The following are my opinions edited from live note-taking.
WHITE OPENING:
White talking about us moderns are too individualistic in our interpretation? You don’t say, rejectors of the corporate view of Romans 9? 
His appeal to hermeneutics to interpret against Catholics, Unitarians is just a cheap pop appeal. It’s like when a WWE star says the name of the city, knowing everyone there will show affirmation.
How does proving that the Father draws result in Unconditional Election? White asserts several times throughout the debate that it is obvious, without explaining why.
I reckon it’s because if Total Depravity is presupposed, then everybody is equally worthless and unable to accept God. Hence the Father choosing some to draw must be unconditional, since there is no meaningful difference between anybody.
This is exactly what Flowers warns about presuppositions skewing whatever grammar or Greek is interpreted from the text.
FLOWERS OPENING:
Exegesis and Greek doesn’t override starting with a wrong presupposition.
Flowers is spot on. The Father draws sure, but WHERE IS THE UNCONDITIONAL?
Condemned by default VS by their fault, good mnemonic he will repeat several times.
Mentioning blinding those born already blind, what I call the Total Redundancy or Totaller Depravity problem.
Hahaha walking through the text, unity of the Father and the Son, he dares use White’s own spells against him!
Flowers is mentioning a lot of Calvinism’s touchpoints, I predict White will say he isn’t sticking to the text. But as some have noted, Flowers may have the bigger goal of putting a pebble in the shoe of Calvinists and fence-sitters on topics like blinding those born blind, faith precedes regeneration being the clear teaching of many passages, those who have no chance to receive Christ being condemned for that.
What he is doing is what Calvinists often do, mention other texts or Bible events briefly to bolster his thesis. It’s not quite a shotgun.
Baffling that Jesus marvels and weeps over those the united Godhead didn’t grant regeneration to.
WHITE REBUTTAL:
White asserts it, but doesn’t explain HOW it is obvious that if the Father draws then this is UNCONDITIONAL Election. Remember the title of the debate. The debate is NOT “Is John 6 teaching Total Inability”.
Backwards reading from v45 to v44? What verses? There are no verses in the original autograph. John didn’t suddenly stop between the ‘verses’. Forcing the text into two halves is to rip a tear in the middle of a flowing narrative, chopping it up into artificial parts. White himself says “Some people try to insert a break in v44” completely without any self-awareness or else without any consistency!
Documentary about sheep choosing Shepherd? Real sheep need to LEARN the voice of the shepherd, which supports Flowers’ view.
FLOWERS REBUTTAL:
Just because it’s emotional doesn’t mean it’s not true. Didn’t take the chance to say “Jesus wept” though, although he’s been referring to Jesus weeping over Jerusalem refusing to be gathered.
White talks like a dry ivory tower lecturer, Flowers preaches like an impassioned southerner.
Repeated, exegesis and Greek doesn’t override starting with a wrong presupposition.
Finally says, you say we don’t know why the Father gives to the Son, I say we do… NOT UNCONDITIONAL. I still feel he should have pressed and reminded more on this point, since it’s the debate title.
The bread of life is given to a crowd that includes those who won’t follow Jesus, not just to those who will be irresistibly drawn. This is similar to what John17apologetics mentioned in his video on John 6 hoping to give tips for this very debate, wonder if Flowers picked it up from there? I’ll post video link in comments below.
WHITE QUESTIONS ROUND 1
Flowers is very quick in response to White’s constant attempt at gotcha questions to cite a passage to explain his position. I think this is impressive to the churchgoer audience, giving Flowers an aura of Biblicalness. Honestly it felt like the teachers of the Law trying to trap Jesus with complicated questioning.
Smart to keep referring back to what White himself wrote or said, this is another of White’s old debate spells.
Flowers should have mentioned the meat thing tho.
Plain Common sense, student’s responsibilities to learn when teacher teaches.
