Transcription
Last week, I responded to a fellow who seems rather unhinged to me. His behavior is erratic, childish.
"Hey Billy."
"Yeah, Jack?"
"What's it called when somebody attacks a person's character and not their actual argument?"
"What is called ad Hartman?"
"A Bahama man?"
"Mmm, oh mama. Ad hominem."
Ad hominem is when you're attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. This has been Power Ranger Theater. We heard how to be Christian. Never have to resort to ad hominem because, first of all, it's just so hard to say. And secondly, we have the facts on our side. Mr. White, on the other hand, cannot produce any facts to support his false teachings. So instead, he resorts to making fun of me. To which I say, go for it. I mean, I've made no secret I do do childish things. Ha ha. Do you do?
Anyway, ad hominem attacks are typically a good sign that your opponent has nothing of value to say in the conversation. Because let's say, for the sake of argument, that I am unhinged, I'm erratic, and I'm childish. That doesn't change the fact that what I'm saying about Mr. White teaching falsely is still 100% accurate. If Mr. White said the sky is blue, and then I talked to Batli here and I was like, "Hey man, what color's the sky?" "Oh, well, rich guy's blue." No matter what characteristics the source of effect may have, that doesn't change the fact that the fact is still a fact.
So, since ad hominem attacks are useless, I'm trying to figure out who has the facts on their side. We don't use them. In fact, we do the opposite. We usually try to say something nice about the other person because we don't want people to think, "Oh, this person is terrible." Just because I have a false teaching, Mr. White seems like a guy who really wants to follow God's Word, and I think he seems very smart in a lot of different areas. But some of his teachings are ridiculous. So we make fun of them. We don't attack the person because there's nothing for us to gain from that. But the false teaching, well, that's fair game. We love to show you just how stupid some of these false teachings are because it's a thing. It's a false teaching. It's got no feelings.
Mr. White, though, can't do that. He can't go to our videos and find anything illogical about them. So that's why Mr. White resorts to going after my character instead of anything I've actually said. And it's funny because as Mr. White is saying things like, "I'm childish," I think he's missing the point. "I'm an idiot. I'm a dumb dumb dummy. Have you been watching this channel and you did not get that?" That's the thing. That's my character. I'm a. And the reason that's my character is because we here at I Have Christian want to show you that even an idiot can figure out that the things that people like Mr. White are saying are false. So let's get this thing started.
In addition to me being unable to pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel, I am also a Bible-believing Christian. And our Protestant for the day is Mr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. This is Christian vs. Protestant. John 6:44. Another update.
So, just a quick recap. If I said, "No one can come to my party unless my dad invites him," does that mean that everyone my dad invites will come to the party? No. It means that in order to come to the party, you must first be invited by my dad. But there is still the possibility that someone gets invited and then they decide not to come to my party. Jerks.
Likewise, John 6:44 says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." Does this mean that everyone God draws will come to Jesus? No. It means that in order to come to Jesus, you must first be drawn by God. But there is still the possibility that someone gets drawn and they decide not to come to Jesus.
Now, if you understood this, then you understood the main point of our first video. You can watch that. The link is in the description below. Also, we're using cards now, so you can click up in the corner there and the link will be inside. And while we're talking about clicking things, why don't you go ahead and click the subscribe button, then the bell, then all. Also, the like button. Looks like a stupid graphics guy. Looks like that. And if you could please share the link to this video with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, wherever. Send emails out, especially if you know someone who's been duped by Mr. White. Send them the link to this video because there are a lot of things that Mr. White's followers should know about him.
Basically, Mr. White is reading verse 44 and he's making it say way too much. The verse actually says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." It does not say, "Everyone has to come to me if the Father sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day." But that's what I would have to say if it actually taught what Mr. White keeps saying verse 44 teaches. In John 6:44, "all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son." None of that is in the single verse that James has quoted.
Now, at the end of our video, we finished up by asking Mr. White this question. So again, to Mr. White, if you're watching, does John 6:44 really say this: "Every person drawn by the Father, he's raised up on the last day?"
As it turns out, Mr. White did see our video. And after watching our video, he made a response. Not a response to anything we said in the video, but a response to something that he said we said in the video. Which seems like a weird thing to do, but it's actually typical behavior for Mr. White. Even his sister, Patty Bonds, has added her brother as being great at attacking arguments that literally no one is making.
"I knew too much about the faith. I knew what, what I was watching was someone do a very good job of destroying a church that didn't exist."
"Explain that."
"That's interesting the way you said that. That he was doing a good job of destroying a church that didn't exist."
"Well, his arguments against the church are based on misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes. But he does a superb job of defeating the arguments he perceives to be what the church is."
So that's what Mr. White did in this case. He completely ignored the points that we were actually making. And we've documented examples of how he's done this in the past. So you can check those out. The links will be in the description. But yeah, James creates these arguments that no one is making. And as Patty said, he does a superb job at defeating the argument that he just made up. James actually did such a good job at defeating his own argument in his response to us that we ended up agreeing with him.
So to even assert this idea that, "As well as anyone who was drawn by the Father and was not given by the Father of the Son, there is no category anywhere in John chapter 6 of this." We know that we never said we learned this in John chapter 6. So yeah, Mr. White was falsely claiming that we made an assertion that we never made. And in the end, we could just be like, "Yeah, we wouldn't make that assertion either. You're right. You've got it."
Now, if you'd like, you could address the points we actually made. We said, "Do you agree with us that John 6:44, by itself, without using any other verses, leaves open the possibility for there to be people who were drawn by God who will not come to Christ?" It's either yes, you do agree, or no, you don't agree. If yes, you do agree with us, then please explain which other verses you need to use to arrive at the conclusion that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. If no, you don't agree, then please explain how John 6:44 teaches this on its own.
So that's the recap. That's where we are now. Please go back and watch those first two videos if you have not seen them yet. The links are in the description, plus again, the card here. To data, we actually get to hear Mr. White's answer to our question. Because a fellow Christian by the name of Douglas Beaumont wrote an article called "James White and the Logic of John 6:44." And thank you to Mr. Beaumont, he was nice enough to share a link to our channel and to both of our videos on this topic in his article. He wrote, "One of my favorite YouTubers has already explained White's error here." And then when White continued to not get it again.
Here, thank you again, Mr. Beaumont, for that. Sharing the links or videos is a huge help to the channel, especially since we don't get that coveted Mr. White bump. I think he's trying to rebuild his audience and wants to use me to do that. And so I'm not gonna play his stuff or identify how I'm just not gonna be used. Anyway, let's get to the article here. Beaumont says, "White's interpretation of the passage is definitely, absolutely, and without question, illogical." Douglas explains what we did about John 6:44. And that's that, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Lets us know that all of the people who come to Jesus were drawn by the Father. Now, this is something that Mr. White actually agrees with.
