the gospel message. that is a significant error on the part of the calvinist. The uncomfortable fact, for Calvinists anyway, falling short of God's glory does not mean we are totally unable to hear God's voice.

[@tmorganriley]

Yes! That "X != 100%" doesn't entail "therefore, X must = 0%".

[@nathanhellrung9810]

Steve Gregg did a masterful job in getting James White to expose his own eisegesis of the text. James didn't like that and was and is too prideful to admit he is mishandling the text and instead threw a hissy fit. James looked very bad in this debate.

[@JasonJrake]

Oddly enough, it was my first Calvinist mentor who taught me that Romans 1 isn't about "everyone," but is speaking about Israel's accountability as the covenant people of God... I'm not 100% certain of that interpretation, but it certainly fits well, and learning just now that it annoys James White is a nice bonus.

[@keith3362]

Same as Romans 9 it's about Israel and the gentiles not predestination for salvation

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

@@keith3362 I find reading the book of Romans (especially Romans) as the narrative it was written, without the chap/vs divisions really helps a lot in maintaining the focus of Paul's message. Calvinists' seem to pick and choose the verses they require to support TULIP without regard to their overall context. It would seem they do not read the Bible to see what it is saying... they read it to find verses that can be used to support what they already believe.

[@darthnocturnis3941]

I generally find that there are two types of Christians within a given doctrine or systematic: 1) The Christians who put the systematic first and put aside what the Bible says 2) The Christians who hold the Bible primarily while leaning into a systematic. It sounds that your first mentor was more of the second, where the primary focus was on what the Bible says and the systematic provided a secondary context for ministry and approach.

[@JamesBrown-fd1nv]

​@@darthnocturnis3941If the "system" doesn't come from properly diving the word of truth, it cannot be the correct system. To get it right you need to know what the divisions are and how God uses this method.

[@JohnQPublic11]

Reformed Theology has spent 500 years mastering an expert debate formula that revolves around being a relentless onslaught of intellectually dishonest, and cunning childish mind games, carried out through a barrage of deceitful debate tactics. To avoid most of this you have to ask questions about definitions and doctrines and receive hard copy responses from the Calvinist prior to the debate and establish rules that prevent the Calvinist from using up all of the non-Calvinist debate time by stopping the clock and forcing the Calvinist to give direct specific answers to specific questions before moving forward.

[@ddr5138]

This times a million.

[@toddcote4904]

Ok bud

[@gregmahler9506]

The narratives that people have about this are just so not helpful. If you go in like that, believing what you said, you are doomed from the start.

[@truthseeker5698]

@@toddcote4904 Can't handle the truthful exposure Todd?

[@toddcote4904]

@truthseeker5698 It's not truthful though. I hold to the doctrines of grace from simply reading the scriptures. I didn't need 500 years of crafting arguments. As a matter of fact, I was a non calvinist for over 30 years, but as I read the scriptures for myself, it became evident I was not taught the whole council of God, for God is in control of all things. Oh, and free will is a myth.

[@BPond7]

Gregg was amazing! Thanks for highlighting this, Leighton. 😇

[@jesuschristsaves9067]

James White is such a cry baby.

[@keith3362]

Calvinism is such a poisonous doctrine that truly maligns the character of God, who is not the author or evil but is still all powerful and not threatened in anyway of beings he created having free will. God, who does not choose people for heaven and some for hell (because not chosen for heaven) but who presents salvation as a free gift to all, His life for yours and your life for His. It’s not His desire for any to perish and WHOSOEVER believes can receive salvation. James White looks at the Bible with a Calvinist lens and it blinds him. It’s amazing to listen to how they are forced to twist scripture in multiple locations to make it fit into the Calvinist doctrine.

[@toddcote4904]

Ok bud. It was very liberating to learn of the doctrines of grace. I haven't come across anyone that can argue against the truths in any honest and meaningful way. This snippet of the debate unfortunately gets off to the wrong start because of a misunderstanding of the question, then they both act like kids.

[@gregmahler9506]

I used to believe that too Keith, but the Middle Knowledge of Molina answers that objection on Calvinism and preserves human freedom and responsibility.

[@keith3362]

@@toddcote4904 Steve Gregg did a good job listen to the whole thing. You call it doctrine of grace but the way Calvinists use it it's limited grace based on nothing. You have to view the Bible with a Calvinist lens to read the whole new testament and think God forces people to be saved. Paul Washer once said Jesus doesn't have to knock on the door He can just knock it down. But the actual words of Jesus were I stand at the door and knock. It's up to us to let Him in our heart. To look at a scripture that says God doesn't desire that any would perish but that all would come to repentance and think it doesn't mean what it says because it doesn't agree with Calvinism is ridiculous.

