Romans 9: Predestination or Free Will? Part 3

[johngaul1234]

This guy is preaching what itching ears wants to hear......Sad, very very Sad.

[moreofYOU]

oh man thanks a lot ive been struggling with this verse for a while. This makes so much sense!

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Happy to hear God is using the material

[thesamsin]

so, you wanna talk context? hows this for context "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Romans 8:28-30 thats just before ch9

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Why would we jump over the nearer context in vs. 1-6 to go back into chapter 8?

[thesamsin]

look at both, but he is clearly not talking about nations when in the last chapter he is still talking about predestination but on a personal level.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

He clearly finished that discussion, and returned to his earlier mention of the Jews.

[thesamsin]

No, He did not clearly finish it. If he clearly finished it then why does he have to state in Romans 9:1 that he is not lying about it? and why does Romans 9:1-6 still talking about personal relationships with people? but all of a sudden in Romans 9:7 you claim that it randomly switches to national context without any notice at all as if Paul was trying to hide the fact that it was national. If it was national, he would Have said Israel and not Jacob like he does In all of his other letters.

[thesamsin]

look at both. it is clear that Paul is not talking about national election when in 1-6 he is talking about being grieved for his peoples salvation and in the chapter before he was talking about personal predestination. it is also to be noted that this letter was originally written without chapters. The chapters and verses were created in the mid 20th century

[curvalecce]

It's interesting the speaker admits his struggle with the plain meaning of Romans 9:10-13 before arriving at his bizarre exegesis. He tortures the text to escape from God's JUSTICE.

God does not OWE sinful humans ANY kindness. Without the gift of Grace, no one can hope to reach Him. God decides all, but then remember He is LOVE.

Those He loves, He has and always will love. The others He leaves to exercise their 'free will' in hell. This is the message of Romans 9.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

There is no denial of justice in this exegesis, or claim that God owes humans anything. Your sense that this reading is bizarre just shows your paradigmatic thinking--you're so used to reading this as a prooftext for Calvinism that you haven't come to grips with any of the specific claims made.

[androwal]

So, if God also loved ("hated" re-interpreted) Edom the nation; explain this kind of love to Edom manifested destroying that nation and promissing to do it again if it is rebuilded, according to Mallachi. This proves that "hated" means "hated" and not "love

Let's pretend that Rom 9 is only talking about 2 nations; the point is that God choose one nation and not the other; the one nation was spiritually blessed (verses 1-2) and the other not. SO GOD CHOOSE, and no one deserve to be chosen by God

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Yes, God chose. That's what the chapter teaches--not based on them, but his sovereign choice. But also referring to their place in history, not to their eternal destiny.

[rkg62976]

"...as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)  "No man can come to me(Jesus) except the Father which hath sent me draw him..."(Jn.6:44) "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.." (Jn.6:63). "Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not...no man can come to me, except is were given to him of my Father." (Jn.6:64-65)

[jwerner79]

Wow. Good job. This is rare that someone tells the truth about this. All six parts are exactly right on.

Thanks,

Jason

[JMackeyIII]

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

This passage was, of course, covered in part 3

[JMackeyIII]

this is only one passage there are many others that debunk his point of view. even though his points may be valid to a degree he has left out the rest of romans 9 and all other principles in the NT that disagree with his direction.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Actually, all of Romans 9 is covered if you go through the whole series, and the next series, which starts in chapter 9.

[Knowntje]

Well I'm an atheist so its not really of any special interest to me, but I must say that the arminian interpretation even of the calvinist's most precious passage is more logical than there their interpretation. (ofcourse the whole view of God's nature in Armenianism is more logical than the calvinistic view)

[Imfelicity4u]

This is great.if some belief suggests that God is partial or unmerciful without real purpose or unloving it deserves this kind of scrutiny.Thanks.

[crb703]

John Calvin should not be studied totally as truth. Many scriptures relate to it so a full understanding of it should be had. Ephesians chapter 1, especially verses 3 through 11, and continued through Chapter 2 where sinners are dead, and it is only possible to be made alive by God, strictly a power of God only.

Compare to Jesus's words in John chapter 6 where He repeats Himself twice in verses 44 and 65 He states, "No man can come to Me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Many moderate Arminians like me accept all these points. We believe humans cannot come to God apart from a supernatural "drawing" or "convicting" from the Holy Spirit. The difference is that we believe God does this to all, not just the elect. Jn. 12:30,31

[crb703]

Just as in the parable of the sower and the seed. The ground prepared by the Lord DID yield the good crop. Then God deserves ALL the credit with none reserved for man.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Nothing in that parable about God preparing the ground. He casts seed to all types of ground, and it's the ground that is different. The parable teaches that people are different in their response to the universal offer of the gospel.