John chapter 6, verse 44 says, "No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I'll raise him up on the last day." But then James goes on to say this as well, "And in John 6:44, all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son." That is not true. John 6:44 does not say that at all. John 6:44 never lets us know whether all of the drawn people will come to Jesus and be raised up by him. If we are just looking at John 6:44 alone, it is possible that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. But it's also possible that only some who are drawn are raised up by the Son. Both of those possibilities are left open by the verse. And that's already bad news from Mr. White, because Mr. White has only one infallible source of authority, and that's the Bible. It's a Protestant thing. It's nonsense. It's called Sola Scriptura. We have videos that debunk that ridiculous teaching. But still, Mr. White believes that the Bible is his only infallible source of authority. So while Mr. White has his interpretation of John 6, which he believes is logically consistent, it's highly debatable. But just pretend that he has a logically consistent interpretation of John 6. That doesn't change the fact that there's another logically consistent interpretation of John 6. So there's at least two. And if your only infallible source of authority is the Bible, then you have no way of knowing which of those two is correct. Because what you can do? Ask the Bible. You can read John 6 again. And then you come to the same two conclusions. And then what is Mr. White deal? Well, yes, his only infallible source of authority, which of those two conclusions should I go with? Read John 6 again. You come to the same two conclusions. It's a never-ending loop, and he'll never figure out what the infallible teaching of John 6 actually is.
So that's why these two possibilities are bad news for Mr. White. For me and Mr. Beaumont, not a big deal. Because we just listened to what Jesus said. And one of the systems that Jesus put in place for his church was specifically about if there were two interpretations of something, two conflicting interpretations, like we have here. So clearly, one of these interpretations will be sinful because it would be saying that God said something that God never said. And Jesus said, in that type of situation, if you can't figure it out amongst yourselves, take it to the church, and the church will tell you the correct belief.
So when Christians like Douglas and I don't understand something in the Bible, we don't ask the Bible again. We ask the source that gave us the Bible, the church, which got it through the Spirit of Truth, which got it from Jesus, who got it from God. And we have videos that go into more detail on all of that, too. So check those out. They're in the description. Not everything will fit in the card, so check the description.
But back to verse 44. If we're just looking at this verse alone, James White could be correct, or Trent Horne, Douglas Beaumont, and myself could be correct. We don't know who has it right using just that one verse. But whereas Trent, Douglas, and I will say, "Well, God left this possibility open from the verse, so we're not gonna close it down unless we have more information." Mr. White tries to close down that possibility. He says, "No, God can't draw people unless they're gonna be raised up." Which is weird because we've seen Mr. White do this before. He tries to limit the power of God. We saw him doing this in our video about Romans 9. For some reason, Mr. White thinks he could tell God what God can and cannot do. Yeah, let me know how that works out for you, man.
The point is, neither side is proved by just this one verse in John 6:44. Trent Horne has pointed this out to Mr. White. Douglas Bowman pointed this out to Mr. White. And we pointed this out to Mr. White. And that's why we asked him this very specific set of questions: "Do you agree with us that John 6:44, by itself, without using any other verses, leaves open the possibility for there to be people who were drawn by God who will not come to Christ?" Yes, you do agree, or no, you don't agree. White's answering that question should be yes. He does agree with us. By answering yes, that would not automatically disprove his interpretation. It would just mean that he needs to do more work in order to prove that his interpretation is the correct one. In the end, the whole Sola Scriptura thing is still gonna screw him over. But the point is, he can answer yes and still have his interpretation as a possible interpretation. Whether it's correct, that's a different story.
Now, Mr. White has never supplied any of these other verses that you would need to use to arrive at the conclusion that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. And he's written several books on the topic, done debates on the topic, written blog posts on the topic, tweeted about the topic. And yet, the guy has never provided any of these other verses that you need to use to arrive at the conclusion that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. In fact, he has continually stuck to his claim that this is all taught in verse 44. That is until now.
"I have never said, never even intimated, that verse 44 is understandable outside of the context in which it is found. I never started with John 6:44. I don't go to John 6:44 and just and then try to put stuff together."
So I guess that means that I need to apologize to Mr. White. Because all those times I heard him saying things like, "This verse 44, ah, here it is. Who's John by the Father? Those were given by the Father. The Son. All of them will come to Christ. Every person drawn by the Father, he's raised up on the last day. In John 6:44, all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son." Like an idiot, I just assumed that he meant what he was saying. But I guess even though he was saying, "In John 6:44, all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son," what he actually meant was, "In John 6, and using the information from other verses in John 6, all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son." It seems like a smarter way to say that would be, "In John 6, we can learn that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son." I mean, it's still false, but at least it captures what Mr. White is trying to say better than "in John 6:44."
But yet, Mr. White, I'm sorry. I guess that Trent, Douglas, and I just misunderstood you all these years. It's odd, though, because Mr. White never mentioned any of this before. I mean, after his debate with Trent Horne, James White even made a video called "Accurately Evaluating Debates." Which, if you're wondering, was as sad and hilarious as it sounds. But basically, James and Trent had a debate, and the response from a lot of the Christian people who saw that debate was that Trent clearly won. James White, however, seemed to be in denial that he could possibly lose anything.
"I would like to look at the debate from Wednesday evening, and I'd especially like to look at the, the Christian response to this particular debate. As maybe some of you have seen some of the responses, I've only seen a few, but I've been troubled by what I've seen. Maybe once the videos come out, there will be some good reviews."
By "good reviews," Mr. White meant reviews that didn't point at Trent Horne as the clear winner of the debate and the guy who actually had the truth on his side in the debate. Now, in the debate, this is what Trent Horne pointed out about Mr. White's claim about John 6:44.
"None of that is in the single verse that James is quoted. At first, it doesn't say, 'I will raise up all of them on the last day.' It says, 'I will raise him up on the last day.' And it simply says, 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.' There's nothing in here about some kind of irresistible drawing where the person has to go to Jesus. It certainly doesn't say the person will always remain with Jesus, or this drawing will keep the person from ever leaving Jesus in the future. That's being read into the text rather than being drawn from it."
Now, in that debate, there were time restraints, so it makes sense that Mr. White didn't have enough time to explain everything he wanted to. But he did have this video where he was not under any time restraints, and this is how he responded to what Trent Horne said.
"His interpretation on John 6:44, basically what he said was, 'Well, there's nothing here that says that all those who are drawn are raised up.' And I smiled because no one who's actually read John 6:44 in the original language could ever say that. It is, it is painfully obvious."
Wait a second. Didn't Mr. White just get done saying that he never relied solely on John 6:44? First teaching? But here he's saying that it's painfully obvious in John 6:44. So which is it? Is it on John 6:44 alone, or do you need more verses? And I know Mr. White didn't just say John 6:44 alone there, but remember, he's responding to what Trent Horne said. And Trent Horne said that it's not taught in just that one verse. His interpretation on John 6:44, and what he said was, "Well, there's nothing here that says that all those who are drawn are raised up." No one who's actually read John 6:44 in the original language could ever say that. So why isn't Mr. White saying, "Yeah, Trent Horne's right. It's not in that one verse, but you need to use other verses instead"? He seems like he's trying to prove Trent wrong, even though Trent is saying something that James White is now saying he believes.
"And I have never said, never even intimated, that verse 44 is understandable outside of the context in which it is found. In regards John 6:44, T4 after he tried to say, 'Well, there's nothing in there that says everyone is drawn is raised up.' Yes, there is."
So, made me give you back my apology, Mr. White. Until you explain yourself, this is weird. Anyway, after that, Mr. White went into his him argument. PEMDAS may help Kousei out on the one who sent me draws him. Cargo on a stay. So Alton Entei, as Scott, a hey Meera. So the one who sent me draws him, and I will raise him on the last day. Yeah, he went Greek. He likes to do that. In his Casa, Casa means house in Spanish. Anyway, this is the exact same thing that Mr. White always tries to use to just blow smoke. He goes Greek. He's like, "Look, I know Greek. You don't know Greek, right? So listen to me."
