Have You Ever Read Romans 9? (James White) [5of5]

[TruthAndDiscovery]

Just a little background to help u answer my question.

This is a debated topic in the Calvinist circle. Calvinism affirms election to heaven, but not necessarily election to Hell. There are two views:

1. Single Predestination -- All of mankind is going to Hell because of there sins, so God chose to save some from Destruction.

2. Double Predestination -- Through God's plan He has chosen some to paradise and others He has chosen for destruction

[TruthAndDiscovery]

Good message, I agree. I have one question about it though. If God prepared some as vessels of wrath, that means he repaired some for hell. That means some have been chosen for hell. Isn't that double predestination?

[itsnolongeri]

thanx laneCH for so many great vids, God bless ya:)

[ThankingHimDaily]

Well Done!

[MrFredoesfly]

This is a Wow! instruction I needed and am very relieved God alone rules!!

[MrFredoesfly]

God Rules totally!!

[bmd200]

It has been interesting pointing out these scriptures to some of my friends. I never heard it explained so well. I have read them many times but for some reason never fully studied them until now. thanks

[clujborn]

How sad people.Have any of you ever asked yourself why is this guy defending so viciously Calvinism?is because he doesn't have a leg to stand on Biblicaly.He should spend more time spreading the Word of God.Ohh but wait...Calvinists dont believe in that.Just Sad!!!

[LaneCh]

He just exegeted an entire chapter of Scripture. You, on the other hand, provided nothing Biblical yet condemn him for doing what you yourself have done.

[hlpsg]

Lane I appreciate all you've done and most of your videos. However I believe this guy's exegesis of Romans 9 is humungously flawed. Do a search for "Romans 9: Predestination or free will" by 4thstreetstudycentre, the speaker is Dennis McCallum. Or if I'm able to post the link, it is w1VPDhgIw24&feature=PlayList&p­=B3A0F529D24D2E5E&index=0&play­next=1

[LaneCh]

Flawed in what way? Please be specific.

[hlpsg]

Rom 9:6 - he claims must refer to individuals, totally illogical. he supports this by refering to the mention of Jacob, Isaac in later verses, is Jacob and Isaac descended from Israel (Jacob)?? tons of illogical arguments like these. the descendents of patriachs intermarried and formed other nations. Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. They have formed other nations. Ver 7 same thing, not all are children of Abraham...Edomites, Samaritans, etc. I'm sorry just too many to list

[LaneCh]

So is your view basically that Romans 9 is speaking of nations and not individuals?

[hlpsg]

Yes. The context of Paul writing Romans 9 is to explain God's choosing of Israel from ancient times was not a mistake despite their rejection of Christ. And Gentile nations are accepted 'cos they too are children of promise. Rom 9:12 refers to Gen 25:23:"And the LORD said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger. " Esau the person never served Jacob.

[hlpsg]

Rom 9:13  As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Where is this from? It is from Malachi, many generations after the death of Esau and Jacob. What is the context? Israel had desecrated God's temple with lame and blind sacrifices etc. yet God showed mercy to Israel, but he laid waste Edom for their similar evil. Paul is asking, is God unfair? No, both deserve judgement for their wickedness, yet he chose to show mercy to Israel and not Edom.

[hlpsg]

Rom 9:15. Context? Exo 33:19. God says he will show mercy and grace to Moses and show Moses His back, His glory. He chose to do this out of His own will, to show mercy and grace (to Moses) to whomever he chose, not that Moses deserved any of it or earned it in any way. Paul's similar argument continues in ver 16. Nobody earns the grace and mercy of God. Not even Israel, for God's choosing them, they were not more righteous than their neighbours or deserved any better, that was Paul's point.

[hlpsg]

Rom 9:17. God had given Pharoah chance after chance with many plagues, yet Pharoah remained unrepentant. For his killing of Israelite babies, he rightly deserved judgement, yet God suffered his evil and strengthened his resolve to defy God in the last plague in order to show His glory and power throughout the nations by their destruction in the Red Sea. Rom 9:18 - God has mercy on those that don't deserve it, but his hardening is on those who had already decided to sin and defy.

[LaneCh]

If Paul is writing to nations, why does he say that not all Israel is Israel. Translated, do you hold that he's saying not all nations are nations?

[hlpsg]

The actual verse says "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." He is saying not all peoples descended from Israel (Jacob) belong to the nation of Israel. Some have intermarried with other nations and formed other nations. How can it refer to individuals, can individuals belong to the person of Israel, to Jacob, who have long since been dead? How do they "belong" to him?

[LaneCh]

What are nations made of? Individuals. So when it says that "not all Israel is Israel" it means not all individuals calling themselves Israel is part of the larger group called Israel. Later in the same chapter, Paul says, "Who are you, oh *man*..." If he was speaking of nations, why didn't he say, "Who are you, oh nation..?"

[hlpsg]

i guess there is no point going back and forth. unless one comes at this with a desire to ask, what is the Scripture saying, rather than asking, how can Scripture support my beliefs, there is no end to this.

[LaneCh]

I agree with you entirely.

[seet64]

I think you can reply constructively to what he says that is not biblical. You sound so childish just to attack him saying he and all calvanist do not spread the Word of God. He is on radio and internet spreading worldwide what he believes is true. You on the other hand just critcise.

[jorgeramirez01]

Los protestantes y sus sandeces...

[tgillspy]

James white is leading people astray twisting these scriptures - missing the context -which is that pharoah thought was a god -as also the egyptions thought that they were- so they did not let the chosen people go to serve the living God- this is the reason that pharoah hardened his heart -God also hardened his heart because he had to free the jewish people from the slavery and in the fulness of time bring forth Jesus in the messianic line and he couldnt do that if the jews were in captivity

[FaithandReasons]

God be praised for this sermon about His majestic Sovereignty!