[@toddcote4904]

@keith3362 No, Steve didn't do a good job. I listened to their whole debate twice, not just this clip. 2Pet 3:9 is one of the most abused verses by non-calvinists. I'm sorry, but it doesn't support what you think it says. You have to ignore all 3 chapters to come to the conclusion you do. It's just a proof text used to defend what you want it to mean in isolation. It's very similar to J3:16. Non-calvinists focus on the "whosoever" and subconsciously turn loved into loves while ignoring the "for" and "so" in the verse. Whosoever is used to defend "all people of all time" and "freewill". This is such nonsense since there's nothing in the chapter to support that. I wasn't persuaded into calvinism. I didn't even know that was a historical thing. I just read my Bible for a year and a half and realized God was on control of all things and Jesus wasn't some fluffy marshmallow love bug. Not once in the entire Bible does Jesus, nor His disciples say "God loves you", especially when preaching the gospel to unbelievers. Let that sink in. God's love was misrepresented to me my entire life. "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner" is another false teaching. Show me that verse. Good luck. The common non-calvinist position of today's church is the evanjelly position of a fluffy Jesus. This is actually an idol, a false Jesus that cannot save. I reject the false teachings that support such an idol.

[@jasongillis1336]

@@toddcote4904 If God controls all things, does that include your heart, soul, mind, and strength?

[@rosstemple7617]

John White is a perfect example of someone who has hardened his heart and blinded himself. He lives in his own little eco chamber. He won’t concede to certain things because then it brings all that he’s invested himself to be.

[@avabrookexx901]

James White was not frustrated from the question, He was frustrated at having to go over again the Calvinist view . After doing 3 or 4 other segments that were 45 to 50 minutes long and again explaining His view. I believe that why He was frustrated.

[@BM-vj1px]

Steve makes is so clear. It pains my heart that James has closed his heart to the truth in order to defend his viewpoint. Unfortunately, James has built his reputation on his Calvinistic viewpoint and apparently cannot let it go. I hope the Lord opens his eyes.

[@michaelnero3401]

This is a very enlightening session thank you Dr. Flowers!. God clearly made Himself known to people (just like in the days of Noah), and they CHOSE to suppress it (Just like in the days of Noah). As God immersed Noah and his family safely in the Ark because of their faith, protected from God's wrathful judgment, so those who are saved by Grace Through Faith are immersed safely into our Ark (Jesus) by that same faith. What is interesting to me is that until now I have interpreted Romans 1 as "All" people, and still did not conclude total inability. I am continuing to study this.

[@charging7]

I think we need to give some space to the idea that James White is a narcissist.

[@JayJayPee123]

Despite disagreeing with James White on this, I really do recommend his book against the King James Only Cult.

[@jopa8960]

Thank you Dr. Flowers for all that you do. I would differ on one point, children are not humble. Jesus did not say to "humble yourself like a child". Children will, lie, take, and are quite selfish. In fact, one of the first words children learn is mine. Here is what Jesus actually said: Matthew 18:3 “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The characteristic of children Jesus was referring to is their dependence. Children are totally dependent on their parents/guardians for all their sustenance. Likewise, we as believers must become totally dependent on Christ. This is a minor point.

[@sheilasmith7779]

Well done Leighton. These debate presentations done by White, that you play, could help White's followers to view White in a new light.

[@TommyGunzzz]

They won't ..

[@nestaron4064]

It's nice to see the self-righteous, rude, and disrespectful James White get completely owed in a debate.

[@stangamayunov6218]

Okay first of all, Mr. Flowers: That thumbnail is disgraceful - and it was purposeful done to skew people’s perception of Dr. White. There was no need to portray him as hostile or disappointing whereas Mr. Gregg is portrayed as approachable or welcoming in that picture - you could have easily used the thumbnail from the actual debate (which was clearly not a biased portrait.) What you are doing is a disservice for your ministry, much in the way that modern media outlets skew the narratives of events and people. Secondly, it seems the entire framework of this video stems from the interpretation made in Romans chapter 1, so I’ll briefly focus there. My aim was to read the chapter in its full context without having a bias. If I did, however, impose a bias toward anyone, it would be to Mr. Gregg’s school of teaching - just out of curiosity, since he seems so adamant on his interpretation. Starting in verse 16: Romans 1:16-20 [16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Your argument is that this passage was directed towards people who discovered God but then suppressed the truth - and so, God hardened their hearts. But, I literally cannot see that argument made exegetically. “God’s wrath is revealed from heaven,” meaning that all of creation is referenced here, not a specific group. Like the Psalm says, “the heavens declare the glory of God.” Everything in creation makes us wonder about how it all could have come to be. This idea is reinforced throughout this chapter in Romans as well, where mankind has acknowledged that there is a superior creator, BUT have chosen to worship the created things and not the Creator. That argument can be made from this first text, but notice how it is changed by the phrasing: “the WRATH of God” is revealed, meaning that God’s judgements are written on man’s heart. He reveals to all of mankind THROUGH THE CONSCIENCE that our ungodliness and unrighteousness go against our Creator. Our ability to feel guilt and shame is woven into us from birth because God has a level of sovereignty over our development as humans. He uses our guilt to reign us in - so there is not just bloodbaths and chaos all throughout history. Paul started this letter very generally, by addressing the local Body of believers, and then going into the gospel that is the power of God for salvation - for both the Jews AND the rest of the world. “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith... ” is almost identical to his phrase in verse 18 “for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven...” Basically saying God has revealed His wrath to mankind through His invisible attributes - which are clearly perceived. NOT by a specific group, but by everyone since the very creation of the world. And what Paul is comparing that to, is how the gospel (through those WITH faith - FOR faith) reveals to us God’s righteousness. Remember, there was a time before God gave us His laws. Which, Paul gets into later in Romans, where he says that the law was God’s way of revealing to His people, that we are sinners/unrighteous. Now, your arguments is exclusively based off the second half of that one verse, which is: “...against all ungodliness and unrighteousness or men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” That’s where you say this doctrinal “thesis” of Paul’s goes from general to very specific. So, Paul is saying God only reveals his wrath to those men who suppress the truth. Which, simply isn’t true - nor the intent of Paul in this verse, as is supported by the rest of the chapter’s text. I tried to bias myself toward your point of view, but it just doesn’t work in the greater context. Thank you for reading, I know it won’t change anyone’s mind. But, at least I hope you don’t just dismiss any Calvinist’s interpretation just going off of Romans 1, because it seems they have a better interpretation contextually.