Anyway, we looked at the him-him thing in our update video. Again, you can check that out. The him-him thing does not help or hurt either side in this conversation. The reason I brought that up, though, is because I wanted to show you that Trent Horne pointed out the same thing that we pointed out. What Mr. White is teaching, "all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son," is not taught in this single verse of John 6:44. When Mr. White heard Trent Horne point that out, he stuck with verse 44 and said it was painfully obvious that it was there. "It is, it is painfully obvious."
When we point out the same fact that it's not found in just that one verse, Mr. White went to that same argument about the hymns in verse 44. And why is it that only now, when Douglas Beaumont said the same exact thing that Trent and I said, which is that Mr. White's teaching is not taught in John 6:44 alone, that Mr. White finally decides to change his tune and say, "You know what, guys? I never said who was just in 6:44. Ignore the past. Don't pay attention to anything recordings or otherwise."
"In regards John 6:44, T4 after he tried to say, 'Well, there's nothing in there that says everyone is drawn is raised up.' Yes, there is. It's the same hymn. Don't pay attention to the facts. Just listen to what Mr. White is saying."
"Now, I don't go to John 6:44 and just and then try to put stuff together." Yeah, I'm not buying that. But what changed? Why is it that Mr. White is suddenly taking the pressure off of John 6:44 and saying, "No, it's, it's all of John 6"? "I always said that, guys. I remember."
So now he's saying he never used John 6:44 alone, which is great because that gets us the answer to our first question here. Mr. White, do you agree with us that John 6:44, by itself, without using any other verses, leaves open the possibility for there to be people who were drawn by God who will not come to Christ? It would seem that Mr. White's answer to that is yes. He does agree with Trent, myself, and Mr. Beaumont. And as your white, if you want to flip back to no, just feel free to explain how John 6:44 teaches all those who are drawn are raised up by the Sun on its own. But for now, Mr. White is teaching that John 6 in general, not just verse 44, teaches that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Sun.
The fact still remains that nothing in the entire Bible teaches that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Sun. So Mr. White's revised teaching is still false. But at least we're getting somewhere. Now we could see how he's building his false teaching from John 6. So where does it taught, Mr. White? "All who are given by the Father to the Son come to Christ."
So that was John 6:37. It says, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out." I have no problem with that verse. From that verse, we can learn that everyone who is given from the Father to the Son will come to the Son. That does not mean that everyone who comes to the Son will be given to the Son. It just means that everyone who is given to the Son will come to the Son.
We can that include verse 44 here, which says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." So everyone who is coming to the Son will be drawn by the Father first. That does not mean that everyone who is drawn by the Father will come to the Son. It just means that everyone who is coming to the Son will be drawn by the Father first. So putting that information together, we can know that all who were given by the Father to the Son will have been drawn by the Father. How do we know that? Because if everyone who was given from the Father to the Son will come to the Son, and everyone who comes to the Son needs to be drawn by the Father first, then before these people who are being given by the Father to the Son can come to the Son, they first need to be drawn. Which means that all who are given by the Father to the Son have been drawn by the Father. That does not mean that everyone who is drawn by the Father is given by the Father to the Son. It just means that everyone who is given by the Father to the Son has been drawn by the Father.
But again, what Mr. White needs to prove is that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. And verses 37 and 44 don't help him with that. On the plus side for Mr. White, those verses also don't hurt him. Because with just those two verses, it is still possible that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. But it's also possible that only some who are drawn are raised up by the Son. So neither side has helped or hurt by those two verses.
But the really bad news for Mr. White is that it's actually impossible for him to prove his false teaching. Because what he needs to prove his false teaching is something that talks about all drawn people and says that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. Nothing in the entire Bible teaches that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. And that really sucks for Mr. White, because he's just got the Bible. That's his only infallible source of authority.
Now, don't get me wrong. He still believes in other sources of authority. He just doesn't believe that any of those things are infallible. So Mr. White has actually made it impossible for himself to ever say with 100% certainty that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Sun, because it's not in the Bible. And that's his only infallible source. Anything else for him can be fallible.
Now, there are things in the Bible like verse 44 where we learn about people who were drawn. But that's just talking about one aspect of these people. Everyone who gets raised up will have been drawn. That's something we can learn from the verse. But the verse never says that everyone who's drawn will be raised up on the last day. It'll be like if I said, "All NASCAR drivers wear helmets." Wearing helmets is one aspect of what all NASCAR drivers do. So that tells me if you're a NASCAR driver, you're gonna be wearing a helmet. But that statement doesn't teach the opposite of that. It doesn't teach that everyone who wears helmets is a NASCAR driver. Mike riders wear helmets. They're not all NASCAR drivers. I've worn a helmet. I'm not a NASCAR driver. You probably weren't a helmet. I don't know if you're a NASCAR driver or not, but probably most of you are not. But that flip, that's what Mr. White is doing with verse 44. The verse teaches that all those who are raised up by the Son are drawn. But Mr. White's switching that around. He's saying, "All those who are drawn are raised up by the Son." And if Mr. White seriously thinks that flip is okay, then he probably also thinks that I don't have to turn into a NASCAR driver. Watch this, buddy. Watch it here. It comes. Here again. Oh, actually, I'm not gonna mess up my hair right now. I'll become a driver for you later.
Now, while we're on verse 37, I want to show you this. "All who are given by the Father to the Son are drawn by the Father to the Son, and the Son raises them up to eternal life." This is what these people are desperate to avoid. Mr. White, if you're watching, who are these people that are so desperate to avoid that? Because I'm fine with that interpretation. I'm pretty sure Douglas and Trent would be too. Because if all who were given by the Father to the Son are drawn by the Father to the Son, and the Son raises them up to eternal life, and that is stellar news for these folks who are given by the Father to the Son. But that only tells us about all who are given by the Father to the Son. It does not tell us about the fate of all who are drawn by the Father. So again, Mr. White is saying, "This, this is what these people are desperate to avoid." But literally, no one is desperate to avoid what he just said. This is exactly what Patti Bonds was talking about. "I knew too much about the faith. I knew what, what I was watching was someone do a very good job of destroying a church that didn't exist." So what else you got for us, James? Let's go. Let's go. First beyond it, shall we?
Verse 25 continues the same thought. Okay, so now he's including verse 45. Verses 44 and 45 say, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." So pointing out the obvious here, none of that said anything about all drawn people. And again, that's what Mr. White is making a claim about. He's saying that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. Nothing he has shown us so far talks about all drawn people.
But I'm curious, Mr. White, why do you think this is important to your case? "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." He says hearing and learning from the Father is the same thing as being drawn in verse 44. Wait a second. So Mr. White is now claiming that the word "drawn" means hearing and learning from the Father. Did I hear that correctly? "All who hear and learn." That's further description of what being drawn is. Okay. So he's really saying that he thinks that the word "drawn" here means hearing and learning from the Father. First of all, that is not written in scripture at all. So this is all Mr. White's opinion.