[michaeleyeofthetiger]

greetings! God wants to reveal his power and wrath! It is WRITTEN in the BIBLE!!!!!!! AMEN!

[SoliDeoGloria76]

Wow, thanks, Lane. Amazing exegesis...

[Aririmawmaw]

Thanks for posting this video. Never heard a sermon from this text except from a Calvinist pulpit.

[CIRELUX]

I see more Calvinist point of view on youtube then any other gave me any links for the other so I can hear what they have to say

[5ptcalv]

JoeandCourt,

Nonsense, God is the potter and we are the clay! Don't sit there and call a man who is exegeting scripture correctly a joke. You have any credentials whatsoever? I truly doubt it!

[reformedman]

Thanks Lane for this good series, not sure I would call it thorough in the info box, but very good for meditation, especially to us who profess a belief in a sovereign God. Oh that our Arminian friends would consider taking Rom 9 for what it clearly says.

[qaileys]

I would call it thorough for the most part. I studied it more thorough going to the greek and dictionary to understand every word. James is right on point and explained it very well. He could of course probably spent two more hours on it.

[damildlyshreddah]

Just simply breathtakingly beautiful.The power and the magnificentness of these passages are enough to give me goosebumps and rejoice in the sovereign rule of our Lord Yahweh God through Christ Jesus,to whom be praise and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

[JoeandCourt]

Wow I am so happy that he decided to skip out on the rest of the chapter. That wouldn't have tied all this together at all. Funny how the context of 10 and 11 is Israel. But we can just skip all of that... so that we can see that this is all about election unto salvation. This guy is a joke!

[LaneCh]

Share how 10 and 11 refute what he's said.

[patrox247]

JoeandCourt, You are completely missing the point of Romans 10 an 11. Paul is demonstrating that God has COMPLETE sovereignty that extends to Gentiles. Note that NONE of the examples given by Paul in chapter 9 were examples of "nations" (which their is no shortage of in the OT if he so chose).Romans 9 is so plain and purposely put in such simple terms, that it really takes some serious denial and/or subservience to a tradition to deny the very simple truth that is revealed in the text.

[barak1198]

You mean like this verse:

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,

I don't see your point!

[yacoub80]

By the way, thanks for posting so many very helpful video clips! :)

[yacoub80]

Regarding "the saddest thing" comment, I should add to the end of that statement "or who attempts to exegete or establish the context of a prophetic passage while completely ignoring that primary eschatological nature of said passage."

[yacoub80]

(cont.2) I'd like to hear him keep a consistent hermeneutic and faithfully exposit the rest of Paul's subject matter that begins in Romans 9 and continues through chapter 11. ;)

[LaneCh]

yacoub, which verses from Romans 10-11 would you include to support your idea that he's taking Romans 9 verses out of context? In other words, what in 10 and 11 contradicts what he says in these five videos?

[yacoub80]

I didn't say he's taking anything out of context. That's why said this might be a bit of an aside or off-topic. He may have done a fine job establishing some aspects of the context, but he's ignoring the primary purpose of Paul's discussion if he ignores completely the eschatological nature of the passage. My apologies if he actually does cover that and I missed it.

[LaneCh]

Ok. I probably thought that and was confused when you said this: "and having viewed this guy's website, it appears he might be one of them." I thought you were referring to James in particular. I wasn't sure which passages you were referring to that he might have ignored or contradicted in this exegesis so I wanted to make sure.

[LaneCh]

Also, "he's ignoring the primary purpose of Paul's discussion if he ignores completely the eschatological nature of the passage."

I guess I'm wondering which passages you are referring to that do give the eschatological nature of this passage. I'll be the first to admit that eschatology isn't something I normally study so those verses may help me understand some of the different views that are around.

[yacoub80]

I was referring to the context of chapters 9-11 since they're commonly understood to be connected in thought in Paul's writing, just as 1-8 are, and 12-16 are.

Regarding eschatology, I would recommend checking out John MacArthur's plenary session from Shepherds Conference 2007 or his more in-depth 6-part series on the same topic that was done at evening services at Grace Community Church around May of '07. They address Reformed theology and eschatology.

[LaneCh]

Yeah, James makes it a point to keep it in context, too. He's constantly saying "context, context, context" when he's debating. At the beginning of the first video, he makes it a point to realize that the verses and chapters came later so we do need to look at it as a whole.

Thanks for the suggestion on MacArthur. I'm glad these videos are an encouragement to you, too. Take care.

[yacoub80]

Thank you! Also, a book recommendation would be "Israel and the Church" by Ronald E. Diprose. It's available on Amazon. Found it an excellent summary of supersessionism / replacement theology, something that is all-too-often a common component of Reformed theology as it is Roman Catholocism. Best regards.

[yacoub80]

(cont.) He's talking a lot about context for Romans chapter 9 here, but there are no chapter divisions in the original letter. The broader context includes chapters 1-8 and 9-16. The more narrow context for chapter 9 includes 10 & 11, which is easy to see when one reads the book through as a whole instead of forcing man-made walls before and after chapter 9 and claiming their talk is still contextual. (cont.2)

[yacoub80]

Might be slightly off-topic: The saddest thing in the world is a Christian teacher who ignores the eschatological significance of Israel and avoids preaching on all the related passages. Such is the case of the majority of Reformed preachers and having viewed this guy's website, it appears he might be one of them. (cont.)