[@CaptainPantys]

Man, I know I comment this all the time... but I really can't explain how much you, william lane craig, and gene kim have helped me work out my faith. Once I decided I wasn't calvinist, I almost magically stopped cursing God. Maybe I don't understand my spiritual condition but I felt like I was at war with Christ even though I believed He is who He said He was. It's weird but I honestly think I actually became born again when I shed calvinism.

[@gregmahler9506]

That last part is interesting. I’m very curious about when people believe they were born again. It seems to be very different for some people. For me it was definitely in conjunction with being exposed to the gospel, a real lightbulb moment. But for others like my wife who were raised in the church and have seemingly always believed the gospel, they can’t quite place a moment in time. It’s mind boggling to me that as a Calvinist you were cursing God and just stopped after you decided not to be one. I do know for me, I’ve struggled with it a lot because of the issue with moral accountability but I think I found a solution that is somewhat satisfying (merging Middle Knowledge from Molinism with Calvinism). Without the latter though, I must say that I didn’t like it that well either because I didn’t really have any answer to the objection except “who are you, oh man, to answer back to God?” The middle knowledge answer is so much better and makes Calvinism rational and philosophically sound.

[@chadswanner6384]

If you stopped cursing at God then maybe it was because you finally submitted to His authority and became a real Christian and not just walked away from Calvinism. Take away the 2 theological parties, that part of your comment is hugely misguided.

[@chadswanner6384]

And as you grow in Christ you should think of changing the last part of your of name “pantys”. Makes seem your referring to under wear which wouldn’t be Christ like.

[@sheilasmith7779]

Captain: AGREE, except Gene Kim.

[@CaptainPantys]

@@chadswanner6384 I meant it to be like The Captain Underpants comics. However I've actually been thinking about changing my name.

[@LordBlk]

Also, definitely noticed White's psychological shut down. He did this in the Leighton debate.

[@gwashington65]

It's interesting that so many of us saved Christians reject Calvinism. I personally reject the idea of total depravity. So why would God, in His sovereign majesty, allow me the free will to reject calvinism?

[@rebsince71]

It also doesn’t need to be lost what Rom. 1:18 is actually saying…The “righteous” can live by faith. The unrighteousness can’t. You aren’t “righteous”, because you live by faith. You can have faith in God’s word, and live by faith, because of righteousness. What is being conveyed is that you CAN have faith in God’s promises to those who obey Him…

[@bobbyadkins6983]

I was able to understand certain Biblical truths when I was little. I was raised in church. I was not totally depraved as Calvinists describe a person from birth. I didn't hate God like Calvinists describe one who is totally depraved. I didn't run from God. I said a little prayer each night that kids are taught. If people were totally depraved in the way Calvinists describe people from birth, I would not have prayed, I would not have loved God more than anyone else including my parents. Jesus would not have used little children as an example of what we must be like to enter into the kingdom of God if they were totally depraved from birth, hated God, and couldn't grasp any spiritual truth until God irresistibly saved them.

[@ellisrowe363]

JW always operates this way, backfill to retain the Calvinist paradigm. JW doesn't want to deal with the points Gregg makes on specific passages.

[@samuelnsquishy8798]

White got stuck and did his usual gymnastics during Steve's questions. Are you talking to me? James the gymnast.

[@masonbooth2363]

Steve Gregg is simply the best..he is so well read especially for someone who is self taught..