I'm gonna need more details. And fortunately for me, a few days ago, Mr. White actually explained how he's arriving at this ridiculous conclusion. "6:44 does not just sit there stand mountain on its own. And when you see its relationship to the next verse, this greatly enhances our argumentation. Because when we talk about 'no one can come to me unless Father sent sent me draws him,' and we emphasize the power of the Father to draw to the Son, what we need to see is that verse 45 then expands that definition and helps us to understand with greater clarity. So verse 45, 'It is written in the prophets,' and then you have the quotation, 'They shall all be taught of God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.' So 'comes to me' is a concept that was already mentioned all the way back up in verse 37. 'All the Father gives me will come to me.' So God's teaching, 'They shall all be taught of God.' The passive actions of hearing and learning from the Father, these are all expansions and explanations of how the drawing of the Father works. No one has the ability in of themselves to come to Christ unless the Father draw."
"Well, how does the Father draw him? Well, verse 45 tells us. There is teaching, there is hearing, there is learning." Okay. Class, so welcome to "How to Read Like James White." James takes verses 37, 44, and 45. These are all from the Bible. Now, James does rephrase verse 44 to say, "The Father must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to the Son." "The Father must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to the Son." This rephrasing of the verse is fine. It still gets the same point across. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." In other words, "The Father must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to the Son."
So now, for lesson one in "How to Read Like James White." If God hasn't said it, then do an edit. When you encounter a sentence that includes the phrase "for them to be capable of," then you need to add the phrase "and they all must do what they are capable of doing." So with the sentence, "The Father must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to the Son," White thinks that we should make it say, "The Father must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to the Son, and they all must do what they are capable of doing."
"Every person drawn by the Father is raised up on the last day." And just for an humble clue example, let's say there's a law that's passed that says, "No one can come to California unless the governor who governs California draws him." Maybe there's a special lottery that takes place. Who knows? We're not told about the drawing here. We just know they need to be drawn. So we can reword that, just like Mr. White did with verse 44, to say, "The governor must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to California." Again, that rephrasing is fine. Both this and this teaches the same thing.
But now we go back to lesson one and "How to Read Like James White," and we get a sentence. This is a whole lot more than the original statement. We now have to say that, "The governor must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to California, and they all must do what they are capable of doing."
So back to the verses. We have verse 37, which is from the Bible. We have verse 45, which is from the Bible. And we have verse 44, which is also from the Bible. But we're not gonna use that one. We're gonna use this, which is from the mind of James White. So ignoring the fact that nothing like this is taught in the Bible, this verse is not in the Bible. This is made up by Mr. White. We're just gonna ignore that for a second and let this play out.
So what Mr. White does next is he says, "Look, these three verses all have similar statements in them. They're all discussing people who will come to Jesus." Again, the actual verse 44 in the Bible is talking about people who are capable of coming to Jesus. But Mr. White swapped that out and made it say that these people must have come to Jesus. But anyway, now these three statements all say something similar: "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." So "comes to me" is a concept that was already mentioned all the way back up in verse 37. "All the Father gives me will come to me." Who comes? The Son. Given by the Father. Drawn by the Father. Hear and learn from the Father. It's all God. The result is, "Every one of them comes to the Son."
This brings us to lesson two in "How to Read Like James White." Forget that different words mean different things. If two or more sentences share a similar phrase, then the remaining portions of those sentences must all mean the same thing, even if they are using completely different words that have completely different meanings. And a protip here: the more you slam your head into a brick wall, the more this lesson starts to make sense.
So since these three statements have a similar phrase in them, and that particular phrase is clearly talking about the same thing, in other words, "come to me" equals "coming to the Son" equals "comes to me," then that must mean that the remaining portions of these statements are all also equal to each other, even though they're using completely different words that have completely different meanings. So "all that the Father gives me" must mean the same thing as "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father," which must mean the same thing as "the Father must draw anyone."
And if someone were to say, "People flying into Sacramento will come to California," and then they also said, "Everyone who made and kept plans to visit Hollywood comes to California," then we could say, "Hey, look, these three statements all say some form of 'come to California.'" So since these three statements have a similar phrase in them, and those particular phrases all refer to the same thing, in other words, "come to California" equals "coming to California" equals "comes to California," then that must mean that these remaining portions of the statements all must be equal to each other, even though again, they're using completely different words that have completely different meanings.
But let's not focus on the facts. Let's just do it Mr. White says. So according to Mr. White's method of reading, "people flying into Sacramento" must mean the same thing as "everyone who made and kept plans to visit Hollywood," which must mean the same thing as "the governor must draw anyone." And I know this all sounds crazy. So in case you think I'm making it up, Mr. White, can you say it one more time?
"Hence, given by the Father, drawn by the Father, hear and learn from the Father, all equals come to me."
This has been "How to Read Like James White." And I like how Mr. White tried to hide the crazy on his slide here too. He put commas, but what he's really saying is equals, equals, equals. With the commas here, this could actually be correct. But that's not what Mr. White's actually doing. As we could tell by this, "the one coming in verse 44 is of course identical with those who come in verse 37." Equals "hearing and learning from the Father is the same thing as being drawn in verse 44." Equals "this is simple exegesis." Yea, this is nuts, man. This is allowing the text to speak for itself in its own context. No, it's definitely nuts. It's a Mr. way to ask the question there. He asked, "How does the Father draw people?" "How does the Father draw him?" And where did you say that the answer to that question was, Mr. White? "Well, verse 45 tells us."
Okay, thanks. Let's look at verse 45 then. It says, "It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." Okay, so that's weird. I'm looking at verse 45. It doesn't say a word about being drawn. So Mr. White, can you just explain a little bit there? "There is teaching, there is hearing, there is learning." Okay. Well, that's not much of an explanation. Because verse 45 does talk about being taught, people who heard, people who learned. But verse 45 never says all these things make up the drawing. This drawing could be its own thing. Likewise, the teaching could be its own thing. The hearing could be its own thing, and the learning could be its own thing. So Mr. White is trying to say that this describes the elements of the drawing. Is that a possible interpretation of the passage? Yeah. Why not? You would need to follow these two ridiculous rules in order to arrive at that interpretation. But it is still an interpretation. I could say that passage means that Jesus likes rollerskating. How'd you get that? Well, it's a metaphor. It obviously all means that Jesus really loves rollerskating. After all, this is the crazy Mr. White. You so the roller skating thing doesn't look too implausible next to that.
So yeah, you can interpret anything in any way you want. Whether that interpretation is correct, that's a different story. So let's see if there's a logically consistent interpretation we can get from verse 45. Going through what we learned already: everyone who is given by the Father to the Son will come to the Son. Everyone who is coming to the Son will be drawn by the Father first. And now we are learning that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Jesus. So putting that all together, since we know that everyone who is coming to Jesus will be drawn by the Father first, and since we know that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Jesus, then we know that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father will have been drawn.
Now, that does not mean that everyone who is drawn will have heard and learned from the Father. Remember, we don't flip them like Mr. White does. List. We all become NASCAR drivers. Nothing against NASCAR drivers, it's just it's not good to have us all on the track at the same time, which is part of the reason why I'm avoiding putting the helmet on right now, mainly the vanity thing about the hair. But, you know, safety first.
