White vs. Flowers Debate

So far I have only seen some posts about it......

The reports I have heard are that Skan would not exegete romans 9........Dr. White did and nailed it.

The posters say Skan talked about anything else but Romans 9....as if that was not the topic of the debate......

Skan offered a power point presentation that were philosophical questions......I will try and post the picture of it if I can figure how to do it.

When I get online later I will post the comments as they find them.

 

here were some comments from those who were there;

Leighton Flowers takes the podium. Beginning with where he agrees w Dr White.

"Romans 9 is about salvation by grace through faith, salvation not law." @leightonflowers #Romans9debate

: . @leightonflowers pulls out play-dough for lump of clay. #Romans9debate

"Why would God judicially hardened someone's heart if they were already hardened from birth?" @leightonflowers

: "Babies aren't born with calluses, they become callous over time." @leightonflowers #Romans9debate

Dr White begins cross-x

If the lump of clay is Israel, why do verses 9:22-24 speak of the gentiles?" @DrOakley1689 #Romans9debate

Calvinism chooses people apart from personhood." @leightonflowers #Romans9debate

"God elects people based upon their humbling themselves?" @DrOakley1689 "Yes" @leightonflowers

@leightonflowers begins his rebuttal by presenting a historical development of Calvinism. #Romans9debate

"We don't believe that God determines everything. We believe that God determines some things." @leightonflowers

. @leightonflowers has a prepared rebuttal w/ PowerPoint for @DrOakley1689 opening remarks.

https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/h...=dffea71beaea9dbf4ec5d1621a0f6996&oe=55CE7D5F

 

How about a comment on this from Flowers:

 

Sounds like a pathetic food fight instigated by whites obfuscation. Par for the course.

 

I didn't even know this debate was going down! Little upset I missed it. I have read some of James White's work on Sola Scriptura. The guy is sharp.

 

Yeah, who does this James White character think he is anyways? I don't see him in the 30,000 post club on BB. No way he'd make it in this place, to many sharp guys like you Mitch, thats for sure. :tongue3:

 

Did you attend the debate live?

How can you make such a comment not having heard what these people heard.....or is it just you with your agenda taking another cheap shot when you could not begin to engage the debate.

I am waiting to hear the audio of it before making a comment in full.

Everyone who I have read so far says Dr.White did a good job in the short time allowed to open the passage.....

The comments I did not post suggested Skan wanted to speak about anything other than Romans 9 and was basically a no show....I did not post these comments because I am sure they were made by those biased to the truth Dr.White presented.

If you man up and call the dividing line....post yhe link and show how you "correct"....Dr.White..:laugh:

 

:laugh:

It is much easier to.make cowardly remarks than to do the real work of searching out truth......

 

Yeah Rev! Don't you know that White's authoritative position alone is enough to make him credible? Who are YOU to make a comment after reading Flower's rebuttal to the parroted charge of poor exegesis???
:laugh:

 

My comments are based on what was presented in this thread. That childish food fight over how much one exegeted of the passage was ridiculous. That was nothing of substance. Who wants to watch that garbage. I suppose if you have nothing else to stand.....................

Of course I notices the criticism of my post did nothing to address the actual issue of my first post. Just more Calvinist obfuscation in the vein of James White by his followers.

 

I will wait for the audio to hear it in full before fully commenting.

There is nothing here that he did not try to post here on BB for the last few years. he has been soundly answered here many times by Aaron and many others.

I see that he timed the release of his new book to be as the debate concluded, interesting:laugh:

I will wait for the audio. He trying to explain away what happened does not get it done. Like many here on BB he failed to go to the texts that were supposed to be discussed...he says this here on his page;

FACT...not one of these things was the subject of the debate. The texts of Romans 9 were on the table, not Flowers ideas about these other things.

recently a boxer got paid a lot of money to fight , but then complained that he had a bad shoulder....so that is why he lost....

someone said Flowers claimed he could not exegete the passage because he did not have enough time....I will listen for that.

someone said Dr. White did a masterful job in the short amount of time allowed, and yet there was no comment on it?

Again I will have to listen and see what took place.



I will wait to hear the audio as I am certain it will confirm what I knew would happen. Namely that Flowers would exegete nothing because he would get toasted.....he diverted to other things ...like he often did here on BB....many of us would call him back to the issue but he would wander off.

one other thing...before the debate he sent a youtube video to Dr. White which seemed to be an alibi in case it did not go well for him...and he seems to be leaning that way now....

 

Revmitchell

Your comments were without any basis.

The only thing ridiculous is this comment you just made.
Romans 9 is the whole topic of the debate and you claim that someone not offering to exegete the passage or offer comment on the passage is childish???

Do you have that low a regard for the scripture to claim that exegeting it or not is optional???? that is quite foolish , but I am no longer surprised by you and others when you set aside the scripture and ridicule anyone who can offer what the text says...

This very attitude is why you do not grasp these things...you mock the truth of God. You do not like when someone puts it that way to you, but nevertheless that is what you do right here.....it is not garbage to anyone who takes scripture seriously.

.

Here is your first post;

I will address your first post..it is pathetically asinine:wavey: How does that work for you??? Why you ask??? you have heard no audio and you blurt out this garbage....yeah, real wisdom there...Dr. White showed up to debate the passage and I guarantee when the audio comes out...if anything is learned it will be from Dr.Whites presentation and Flowers will be missing in action if he speant so much time on these issues outside of romans 9...which I am sure he did by design.

Obfuscation (software)


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


For the term as used in natural language, see obfuscation.

In software development, obfuscation is the deliberate act of creating obfuscated code, i.e. source or machine code that is difficult for humans to understand. Like obfuscation in natural language, it may use needlessly roundabout expressions to compose statements

Yes Cals use scripture which the natural man cannot welcome unless God allows him to.