[@ChristianZangief]

I think that most Arminians hold onto Total Inability (T) because Arminians approach scripture the same was that Jospeh Arminius approached scripture, with Calvinistic presuppositions. Arminius was a Calvinist before inventing his soteriological approach to Calvinism. T is often presented as a foundational Christian belief and many people who reject Calvinism still embrace it.

[@DamonNomad82]

You are correct. Arminius was a Calvinist his entire life, and his intention, like Luther's in relation to the Roman Catholic Church, was never to start a separate church, but to reform the existing one. Arminians were one of two factions of Calvinism, both basing their theology off Calvin's teachings, but interpreted in different ways (much as Calvinism and Roman Catholicism are heavily based off Augustine's teachings but in very different ways) with the other being led by Calvin's prize pupil and successor as leader of the Calvinist movement, Theodore Beza. Most of what is called "Calvinism" that is distinct from Arminianism actually came from Beza's expansion on Calvin's teachings, including the points that popularly became known as "TULIP" a few generations ago. While Beza taught such things for most of his long life, and Arminius started out teaching them before he was shown what such teachings implied about the character of God, it was only at the Synod of Dort a few years after Arminius died that Beza's faction expelled the Arminians from "Calvinism" and made their own brand of it synonymous with the term. That early clash still has implications among Calvinists today, who have an obsession with "Arminianism" and falsely think that all non-Calvinists are "Arminians" when that is not the case at all.

[@ChristianZangief]

@@skyout5747 Joseph Arminius was a Calvinist before branching off and inventing his own system. Look into it.

[@megward8020]

Psalm 14: "The LORD looks down from heaven/upon the sons of men /to see if any understand,/if any seek God." So if God created all men unable to understand or seek Him, why is He looking at all?

[@malcolmkirk3343]

There is a big difference between arguing for something that is internally consistent and true (as Steve did) to disprove FROM SCRIPTURE the point made. Mr. White, on the other hand, simply RE-ASSERTS his claim / argument as already won, without substantively refuting his opposition's argument.

[@TheMaineSurveyor]

To answer Gregg’s question about Romans 1:18-32, we need to first start by backing up to verses 16 & 17. 16 & 17 talk about the gospel of Christ, which is the power of God to salvation for Jews and Gentiles. In the gospel of Christ, the righteousness of God is revealed. “The righteous shall live by faith.” This is about what God does for those who believe the gospel of Christ. The rest of the chapter is in contrast to these two verses, talking about the unrighteous, which would be those who do not believe the gospel of Christ. One of the traits of people who do not believe the gospel is that they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And that answers the question: who are being talked about in Romans 1:18-32? Anyone who does not believe the gospel of Christ. We know this because verses 16 & 17 are in direct contrast to the rest of the chapter. We never had to leave Romans 1 to answer this.

[@GreatLightStudios]

James White complaining about "throwing taglines at the end." Good night... That is the definition of hypocrisy folks. James White is the king of taglines. Especially when it comes to his commentary on Leighton Flower's content.

[@SuperCodemeister]

I discovered some time ago that James Whte can either be a bully or a baby. Sometimes, he uses sarcasm to try and make his opponent's argument look stupid. Even though I agree with his position on other issues, I refuse to listen to him because of his behavior. He is too arrogant for my taste.

[@sheilasmith7779]

Linda, so true, especially when we have alternative preachers and pastors that 1. Make no scriptural interpretation errors, and 2. Are honorable and decent in their behavior. Why would I follow a man who teaches error and behaves poorly, when their are teaches that do neither? Other than a debate, I never listen to James White....and it is my hope others will turn away from James White.

[@dpcrn]

If you go listen to the actual series of debates, you’ll find that he opened up with sarcasm. He said hello thank you for having me and then started taking shots at Steve.

[@sheilasmith7779]

@@dpcrn Yeah, I know, which makes me wonder why anyone would admire or respect James White. Or follow him? Or financially support him. I certainly wish him no harm, but I don't want to increase his influence. As a Christian, I don't want to enable any bad behavior. He's insecure, and while many insecure people don't behave this way, he does. And he is aware of this criticism of his behavior, but remains unrepentant. It's particularly troubling because he's a Christian leader.

[@ishwarbhola]

True

[@dpcrn]

One very interesting tidbit about this is that in the first video of this debate, Steve makes it very clear that he believes all people are sinners. Then Dr. White accuses him in this video of not believing that. Steve is very consistent.

[@calebredman6621]

Steve Gregg has previously performed debates with Doug Wilson and Matt Slick. Would be neat to hear your analysis of those too!

[@mynonameyt]

I listened to the debate again with Steve Gregg and James White. I tend to agree with 98% of Steve's take on "everything " I ever heard him say, but I wanted to give James White a chance to clear some things up, so I went to his website, and 2 things bothered me. I would like your take but you're not under any obligation to respond. #1. His comments are turned off, and it is my understanding it's not a KZbin thing. #2. His website ministry has a "president". That seems weird to me. Like there's money involved somewhere. Both of these might seem trivial to the common observer, but I have my reasons, and I do believe they are biblical. Thanks. P.S. also couldn't find any reference to the debate from his website.