Now, while the Bible only lets us know that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father will have been drawn, Mr. White is saying that "drawn" means "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father." Or, in other words, he's just doing that same flip again. He's just hiding his method. He's trying to have the verse say, "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father will have been drawn," which is what it actually says. But then he's also saying the opposite is true too: "Everyone who is drawn will have heard and learned from the Father." Again, Mr. White has no biblical support for what he's saying. And it's not even that smart of a thing to say. Because look at the verses. Verse 44 says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." And then we're told, "It is written in the prophets, here's the thing that was written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God." Who's "they"? Let's just say, for the sake of argument in this video, that "they" is the ones that God drew. Heck, let's say it's all drawn people. All drawn people will be taught of God. Again, we're just exploring this possibility. We're not saying that's what they actually means here. But if all drawn people are taught of God, we're still told in the next sentence that "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Jesus." So it's these actions of hearing and learning that Mr. White's really trying to get to. But the only thing he really has a shot of linking here is that they, the people who are drawn. And even if this "they" here does mean all drawn people, then sure, all the drawn people will be taught of God. And if those drawn people hear and learn from the Father, then they'll come to Christ. But if they hear and don't learn, then maybe they don't come to Christ. In which case, maybe they don't get raised up on the last day. And if they neither hear nor learn, maybe they don't come to Christ. In which case, maybe they don't get raised up on the last day. So Mr. White would still fail to prove his false teaching that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. Because even if all the drama taught that.
Doesn't guarantee that they hear and learn. The hearing and learning portion of this is what Mr. White really needs to get to. So let's see how he tries to get them.
People are taught by God. They hear. When I hear something, I'm not pretty. You know, I suppose I could hear myself talking, but in this context, everyone who has heard from the Father. You didn't produce that. That revelation. Okay, well, nobody is saying that the people produce the revelation. Again, this is what Patty Bonds was explaining. He does a superb job at attacking a church that just doesn't exist. I knew too much about the faith. I knew what what I was watching was someone do a very good job of destroying a church that didn't exist.
What we're saying is that some people heard what was taught, and some people also learned what was taught. And everybody who hears and learns from the Father comes to Christ. So this is the most annoying part about responding to Mr. White. He's always pretending like he's the only one who believes something, and he's like, the other people don't believe that. This is what these people are desperate to avoid. So not only are we correcting his false teachings about the Bible, but we're also correcting its false teachings about other people. But we do like to show this because this is how he keeps his followers in check. He tells them what other people believe so they don't actually have to go out and listen to the other people. But again, it's why he's not showing them our videos because then he'd actually have to show them what I said. But that's how he keeps a hold on his dwindling followers. And I say dwindling because as they start to learn and actually do research, so they're like, wait a second, this guy is not telling you the truth. And we're always happy to hear from people like that. So if you've gotten away from Mr. White, let us know in the comments. We want to hear your story.
But yeah, nobody is saying that the people produced this teaching. Here we're saying that people can hear the teaching and people can learn the teaching from these verses that Mr. White is supplying. There are still so many possibilities. Maybe everybody hears and learns. Maybe everybody hears but not everybody learns. Maybe some people hear and some people learn. Maybe some people hear and nobody learns. Maybe nobody hears and nobody learns. These are all possibilities that are left open by these verses. But funny thing is, Mr. White never tells anyone about that. Instead, he says this. And yet mankind will go, yeah, but I had to hear.
Okay, so Mr. White seems to have a problem with people like me saying that some people can hear the teaching and some people can learn the teaching as well. There's nothing in the text here that conflicts with that interpretation. So Mr. White, why do you disagree? In John, we know hearing, seeing. These are our words that John uses regularly. Remember John chapter nine? The one who can't see is one who can see. What the people who can see can't see. It's it's meant to be that way. John chapter eight. Jesus gonna say, why can't you hear me? Because you're not of God. So Mr. White's argument here is based on things like John chapter eight, where Jesus says, if God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God. For I have not even come on my own initiative, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear my word. Jesus goes on to say, he who is of God hears the word of God. For this reason, you do not hear that because you are not of God. So this doesn't help out Mr. White at all.
What we're seeing here is the Protestants Frankel. The Protestant sprinkle is owner. Protestant is talking about their false teaching and then they just sprinkle in some verses. And the verses don't prove a thing that they're saying. Promise. And false teachers tend to do this a lot because oftentimes that is enough to trick their followers. Their followers hear them citing the Bible and they just assume, okay, well, if they're saying it's the Bible, I guess it's in the Bible. No, look in the Bible. Look at what it actually says. Nothing in here supports what Mr. White is saying. We're being told that if you're of God, you can hear the Word of God. But it never says that God is forcing you to hear. It's just saying if you're of God, then this is what you can do. You can hear the words of God.
Mr. White is trying to teach that these people don't do the hearing or the learning. And that's actually one of the funniest parts about this. He's just going to passages that talk about hearing. And those passages about hearing don't say what he wants them to say anyway. But let's pretend for a second that they did. Mr. White, if that passage said what you wanted it to say, that would only account for the hearing part of this. So could you Protestant sprinkle us with any passages on the learning? Yeah, that's what I thought. Mr. White is just blowing smoke again. He's got nothing here. But watch how he just tries to gloss over all the facts. He just got them talking about this hearing stuff. Never mentioned a word about the learning part. But then he just lumps them in together. Hearing is passive. Learn is passive. It's taking in knowledge from another source. Being taught by God. Passive. So yeah, Mr. White just tried to slip that whole learning thing in there. And I guess he was just hoping that his viewers would be too dumb to notice. But I picked up on it. And I'm pretty sure his viewers are smarter than me. So he might have a problem on your hands.
So what do you have in verse 45? You have actions of God. All right. So let's say 45 says, it is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Okay, so just to make sure, what actions from God do you see here, Mr. White? God teaches. All right. I see that they shall all be taught of God. God speaks. I would agree with that. 45 doesn't specifically say that God speaks, but it does say that they heard from God. Someone same page is Mr. White here. I think that their hearing is a good indication that God spoke. That being said, hearing is still a separate action that the people play a role in. But go on. He reveals knowledge. Yep. I see that too. It's pretty much just a restatement of teaching. But he's not wrong. So what else happens in verse 45, Mr. White? And we simply hear and learn. Oh, so you think that we do hear and we do learn? That's weird because someone was in here a couple minutes ago, and they got a little snippy when we were saying that people heard and learned. Who was that again? Do we have a clip?
And yet mankind will go, yeah, but I had to hear. Okay, so now Mr. White is saying that we do have to hear and learn. He's saying that the information comes from God, which again, is what everybody else is saying as well. The teaching here comes from God, and then it's possible for the people to hear and learn from that teaching. And again, what is it that happens if a person hears and learns from the teaching? And everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Yep, that's absolutely right. So God draws people. God teaches people. And if a person hears the teaching and learns from it, then they come to Jesus. Plus, we now know that he who is of God hears the words of God. So these people who are hearing God, some of them, if not all of them, may be of God. And the reason why I'm not saying it's a sure thing that they're of God is because the verse says, he who is of God hears the words of God. It does not say he who hears the words of God is of God. Again, we can't do that flip without becoming a NASCAR driver. So you probably all picked up on this, but Mr. White just trashed his own false teaching. He just admitted that the people do the action, and we simply hear and learn. He was trying to teach us that drawn equals hearing and learning from the Father. Hearing and learning from the Father is the same thing as being drawn in verse 44. So that was his attempt to get all the actions away from people and just shove them on to God. But now he's saying that those actions are done by people. And then he goes into panic mode.