FLOWERS QUESTIONS ROUND 1
Oof, quoting page 25 of White’s own book Drawn by the Father “When we come to him, when we believe on him, he becomes the source of our spiritual life”
But White dodges on whether people get life thru regeneration first
In White’s own exposition by default they are unable to believe
“I’ve given the answer” as a dodge, White’s usual tactic of not answering yes or no on a question where he knows a yes represents his views accurately but sounds horrible to the audience.
WHITE QUESTIONS ROUND 2
White keeps trying to pin Flowers to ONLY 6:44, Flowers keeps bringing in other passages especially from John to clarify the verse. White is the one who coined the phrase “We believe in Tota Scriptura”
What if v45 describes v44? Didn’t White opener scold for reading backwards???
FLOWERS QUESTIONS ROUND 2:
Flowers makes a good comparison to White’s own lectures and Jer 32:33, teaching does not equal the hearers choosing to learn
White dodges on the infant damnation of a Reprobate, appealing to the moderator that this is not on topic. This is classic James White, refusing to give a yes or no answer because the yes is accurate about his views but he knows how horrible it sounds to the audience. We saw this multiple times in the Craig vs White debate on Unbelievable on the question of whether Calvinism makes God the author of evil.
White also appeals to other passages, Jer 31 to explain 32.
White just contradicted himself, they have tremendous light and God has to harden them EVEN IF they are ignoring that light. So God is preventing them from doing something they wouldn’t do???
Capernaum vs Tyre Sidon, John17apologetics point about impossible to repent without drawing in addition to signs (see comment for link). Flowers presses on whether Jesus didn’t really mean it, but White throws a pointless jab at Middle Knowledge.
White quote, you believe because you’ve been made a new creation in Christ. White agrees yes.
2 Cor 5:17, John 6, 5:40 come drink eat to live flatly contradicts, but White does the usual Calvinist word dance around the Ordo Salutis.
White actually agrees, spiritually dead individuals need to be given spiritual life so that they can have true faith in Christ.
WHITE CLOSING:
Says he’s won because Flowers admitted that if White’s view is correct then John 6 is about effectual drawing, then asserts that he showed how his exegesis is the correct one. I still think that Unconditional Election does not clearly follow from that, Irresistible Grace would be closer and only indirectly supports Unconditional Election. Again I need to ask, what in the entire passage shows the unconditionality of the drawing? Just because the Father draws, says nothing of any conditions.
Asserts that he has been consistent in exegesis and allowing the text to speak, while Flowers has not.
FLOWERS CLOSING:
Pushes on infant damnation because that’s the entailment of Unconditional Election (remember, that’s the topic of the debate).
Oof, using White 1987 saying this is an inconceivable idea!
Keeps bringing it back to White having presuppositions. Listening and learning are active, not passive (at first he gets it reversed due to being flustered here).
Brings up again White’s Calvinistic reversal of people doing something before living, citing multiple instances from the Bible.
Both believe the Father gives people to the Son, White says because they were unilaterally picked while Flowers says they listened and learned and believed. This doesn’t affect the flow of text or Greek grammar.
Flowers is using the closing to put a huge pebble in the shoe of listeners, the sharp pokey rock of Unconditional Reprobation in Calvinism.
Question about responsibility, White tosses out a remark about not being chosen because we’re choice meats, but fair enough Flowers already started with that joke about taking White out for some Texas choice meats in the introduction way back at the start of the debate. uses the chance to refer to Sproul as a Calvinist who agrees with his own definition and recapping that Augustine introduced ideas 400 years late, citing more Calvinists (Boettner, Bavinck).
Good answer on God being frustrated over people’s choices, Calvinists paint it as God trying and failing but that projects their own system where God uses Irresistible Grace. White then says “In answer to the actual question”, which made me feel he’s insinuating Flowers didn’t answer the question… But then says the (real) question is whether God is shocked or stunned because He’s unaware of the future, which are both NOT ‘frustrated’. Those words imply initial surprise, frustrated does not.
The why preach Gospel question feels like a waste of time to me, having been commonly asked and answered of Calvinism. Maybe I’m just way too exposed to these issues, but maybe it could be a softball question tossed by a White supporter. Flowers takes the motivation back to love rather than Law command, persuading them like Paul – remember he was up until recently the Director of Evangelism for the Texas Baptists, whatever jokes about One String Banjo.