[@austinh681]

Even if no one seeks after God, that doesn't mean we cant respond positively to a God that seeks us. MIN 59:20

[@undergroundpublishing]

Love listening to people argue about how people argue to evade conceding a point. Feel like I've dated that girl before...

[@SpotterVideo]

Pastor Steve Gregg is one of the most thoughtful and logical Christians I have ever heard. As a former Dispensationalist, he is also an expert on the problems with that man-made doctrine. He is also one of the few who understands the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. The "Reformed" confessions used by Dr. White and others claim the ten commandments were given to Adam in the garden. Paul says otherwise in Gal. 3:16-29. Paul said the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) is come to whom the promise was made? In Gal. 4:24-31 Paul speaks of the "two covenants" and instructed the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage". We are not come to Mount Sinai in Heb. 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Sion and the blood in Heb. 12:22-24. ======================== New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. Watch the KZbin videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

[@ddr5138]

"Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? " Not according to Romans 9-11. Dispensationalism as a system is indeed "man-made", I e. built on perceptions of what the text is saying, but the alternative is the equally man-made rubric of Covenant Theology.

[@SpotterVideo]

@@ddr5138 Romans Chapter 11: In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews. This time period can be found in Matt. 10:5-7, and Acts 10:36-38, and Gal. 1:14-18. Many try to claim God never gave the Jews a chance to accept Christ, so there must be some Plan B of salvation before or during the Second Coming of Christ. Romans 1:16 proves they are wrong, since Paul said the Gospel went "first" to the Jews. Many ignore the fact that Peter addressed the crowd as "men of Judea", and as "men of Israel", and as "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. The Gentiles were not grafted in until several years later. This passage proves Paul was right about the Gospel being taken "first" to the Jews. Paul reveals two different groups of Israelites in Romans 9:6-8. There is an Israel of the promise, and an Israel of the flesh. This is part of the context of Romans 11. Paul speaks about the "remnant" of Israel in Romans 9:27. This is also part of the context of Romans 11. Paul starts Romans 11 with two different groups of Israelites. In verse one Paul reveals he is still an Israelite, even after his conversion. Then Paul refers to two different groups of Israelites during the time of Elijah. There were the Baal worshippers, and there was the faithful "remnant". In verse five Paul says there is also a faithful "remnant" of Israelites during his time. This must be the Israelites who have accepted Christ, as on the Day of Pentecost. Paul uses the two olive trees as a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of believing Israelites, and believing Gentiles grafted together into the same tree. The unbelieving Israelites have been broken off but can be grafted back in through faith in Christ in verses 23-24. Verse 26 is the problem for many modern Christians. What does the verse actually say, and how is it changed by many in the modern Church. I have heard two of our nations famous preachers say the following. "And then all Israel will be saved..." I have heard another say the following. "And all Israel will be saved..." What does God's Word, recorded by the Apostle Paul actually say? Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: The English word "so" is translated from the Greek word "houto", which is an adverb of manner, instead of an adverb of timing. Some have changed the word from "so" to "then", in order to change the meaning of the verse. How will all of the "remnant" of Israel from Romans 9:27 be saved? The answer is found in the verses that precede verse 26 and are found below. Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? Paul quoted from the OT in referring to the Deliverer coming out of Sion to pay for sin. Did this happen at Calvary, or will Jesus die again for His people in the future? Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Verse 28 can only be understood by looking at how Paul started the passage. He started with two different groups of Israelites and he ends the passage in the same way. There are two different groups of "they" in verse 28. One group of "they" reject Christ and are the enemies of God, and another group of "they" are the election which accept Christ through hearing the Gospel and faith. Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. Based on Luke 21:24b-28, the times of the Gentiles comes to fullness at the Second Coming of Christ.

[@ddr5138]

"Many try to claim God never gave the Jews a chance to accept Christ, so there must be some Plan B of salvation before or during the Second Coming of Christ." But then you take that up with them. I didn't say that. Romans 9-11 makes it clear that Israel is blind, and during Israel's blindness the in-gathering of the Gentiles along with Jewish believers is occuring -- the "church", the "body of Christ", which didn't exist before Acts. However the end result, as Paul makes clear, is that "all Israel will be saved". And that isn't "the church", since Paul spends all of Romans 9-11 differentiating the two. The New Covenant is set in opposition to the Mosaic Covenant. The New Covenant doesn't abrogate or spiritualize the Abrahamic, Davidic and Palestinian covenants.

[@SpotterVideo]

@@ddr5138 Did Paul say all of the Israelites are partly blinded, or did he say part of the Israelites are blinded and another part are not blinded? The answer is found in the "remnant" of Romans 11:5.