So there is this is descriptive. No, we often ask questions. What does regeneration involve? What does it look like? We want real specific, scientific answers. You know, so does the soul weigh a little bit more after regeneration? What we want to get out our, we want to get out our scales and our microscopes and stuff like that and be all scientific about it. I'm sorry, does he have a point here? Are we still going? Okay, but here you do have something that helps us to understand when it says, the Father who sent me draws him. What's that drawing going to include? Well, we know that drawing is going to have certain results. The result of the drawing is that they will be drawn. And we know that if they're drawn, then they are capable of coming to Jesus. And again, they're capable of coming to Jesus, but they're not forced to come to Jesus. And even Mr. White acknowledges that this is a capability. The Father must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to the Son. Back to the rambling here. Mr. White is still trying to get his foot out of his mouth. What's that drawing going to include? Well, we know that drawing is going to have certain results. And in this passage, they are infallible results. All everyone who's taught by God, everyone who's heard and learns the Father comes to me. That only would make sense if drawn equals hearing and learning from the Father. And Mr. White has yet to provide a single shred of evidence to prove that that's true. The drawing here is something that God does. And Mr. White himself just said that we are the ones who do the hearing and the learn. And we simply hear and learn. So Mr. White says, blow up his entire argument. But he's still trying to save it.
So this is a very specific. This isn't some general revelation. I mean, couldn't you argue on one level? Couldn't you say, well, everyone has has learned from the Father because God created the universe and therefore there's general revelation and men know that God exists but they suppress that knowledge. But still, they've they've learned stuff. And so, but that's obviously not what Jesus is referring to. He's referring to a specific salvific effective divine action. He's not done yet. He's just thinking. But what he just said there was that you could argue that everyone learned something from God. And he's right. Someone could argue that because anyone can argue anything. That being said, the argument doesn't help Mr. White at all because Mr. White is just specifying that it's something specific that the people are learning. But the people are still learning. So you can make any argument as to what they're learning. The fact remains, there's still the ones learning. So that was pretty useless. But again, Mr. White is just blowing smoke here. He doesn't actually have a point to make. He's just trying to put all this stuff in the air so you're like, God, well, he's saying a lot of things. You must know he's talking about now.
Before we get back to him, I just want to look at what Mr. White is trying to get around here. John six teaches that everyone who is given to the Son will come to the Son. It also teaches that everyone who is coming to the Son will be drawn by the Father first. And the passage teaches that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Jesus. So an interpretation that is logically consistent that does not agree with Mr. White could be that God draws people, then he teaches people. And if those people both hear and learn from the Father, then the Father can give them to the Son. That would leave open the possibility for God to draw a person. God could then teach that person. That person might even hear the teaching from the Father, but then ultimately not learn from the Father. In which case, they might not be given to Jesus. And in which case, they might not be raised up on the last day. But remember, Mr. White doesn't want that. Mr. White wants the Bible to teach that all who are drawn are raised up on the last day. And that's the only teaching you can get from that text. But the text does not support that theory. And actually, if we use the full Bible and not just John 6, you can learn that a Christian can lose their salvation. They can get it back too. That's all explained in more detail in these videos here. So check those out. The links are in the description below.
So checking back into the field now. Mr. White, did you figure out a way to undo what you just said? This is why you can go to John 10. And it was Jesus go say, my sheep hear my voice. My sheep hear my voice. There is a personal relationship there. There there has been truth about who Jesus is that has been communicated to that person who is now a sheep. But that sheep was chosen by the shepherd. The sheep didn't choose the shepherd. So this is just a repeat of what Mr. White was doing with John 8. Yeah, Jesus said, my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. He left out the follow me part. You can go to John 10 and it was Jesus go say, my sheep hear my voice. My sheep hear my voice. And they follow me. But is this hearing and this following being forced onto the sheep? The text never says it is. But I'm feeling generous. So let's just say, sure, this hearing and this following is something that God does. And he makes the sheep hear and follow him. These sheep here don't have to do a darn thing. Real easy life for them. So they're forced by God to hear and follow. Does that help out Mr. White at all? No, because Mr. White's argument is, all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. And unless Mr. White can prove that these sheep here in John 10 are exactly equal to all those who are drawn, he's got no case. John 10 is talking about Jesus's sheep. Mr. White can find us a place in the Bible that says all of Jesus's sheep are exactly equal to all the drawn, then we can continue the conversation and look at whether this hearing and this following is really forced upon the sheep. But right now, Mr. White is just so far from even coming close to proving what he said.
So James, if you're able to make that connection using the Bible, that is not just anything you say, then please let us know. We'd love to check it out. Now, were you done here? So the text is so clear. Yeah, okay. He's done. He just goes on to say how the text clearly is in favor of what he's saying, which really is not a great argument when he just destroyed his own false teaching by simply reading the clear text. And yet mankind will go, yeah, but I had to hear. And we simply hear. Classic Mr. White. Now, the question still says, we know that the answer to the first part of the question is yes. Mr. White finally agrees with Trent Horne, Douglas Beaumont, and myself that John 6:44 does not teach all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son by itself. So now we're still on this part two. I provided a couple verses today, plus a couple passages that had nothing to do with what he was talking about. What we're looking for here is proof that all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son from the Bible. Not from the mind of James White, but from the actual Bible. If you have anything from there that proves that all those who are drawn or raised up by the Son, and that's the only logically consistent interpretation of the Bible, then let us know. And again, you can use this graphic so you never have to say her name. I think he's trying to rebuild his his audience and wants to use me to do that. And so I'm not gonna play his stuff or identify how I'm just not gonna be used.
Now for all of you who stuck around this long, this is the fun part. This is where we look at Mr. White's response to Mr. Bowmont. For some reason, Beaumont raises issues of translation. Now, there really aren't any translational issues. There's a few minor textual variants. Do not impact the meaning of the text at all. I think that James is referring to this part of the article right here where Mr. Beaumont simply says, that's the translation from the Reformation Study Bible. But here, and he has a link there to other translations. And he says, here are a few more in case its accuracy is doubted. And then he also adds, for comparison, here is James White's translation and commentary on the verse. Now, Mr. Belmont, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you were saying that you had an issue with any of the translations. I think you were just listing these other translations so that people could see that Mr. White's translation and the translation that you were using were all similar to these other translations. That's at least what I'm getting from this. Since you clearly said, in case its accuracy is doubted. So it doesn't seem like Mr. Beaumont is saying that the accuracy should be doubted. He's just saying if anyone has any doubts, here's where you can look because these are the translations he's using. But for some reason, this got Mr. White to do an angry read-through of verse 44. No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him on the last day. That's a literal, perfectly fine translation. And if Beaumont wants to try to argue with it, I challenge him. Put it out there. Put it out there again. I could be wrong here. We could double-check with Mr. Beaumont, but I'm pretty sure he was not challenging the translation. I think he was trying to show people that the translation he was using and the translation James used was an accurate translation.