Common gotcha question, what is the difference (is he better) if one guy believes and another doesn’t. If you listen to Flowers you already know his response, it’s Calvinism which says we need to be choice meats, a new creation in order to believe in Jesus. Christ is the choice meat, the better quality one – cites several people the Bible calls righteous, based on their belief in Christ. White tries to divert it back to God’s choice rather than (the yucky, man-centered) individual’s choice.
Can’t God make it up to our choice? White again won’t simply agree on a simple statement, but diverts to the ‘real question’ being about what John 6 shows. Flowers smartly brings up the “Could God create a rock He CHOOSES not to move”, which lets the audience hear that Provisionism is not about limiting God’s sovereignty but rather WHAT the sovereign God wants to do.
Is John 6 conditional election? Flowers says it’s not conditioned on morality or nationality, but their listening and learning from the Father citing v64.
Can the Father draw all people but only give those who believe to the Son? White says it’s a sure thing and this gives us eternal security because it’s not up to us. Flowers once again brings in examples from the wider Bible in Cornelius, a Gentile who believed in YHWH and thus was given to Jesus.
Is Christian conversion a supernatural work of God, a miracle? Flowers says the Gospel is the inspired word of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the Incarnation, revelation and light as grace that comes before are supernatural. This is to debunk the caricature that Provisionism says we don’t need God to move first ala Pelagianism. White says he didn’t answer the question, focusing on the actual point of conversion – men are dead in sin so supernatural action is needed.
Is it not possible that John 6:45 is describing what happens on v44 so is chronologically first? White says it’s an explanation, all who are drawn are raised up and Flowers gave nothing on this. Flowers retorts that this is untrue and White is just getting talking points out there to be repeated on Twitter.
Tough question on if God has same salvific love for all, why create a world where He knows many will never hear the Gospel? (I note that Molinists, Open Theists, Universalists all have responses to this but Flowers is none of these.) Flowers says this is one of those things appeals to Romans 1, revelation of conscience so none is without excuse, read his book for and a MacArthur sermon from 1981 for more. White chooses to use slanderous wording, Provisionism detests and attacks God’s decree at every chance.
Does Jesus say all who are drawn by the Father come to Him, or all who come to Him are drawn by the Father? White says one is descriptive and another didactic, but drawing leads inevitably to coming. Portrays it as God’s sovereignty versus creatures allowing God to do things. Flowers instead uses his response time to rebutt the earlier claim that Provisionists hate God’s decree, they just think God decrees good and not all evils like child molestation – a clear jab the clip of White’s infamous claim that child grape (sic) is meaningless if God didn’t decree it.
Last question, why the 5000 who were fed didn’t follow Jesus? Easy one for Flowers to go into judicial hardening of already self-hardened Jews (not synergists in Romans 9) in order to bring about the Crucifixion and being redemption to the world. I would have added that Acts 2 shows thousands of such hardened Jews then came to believe. White just asks why Jesus didn’t use harsh language with Nicodemus, kind of a non sequitur (Jesus did use analogies which flew over his head, born from above which Nicodemus took as literal born again from his mother’s womb).
MY CONCLUSION:
Overall I got the impression that White wants to stick to John 6 only, while Flowers shows the whole counsel of Scripture to understand John 6.
While White can win technically the battle (again, I don’t think John 6 supports Unconditional Election and a much stronger case can be made for Irresistible Grace from it), Flowers gained much ground in the war by showing how Provisionism is strongly Biblically based and putting lots of sharp pebbles in the shoes of those affirming or flirting with Calvinism. He had an audience of thousands and far more in the online viewers who got to hear his views unfiltered through White’s caricature of what Flowers, Provisionism and nonCalvinism are all about.
So let that be my takeway, Flowers gambled on potentially losing this battle in order to win the larger war.
THE SCOTTTCAST 
Leave a comment