[@ddr5138]

The remnant Paul is talking about were believing Jews of his own time and later. "Jewry" in general is blind up until the present day. But the point of Romans 11 is that eschatologically the Jews will be converted. That's the Lord filling Israel with "breath" in Ezekiel 37.

[@mrcortner]

How does a Calvinist know they are one of the elected? Why the tribulation? Is it just to punish people who weren’t elected in the first place?

[@rafuentesapologetics]

Dr. JW is no doubt a wolf in sheep's clothing.period. no apology.

[@thrillercraig]

White may be a perfectly lovely guy in person (never met him), but he comes off online like a highly defensive man who resents challenges to his theology and considers people who disagree as morons. Highly off-putting, and far too typical of those in his camp, unfortunately. 🙁

[@JonathanSaxon]

He's extremely hard to like.

[@toktik8715]

Can anyone tell me the difference between the images used of the 2 persons?

[@kdbrich]

Steve Gregg was trying to rip a passage out of context and then wouldn't let White correct him. And people think this stuff is GOOD?

[@kevinburtnick7818]

Excellent!!!!! Appreciate your comments and getting this traction

[@officemanager4263]

Why does James White always look like he’s predestined to be unhappy?

[@sheilasmith7779]

Reading Paulbin Romans 3: 10-11 are QUOTES from Psm 14: 1-3 AND Psm 53: 1-3 that Paul's Jewish audience would understand.....that James White doesn't or chooses not to. The truth and evidence is in the actual O.T. passages.

[@williammarinelli2363]

"Perhaps James White is being intentionally obtuse." Would that correspond to the suppressing of the truth? Asking for a friend.

[@CPAExamNINJAs]

Using a picture of Steve Gregg (whose position you agree with) smiling and a picture of James White (whom you don't agree with and who seems to be your favorite Calvinist "villain") frowning is not a brotherly thing to do. You also seem to forget that James White also has a doctorate, and while you, Dr. Flowers, refer to yourself as Dr, you don't extend Dr. White the same professional courtesy. Why is that? It's something I noticed in another video, and I see it here as well. Maybe it's just a total oversight. Finally, I would like for you to debate Dr. White again - but this time actually debate Romans 9 :) I want to hear the Arminian take on Romans 9, and you went after aspects of the TULIP instead.

[@sheilasmith7779]

By the way Rom 3, verse 10, a quote from O.T is about those fools that claim God does not exist? And who are they? Atheists.

[@ironlion805]

Wait a minute! What was that reminder of charity before I got to start writing?? It just ruined my comment!

[@LifeandLifeMoreAbundantly]

Romans 1 talks about people, born in sin, who have a general knowledge of a creator worthy of acknowledgement; rather , they suppress the truth of God altogether… that’s where we find ourselves today with the epidemic of lgb stuff.

[@eddietruly8807]

It's a shame Peter Ruckman didn't get to debate White..it would have been outstanding! ( no I'm not a Ruckmanite )

[@sarahhoff9987]

James White is incredibly hard for me to listen to. I don’t think I’ve ever heard him speak without flipping out. He’s so disrespectful to others.

[@jobrown8146]

I love listening to critiques like this. Another puzzle piece, or possibly more, fell into place for me through listening to this video. Thank you.

[@finallyretired3623]

James white just always looks so ANGRY....that's so sad to me.

[@jackiedixon5076]

Since God said He is no respect of persons. So Grace unto Salvation is available to all who will accept Christ as atonement of sin.

[@joenuevo]

I've watched quite a few James White debates at this point and I have to say his attitude always bothers me. It's been a while since I watched his debate with William Lane Craig, but I think that's the only video I remember where he didn't have a horrible attitude and I think that's just because of the absolute intellectual beat down he was receiving.

[@paulnedogma7175]

The bible should be understood as a whole. Remember, there are no chapters nor verses in the original manuscript. It is a whole letter. If chapter 3 supports chapter 1, what’s the problem of that?

[@sheilasmith7779]

Go read the original O.T source of Paul's quotes. The light bulb of understanding goes on. I don't understand why anyone ever listens to or converses with James White. He's just not honest.

[@coymcintosh1623]

It seems pretty clear to me at this point that James White is not truly interested in points of contention at debates. Rather he is most interested in regurgitating his Calvinism to his audience. If he were, he would have done it along time ago. Being that he is a veteran debater, he knows how to pivot and strawman his way to what he wants to say masterfully.

[@jemari2]

it is really odd that this James White character is STILL somehow relevant. Is this just a KZbin phenomena? Everyone should move on from James White and no longer give him the air time, it just gives him more legitimacy...

[@keith3362]

It’s probably because of the onslaught of Calvinists on youtube who do nothing but criticize all non-Calvinists.

[@bobbyadkins6983]

If Calvinists believe we are all totally depraved from birth why do they use that verse from Psalms that says the wicked go astray as soon as they are born and use it only for what they refer to as the non elect? It would have to apply to everyone of us if we were all totally depraved from birth.