Next up, Mr. White says this. So he puts a puts together a diagram. All who are drawn by the Father. All who come to Christ. Note that anyone in the coming to Christ category are also in the drawn by the Father category. However, not all in the drawn by the Father category are in the coming to Christ category. And now you can you put this up. So by pretending to be Mr. Philosopher Man, here you are introducing entire categories into the context of John six that are nowhere in John six. Mr. Bowmont is showing the possibilities that are left open by John six. He is not saying that these things are taught in John six. He even explicitly writes this in his article. Mr. White, on the other hand, is closing off possibilities that are left open by John six. And he's closing them off without any support from the Bible. So when I say, no one can come to my party unless my dad invites him, I know that all who come to my party are part of all who were invited by my dad. But from that sentence, I don't know if this blue circle is bigger than the gold one. If it is, that means that some of the people that my dad invited came to the party while some of the people that my dad invited did not come to the party. I also don't know if the blue circle is equal to the gold circle. If they are equal, then that would mean that everyone my dad invited came to the party. What I do know is that the blue circle is not smaller than the gold one because you see this space here, this space where it's just gold circle and no blue circle, that can't be a thing because the sentence says, no one can come to my party unless my dad invites them. So there's no way that these people who did not get invited came to my party because no one can come to my party unless my dad invites them. So the blue circle needs to either be equal to or greater than the gold circle. Now, Mr. White is ignoring the greater-than part. He's just saying, no, 30 cool. That's it. That's the only possibility. They got to be equal. Let's move on. Let's get out of here. Let's talk about something else. Can we talk about something else, guys? And that's because Mr. White needs them to be equal in order to teach his false teaching. But once you realize this fact, that the blue circle can be bigger than the gold circle, then you can realize that Mr. White is the one who's removing possibilities that are left open by the text. And Douglass is just letting the text speak for itself. Douglass even says in reference to this one verse, John 6:44, that we cannot know how either category is actually populated. But we do know that this is their relationship. So the blue circle can't be smaller, but it can be equal to or greater than the gold circle. Now, I do want to mention that I think Mr. White is smart enough to understand all this logic. I think he knows that this can be a possibility and all the drawn people may not all come to Christ. But I also think that Mr. White is smart enough to know that if he admits that, and he has to admit that there are other interpretations of John six, then he's in trouble because he's got that sola scriptura teaching. And if there's another logically consistent interpretation of John six out there, he's screwed. So yes, I think Mr. White is smart enough to understand logic. I think he's just also smart enough to realize he can't admit that, or else he loses everything. And no notice he's had to rephrase things. No one can come. He's talking to unbelievers. He's explaining their unbelief. That's not here. You can't put that into this little diagram. So you're torturing the text. Absolutely torturing it.
So this is pretty funny. The reason why Douglass is making this diagram in the first place is because of what Mr. White said. Mr. White is the one who rephrased the verse to begin with. As Douglass wrote in the article, note that from the statement, no one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day. White kids, all who aren't drawn are also raised up. Every person drawn by the Father, he's raised up on the last day. So James is talking about how Mr. Bowmont rephrased things and how that is torturing the text. But the reason why Douglass's are phrasing things is because Mr. White was the one who rephrased things to begin with. Mr. White is the one who is torturing the text here. Mr. Bowmont rephrased the verse correctly. And Mr. White flipped the meaning around. So James was whining about Mr. Bowmont rephrasing it. And James is the one who did it first. And then James is accusing Mr. Bowmont of torturing the text. And the only one who tortured the text was Mr. White. And by the way, this rephrasing by Mr. Bowmont, Mr. White taught that exact same thing. The Father must draw anyone for them to be capable of coming to the Son. So Mr. White teaches both the correct rephrasing and the incorrect rephrase. And he gets mad at people like Douglass when they teach the correct one.
So continued Mr. White. So with this does is this introduces by putting this into a foreign context by isolating it from its context the idea that there is a larger fear that there are people who are drawn but don't come. All that the Father gives me will do what come to me. See, once you allow 37 and 44 to exist in the same dialogue, this stuff falls on its face. Nah, man. When you introduce 37, you get this diagram. Four possibilities. Are they all equal? Is the bluest one biggest? Is the gold circle bigger than the red one? There are a few possibilities that are left open here. Again, though, Mr. White tries to shut all this down by saying, nope, they're all the same size. Let's talk about something else. Souls, right? Those are weird. What we want to get out our, we're gonna get out our scales and our microscopes and stuff like that, be all scientific about it. Now watch as Mr. White actually reads with Douglas wrote about John 6:44. From John, no, no, from John 6:44 alone. See down there, from John 6:44 alone, we cannot know how either category is actually populated. But we do know that this is their relationship. Well, there's your problem, Dr. Beaumont. No one is going to John 6:44 alone. First of all, Mr. White has been going to John 6:44 alone up until the point he made this video. So he can try to deny it all he wants. It's not gonna change the fact, man. We have the video. Secondly, though, as he just read, Beaumont said, when speaking of John 6:44 alone, that we cannot know how either category is actually populated. But we do know that this is their relationship. So Mr. White should be agreeing with this because what Mr. Beaumont is saying here does not hurt Mr. White's interpretation. It simply offers a second possible interpretation. But why is it that Mr. White is trying to shut this all down? It's because even though his interpretation is safe with what Beaumont is saying here, if Mr. White admits that there are two possible interpretations, then that sola scriptura thing kills him. Because now you have a Bible, and it's your only infallible source of authority, and you have two possible interpretations that conflict with each other. And guess what? Your only infallible source is not going to be able to tell you which one to pick. And I know I'm repeating this. I just want people to know why Mr. White does not want to accept this other possibility. It's not because the other possible interpretation ruins his possible interpretation. It's because if he admits that there are other possible interpretations, then he has to go to another source of infallible authority that is not the Bible. And he don't have one of those.
So in other words, here though, is James White's interpretation. All those drawn by the Father are those who come to Christ. As you can see, this is not the same thing. In fact, it is the opposite of what John 6:44 says. White commits a classic fallacy. Ready? Now, folks, this is how a Sophist turns Jesus's own words on their own head. Those are not Jesus's words. Those are Mr. White's words. And just so we're all clear on this, Mr. White is not Jesus. Now, Mr. White then goes on to deny ever having made the statement that he clearly made. As you can see, this is not the same thing. In fact, it's the opposite of what John 6:44 says. White commits a classic fallacy known as illicit conversion. This occurs when a universal truth is a sort of a subject, but then the universal qualifier gets switched to the predicate. For example, the statement, all of my cars are blue cars, cannot be logically converted. All blue cars are my cars. Now, let's just ask a simple question here. Did I ever do that? No. Obviously, I never did. Yes, Mr. White did do that. He has done that on multiple occasions. We have video proof. Basically, what he said was, well, there's nothing here that says that all those who are drawn or raised up. And I smiled because no one who's actually read John 6:44 in the original language could ever say that. It is it is painfully obvious. And in John 6:44, all those who are drawn are raised up by the Son. Every person drawn by the Father, he's raised up on the last day. Why Mr. White continues to deny the facts is beyond me. But just remember, this is the guy who called me unhinged. Fella seems rather unhinged to me. I'm not saying anything more than that. I'm just saying, hey, this is a thought that popped into my head. That's something he called me. Do with it what you may.
