The Great Fallacy Showdown: Flowers vs White

How to Win Friends and Influence People with Fallacies: A Masterclass by Flowers and White

Image graciously lent to us by Facebook page: 
@Free Will Ferret

In a highly anticipated debate, two prominent theologians clashed over the interpretation of John 6:44, a biblical verse that deals with God’s sovereignty and election. Leighton Flowers, a non-Calvinist, and James White, a Calvinist, each tried to prove their point of view using various logical fallacies and rhetorical devices. The result was a draw, with each side claiming absolute victory and accusing the other of being irrational and dishonest.

The debate, which was moderated by a confused and frustrated pastor, lasted for two hours and consisted of opening statements, cross-examinations, rebuttals, and closing remarks. The audience, which was divided into two camps, cheered and booed accordingly, often interrupting the speakers with shouts of “Amen!” or “Heresy!”

Flowers, who argued that God draws all people to himself and gives them the free will to accept or reject his grace, employed several fallacies and devices, such as:

• Cherry picking: He selectively quoted from various biblical passages and historical sources that supported his view, while ignoring or dismissing those that contradicted it.
• Straw man: He misrepresented White’s position as fatalistic and deterministic, implying that he believed that God created some people for hell and that human choices and actions were meaningless.
• Ad populum: He appealed to the popular opinion and sentiment of the majority of Christians, who he claimed agreed with his interpretation of John 6:44 and rejected Calvinism as a false doctrine.
• Red herring: He changed the topic several times to avoid addressing White’s arguments, bringing up irrelevant issues such as the origin of Calvinism, the problem of evil, and the nature of love.

White, who argued that God unconditionally elects some individuals for salvation and others for reprobation before they are born, and that he irresistibly draws them to himself, also used various fallacies and devices, such as:

• Generalization: He made sweeping statements and conclusions based on insufficient or questionable evidence, such as claiming that all non-Calvinists were inconsistent, illogical, and unbiblical.
• Ad hominem: He attacked Flowers personally, rather than his arguments, accusing him of being ignorant, arrogant, and deceptive, and questioning his credentials and motives.
• Rhetorical device: He used rhetorical questions, analogies, and metaphors to illustrate and emphasize his points, often using emotional language and imagery to appeal to the audience’s feelings and imagination.
• Begging the question: He assumed the truth of his own position without providing adequate support or justification, often citing his own books and articles as authoritative sources.

The debate ended with no clear winner, as both sides failed to address the main issue and resorted to fallacious and rhetorical tactics. Each side declared themselves the victor and the defender of the truth, while denouncing the other as the loser and the enemy of the gospel. The moderator thanked them for their participation and announced that the next debate would be on the topic of predestination and free will, hoping that it would be more productive and civil. The audience left the venue, either satisfied or disappointed, depending on their prior beliefs and preferences.