[@carpetguy]

Another great breakdown of the debate, Leighton. Dr. White is the sovereignly determined gift that keeps giving. 😁 Please do more!

[@leroyosbourne3808]

Steve Gregg makes it so clear for simple people such as myself to to understand by exegeting the texts of scripture in such a way to leave no doubt about what the author wants His readers to understand. I lost a whole lot of respect for James white from watching this video..

[@edeancozzens3833]

I think that for most people splitting hairs on these issues is a waste of time. I see a paradox in those who claim they believe in God's total sovereignty yet they seem so uptight about forcing their views.

[@thecoopfamily2475]

Hey Leighton, appreciate all your work! Not sure if you'll see this but would love to get your perspective. I recently read "Beyond Justification: Liberating Paul's Gospel" and the author argues that Romans is more of a debate between a hypothetical "teacher" or messianic Jew who like who pauls warns about in Galatians. And so some of Romans 1 Is not actually Paul's beliefs but a setup for his refutations against Jews that think they are justified by works as well as accountable to an angry wrathful God. Anways wonder if you've heard anything like this and if you think there's possiblility that Romans would have had a performative debate type structure? Certainly it would harm Calvanistic reading if those were not even pauls views but views of a hypothetical teacher he was knocking down. The book was pretty Awesome imo. Be blessed thank you for your time

[@mireliom]

🥸This channel changed my calvanist theology and in turn it helped my confused walk that didn’t know what was my sin or God’s preordained “sovereign” Sin In my life. Love you from a far brother for showing Me God’s true Grace to the World.

[@evangelgreek6864]

I would like to ask how Calvinists deal with this verse part of which was repeated / quoted by Jesus in John 6:45 Jer 31:34 ESV And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall ALL know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” and if humans are unable to respond because they are "dead" how come God says in Jer 7:25 and elsewhere Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt to this day I have even sent to you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them is that God did not appreciate their "deadness" - unlikely - or is it because they were ABLE to understand and respond ?

[@toddcote4904]

What's your question exactly?

[@evangelgreek6864]

@@toddcote4904 how Calvinists deal with these verses ? (in hammering we are dead unable to respond as those verses show different)

[@toddcote4904]

@evangelgreek6864 So ask a specific question about 1 of the verses and I'll do my best to answer it straight up the middle.

[@evangelgreek6864]

@@toddcote4904 ok, I believe the "dead in sin" is metaphorical and we are both able to choose and respond. [please note that being Greek, the language of NT resonates with me more accurately, speaks to heart, which is different to the knowledge of the language by my foreign brothers and sisters] isn't therefore a God given truth that WE CAN respond "though dead" - all of us - and not ONLY the elect ? (thus destroying TULIP)

[@toddcote4904]

@@evangelgreek6864 Is there a scripture you're referencing in your question that supports a fallen or dead man as able to choose to obey the command of the gospel? I'm not aware of any scriptures that support that view.

[@everydaychristianapologeti2614]

As well studied as Dr. White is. None of the reasoning he uses to defend Calvinism is effective. So many leaps of logic and pre-suppositions for his arguments to work

[@lindadunn7417]

It seems to me that Romans 1 is speaking of pagans, and Romans 2 is speaking of the Jew, and Romans 3 binds everyone up in sin.

[@guycabiarro586]

What about the scripture that says "The mind of the flesh does not submit the the Laws of God, Nor can it do so" Rom 8:9

[@HeavenGuy]

The following verse shows how Jews thought they were not sinners. Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

[@scottskaggs6765]

Dude.. you have to be quiet and stop interupting the video all the time...sheesh. Btw....Paul is referencing Jewish idolatry if you read his description...vss. 18-35 are not pertaining to "gentiles".

[@JohnSmith-tx3ys]

Steve gladly welcomes JW’s, Mormons, Roman Catholics, and anyone else who merely mentions Christ in their doctrines into the faith. There are a number of problems with that, but primarily he doesn’t understand that these people have not been born again. Steve Gregg is a wolf. When I asked him if he believed in universal salvation, he said no, but he is open to the idea and then mocked me for not being receptive to universal salvation. Also, he openly states that you don’t have to believe that Jesus is God to be saved.

[@kristopherwillis2414]

Leghton - I think prevenient grace is found in the statement by Jesus that says, “No one can come to me unless the Father Who sent me draws him.” The drawing enables one to come to Jesus. The word can is not the word will, so the person may not come, but can come. And no one can come unless drawn by the Father. Thoughts?

[@peterfox7663]

Where does that say man's sin makes a person unable to come to Him? It could simply be a matter of knowledge - I can't attend a party I don't know about. Also, who is "no one" - all people for all time, or certain people in a certain time?