Then after all his vaunted logical knowledge has been placed out there for everyone to go, oh, that's wonderful. Then John 6:37. But maybe there is more to James White's interpretation of John 6:44 than just John 6:44. Do you think? You think maybe there might be something to that? Also, still unrelated, I just want to point out that Mr. White also called me a radical and childish. His behavior is erratic, childish. Again, I'm just sharing thoughts here. Let's continue. Now, if gives in John 6:37 and draws in John 6, which would mean the same thing, then it would logically support White's interpretation. Okay, don't clap too soon, Mr. White. That's just a hypothetical. As was pointed out earlier, Douglass is not saying that Mr. White's belief is disproven. He's just saying that it's not the only possibility. So Mr. White can clap all he wants. I'm saying the same thing. Mr. White's interpretation could work if this word actually meant these words. If this was actually supposed to be flipped around like that. Yeah, he's got an interpretation there, just like the roller skating thing was an interpretation. Whether these are correct interpretations, that's a different story. But keep going, Mr. White. Similar results obtained for propositional logic. It could be said that coming to Christ is a fishing condition for the Father's drawing. For John 6:44, women, it could be said that coming to Christ is a sufficient condition for the Father's drawing. No, no, no, no, no, no.
So this part was definitely worth the wait. Mr. White clearly is not paying attention. And that's not ad hominem. I'm not voicing an opinion that isn't true here. This is a fact. Mr. White clearly was not paying attention. First of all, he scrolls past an entire section in the article. I do want to. He then plays around with with propositional logic, which is irrelevant. That would have been really important to read because that section is actually trying to help out Mr. White. It's talking about propositional logic and it's saying that maybe this can be used in order to prove that Mr. White's interpretation makes sense. But Mr. White just blew that off. And now he's at this section, which is actually explaining a scenario where Mr. White's interpretation could work. Haven says multiple times, if gives in John 6:37 and draws in John 6:44 mean the same thing, then it would logically support White's interpretation. Douglass is giving a hypothetical situation here in which Mr. White could be right. He says, if given by and drawn by mean exactly the same thing here, then White's interpretation could now at least be said to be logical. So Mr. Bowman wrote an entire section here. The very fairly defended the possibility for Mr. White's teaching to be correct. But as you may know already, Mr. White rarely listens to his opponent in a conversation. So Mr. White ends up fighting himself. This is his own teaching that he is now saying. Now, no, no, no, no, no, no. I can't even write comedy this good. Watch this. And check out the moment when Mr. White realizes, oh crap, I am arguing against myself. No, no. And it's a necessary condition for being given by the Father. Upside down. John 6:37. It is the giving the Father that results in our coming to Christ. Okay, let me, let me just look at this real quickly. Could we, um, uh, he looked at verse 45 here. Here's, here's. So it looks like somebody off-camera gave him the old shut up and read. Daulton are coming to Christ. Okay. And in case anyone didn't catch that, Mr. White had this to say about his teaching. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Upside down. So yeah, well, Mr. Bowmont was saying was a hypothetical. He's just explaining a possible scenario in which Mr. White's interpretation could at least be said to be logical. And the scenario had to do with if the words given and drawn meant exactly the same thing in verse 30 and 44. Douglass goes on to say, but do they mean exactly the same thing here? Who says that drawing and giving are the same thing? They certainly don't sound the same. I can draw water from a well without giving it to anyone. In fact, it seems like I would have to do one before I could do the other. And that makes perfect sense. That's what we explained in our first video. You can check that out, linked below. Also in the card. Douglass goes on to say, maybe they're the same in the Greek. I remember Mr. White's all about going to the Greek and finding out which words come from the same Greek words, unless of course he's talking about the words that he's trying to merge together into one, like drawn and hearing and learning and given. For some reason, he doesn't fret about the Greek in those issues. But hey, Douglass checked it out and he says they are definitely two different words. Dido me and older gauge. Probably got the pronunciation wrong than that, Douglass son. Continues, even in Greek, different words certainly might mean different things. If this is the case, then treating the two terms as equivalent would be to commit another popular fallacy known as equivalent. And again, Mr. Bowman even goes on to talk about situations that could be helpful, a little bit to showing the Mr. White's interpretation of the passage could at least be said to be illogical. No, Mr. White skips over all of that. As you can see, he's scrolling past it here. And Mr. White never even apologizes to Douglas once he realizes, oh, I made a mistake. He just keeps on going as if nothing happened. But anyway, this whole situation reminds me of something that I learned of recently in a video called Accurately Evaluating Debates. As Christians, as people of truth, we should be disciplined, disciplined to hear what someone is saying and to analyze it fairly, whichever side we're on. That's for White. I think that's really great advice. Maybe you should think about taking it. Listen to your opponent, whichever side you were on. That includes you, man. Because otherwise, you could end up doing something really stupid, like attacking your own teaching. Yikes. That would be cool. Weird. But anyway, let's finish up here. It's it is perfectly consistent with John 6:37 to 44 to believe that God the Father draws all people, but only gives some to Christ, the Son, resulting in their salvation. That may not be Calvinistic, but it is scriptural. Only theological bias appears to tip scales more the other. Thus, White's despite wise posturing, he truly fails the logic on this one. Well, of course, it was Beaumont that completely failed logic and exegesis 101. So Mr. White gave this many examples of Beaumont ever failing at logic or exegesis. And yet he's still claiming that Bohm failed at logic and exegesis. And just as a side note, I have taken logic 101. And in that class, I learned about if-then conditional statements. You know, like this, if then conditional statement. And this if-then conditional statement. Which Mr. White clearly missed until somebody off-camera flagged him down. Okay, um, let me, let me just look at this real quickly. So I feel like if anybody is failing logic 101 here, it's probably the guy who didn't pick up on the if-then conditional statement. So Mr. White, I think you had one more question. It is perfectly consistent to believe that God the Father draws all people, but only gives some to Christ. Did anyone see anything anywhere in John 6 that said anything like that at all? Yeah, if you read John 6 and leave open all the possibilities that Jesus left open by his words, and you don't close it off with any of James White's words, then you can get exactly what Douglas Belmonte wrote here. And the reason why that's bad news for Mr. White is because that is a logically consistent interpretation of John 6. And since Mr. White made the Bible his only infallible source of information, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Because even if we pretend that what Mr. White is saying is a logically consistent interpretation of John 6, there's still this other one out there too. So if the Bible is the only infallible authority source, how you gonna figure out what the heck the Bible meant? You gotta find another source that can give you infallible information. Otherwise, it's just anybody's guess and Christianity could just mean anything anyone wanted it to mean. So it doesn't matter what Mr. White's getting from the Bible. What matters is what the Bible actually teaches. And when you ask this church that Jesus said to go to, if you have a question about what the correct teaching should be, in other words, if one of these brothers is sinning against the other brother with a false teaching, then the final step in the process is to take it into the church and figure out what the church says. And guess what? Church says this side's wrong too. Sorry, Mr. White. Looks like Jesus got you on that one. Plus, let's not forget that in order to get to Mr. White's interpretation in the first place, you need to read the Bible like a crazy person. Hearing and learning from the Father is the same thing as being drawn in verse 44. And you also need to believe that people flying into Sacramento means the same exact thing as people who made and kept plans to visit Hollywood. So this is Mr. White's false teaching. And I think Mr. White summarizes it best. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Upside down. That's right. Mr. White has the teach upside down. As always, if you want to know happy Christian, drop the Protestantism and keep the Christianity. Thank you all for watching. Please share this video with your friends. Anyone who believes in Mr. White, definitely share with them. And Mr. White, you know what? I'm gonna give you the Hail Mary here. If I put this on and I become a NASCAR driver, then I'll take it all back. Okay? All right, here we go. Here we go. All right, I'm still on the couch and I don't feel like a NASCAR driver. So yeah, well, you tried. You tried. Now, now I have to go walk somewhere and I kind of erratic. So best to keep safe. [Music]