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

@Kristopher Willis In this passage of John 6 Jesus it not yet revealed as The Christ to the world. In fact he was still telling the twelve not to disclose who he was, even though the Holy Spirit had revealed it to them. Paul, later says in hindsight that the Jews would not have crucified him if they had known who he was. Here, Jesus intentionally speaks in terms of 'cannibalism' to run them off, knowing how offensive it will be. Please continue reading .... vs.66 "From that time many of his ""disciples"" went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the TWELVE, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve." These 12 specific men were given to him by the Father.... even Judas. And later, in the Garden, just before submitting to his destiny, (which he told Peter he could avoid by simply asking God for legions of angels which would definitely have been granted that night to deliver him), Jesus prayed in John 17:12 and said to the Father that he had not 'lost one' that the Father had given him except Judas that prophecy be fulfilled. AND, it must not be minimalized or overlooked that Jesus 'reminded' the Father of the significance of this accomplishment in prayer at a very crucial moment in his life on earth. Knowing their different backgrounds and temperaments... it must have been like herding cats! It's important to note in John 6 exactly when Jesus was speaking ...prior to the Cross/resurrection. And to whom he was speaking, and for what purpose. Jesus later says in Joh 12, that If he be raised up... 'crucified'... He Will Draw All men to him. Before the Cross it is God who calls/draws certain people for certain purposes, but now it is Christ who draws ALL men to himself just as he promised. In the absence of any verse in proper context which establishes anyone is "Born Unable" to believe, it is a fact, and not a mystery, that when confronted with the Gospel, which IS the Power of God unto salvation to those who will believe.... that some will believe... and some will not... But the 'Good News" ..... is anyone can.

[@gwine2nine52]

@R.L. KRANESCHRADTT john 6:39 The father gives(disciples)to Jesus and he loses none Mission Accomplished John 6:40 and12:32 The father gives to the world Jesus and all those who believe he loses none Mission Accomplished I think that harmonies well with your comment

[@bigdogboos1]

i have literally never been able to converse with a calvinist where that person was able to just give a straight, simple answer to a question we all know they claim to believe. it's always 800 hoops, and rambling to justify something.

[@lauren8407]

Question - could you do an episode on Pelagius and what he taught and sources to read on him please? All this total depravity talk is frustrating to discuss when someone calls you a Pelagian all day long. I have four littles and Im studying a lot but sometimes it’s hard to go sift through historical info. I really appreciate your ministry it is such a blessing and is encouraging! So full of hope!! Thank you!

[@nathanfosdahl7525]

I second this suggestion! I believe there was a video on it but would love sources included and presented in a simplistic form.

[@isaiah345-6]

@@nathanfosdahl7525 Pelagius taught lies - like all who teach the God loves everybody modern day Christian doctrine

[@omnitheus5442]

Check out idol killers channel for a deep dive on that (warren mcgrue). He has an interview with ally bonner (I am pretty sure it’s her name anyway) who is an Oxford post grad on Pelagius and now an academic. Perhaps one of the current leading academic on Pelagius

[@isaiah345-6]

@@omnitheus5442 Caucasians biblical God given ethnicity and written judgement - proves all those you mentioned irrelevant - note the phrases "no repentance" written long after the resurrection - and "not 1 remaining" a future prophecy 👇 ( Hebrews 12:16-17 kjv) Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as E S. A U when he would have inherited the blessing, he was REJECTED: for he found NO PLACE OF "REPENTANCE" (Malachi 1:2-4) yet I loved Jacob, And I hated E. S. A. U and they shall call THEM, The border of "WICKEDNESS" and, THE PEOPLE against whom the Lord hath indignation FOREVER (Psalm 11:5-6) The Lord trieth the righteous: but the "WICKED" and him that loveth violence his soul hateth Upon the WICKED he shall rain "FIRE" and "BRIMSTONE" this shall be the portion of their cup (Obadiah 1:18) And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of E. S. A. U for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall NOT BE ANY REMAINING of the house of E. S. A. U. for the LORD hath spoken it THUS SAYETH THE LORD

[@lauren8407]

@@omnitheus5442 thank you!

[@gerardgmz]

God didn't know you would accept him in your heart, so he traveled in time to see you come to faith and then predestinated you. See how special you are?

[@faithandpractice]

Steve has been a dear friend for 35 years. He mentored me in the faith and ministry. Maybe it’s because of that I’m going to be a bit hard on him when it came to this debate as a whole. I think he could’ve done better. He’s a great debater but if he has a downside it is that he does not prepare. He’s got a mind like a steel trap and I know that he just simply stepped into the debate and spoke off the top of his head. White is a skilled debater that is very organized. That served him well even though I disagree with his conclusions.

[@frae7143]

Sounds like a pretext to me. In order for one to understand fully that verse Rom 1, you would have read it within context, verses 2 and 3. The Apostle was abviouly conveying the point that none was exempted from God's judgment and condemnation of all mankind. So that verse was referring to me before Christ saved me.