[TCMAO0]

Ah. It is not just the reaction that was different. The ground was different even before the seed got there. What made the ground different? Do people just decide to be different? Or, are people different because they were made different. All people love sin before being born-again. What you are implying is that a person has to start loving Christ in order to become born-again. So the message you preach is "reform your thinking then come to Christ". Sounds like a lot of work to me.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No. I teach that people must be drawn by the Spirit in order to believe (Jn 6) but Jesus draws all men Jn. 12:31,2.

[TCMAO0]

Well either way, according to you the person must do something. Whatever that something is it "that something" (you don't have to call it a work) is the determinative thing that saves a person. God does everything but one thing (according to this logic). Therefore, you must conclude that man comes up with something on his own. No matter how small that something is. And regardless of how you classify it (work/not-a-work) that other something is not controlled by God. It is controlled by man.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Of course. Otherwise why would be be judged as responsible? The whole Bible presumes humans are responsible to respond to the grace of God.

[TCMAO0]

Do you actually believe that the gift of God amounts to opportunity to choose? If this is true, then the all that happens is a person makes a choice to get out of the line going to hell and get into the line going to heaven.

Your physical life is a gift from God. Did you choose to have it prior to receiving it? Were you born with your particular talents by choosing these gifts? Can we choose our spiritual gifts from God? Tell me what gift of God did you choose to have (other than salvation)?

[TCMAO0]

But, to answer your question... Why are we judged? Because we broke the law of God. God gave everyone a law. Our conscience confirms it! We know we are guilty when the law is presented to us. We have stolen, lied, lusted, dishonor parents, hated, etc.

The reason people go to hell is not based on a failure to respond to receiving Jesus Christ. It is because they are guilty of sin! Jesus didn't have to come to save anyone. God could have justly punished everyone without any mercy!

[KingWilliamI]

If God chooses who he will have and who he won't, then how am I more deserving of life than the next man? If there is no free will, why do I exist? It's no different than atheists debating that our actions are predestined by our genes. If we are all chosen in the first place, why should I bother to be good when I can just believe? ("Not all who call to me 'Lord, Lord' shall be saved, but those who do the will of my father which is in heaven") Why should I evangelize if it's all predestined?

[jaharrison1663]

John 12 is also interpreted all peoples. It matches up perfectly with Revelation 5:9-10. It does not have to mean every person but instead people from every tribe tongue and nation. This does not mean all are drawn and John 6 contradicts your interpretation when it says in John 6:37-40 that all who God gives to Jesus will come. It does not say that all who believe God gives to Jesus. The giving is the sovereign choice of the Father to the Son, who then keeps Gods elect perfectly.

[crb703]

For by grace are ye saved thru faith and that not of your selves; it is a gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hat before ordained that we should walk in them.

If I could do anything to be saved, God would be obligated to save me. That would be a work on my behalf, obligating God and being able to boast about it.

Not of work which we have done, least we should boast.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Agreed. You can't save yourself. That's why God gives grace and enables you to believe.

[stangs268]

very good God works in you to chose him but all along God chose you before you ever chose him

[crb703]

Just as in the parable of the sower and the seed. The ground prepared by the Lord DID yield the good crop. Then God deserves ALL the credit with none reserved for man.

[ajdesau]

i see something that you did not address in your presentation that i want to ask about. is being a child of promise and being a child of the flesh not about being saved and belonging to god (promise) and not being saved and not belonging to god (flesh)? if so then rom. 9 is about election to salvation. because the OT usages by paul support his conclusion that not all israel is israel (9:6-8). the OT passages ground this statement, in which case election to salvation is in view

[4thstreetstudycenter]

The main application on this is that Abraham acted either in the flesh or the spirit, not that the boys were of the flesh or the spirit. Gal 4 is teaching that Abe trusted God with Isaac, but took matters into his own hands with Ishmael. No evidence that Ishmael was an unbliever.

[Shigren]

if romans 13 and 12 reffers to the nations instead of the boys, why doesn't it say Edom instead of Esau and Isreal instead of Jacob? No I'm sorry thats making excuses and trying to cover up holes in the bible. It was talking about the two unborn children. If it were talking about the nations it would have written so.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

It does!!! You have to read Mal. 1 which Paul quotes. His audience would have known what he was quoting.

[ajdesau]

that is a wrong hermeneutic. you can't use the O.T. to interpret the N.T. it is to be the other way of around. and paul uses the O.T. scripture to explain his understanding of election into the spiritual family of god. and thus we are to apply paul's understanding of those passages as the deeper meaning of the O.T. passages. secondly, even if we grant your understanding of the passage. what makes it better for god to elect or not elect a nation over against electing an individual person.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Difference between electing nations and individuals? This election is not to heaven or hell, but to play a part in God's plan.

On OT-NT: The NT authors use the OT without distorting its meaning. We can look to see what they saw, and understand what they intend.

[ajdesau]

"to play a part in God's plan" is very vague. to play a part in God's plan in what? what plan? the plan was the plan of redemption. in fact salvation and redemption was exactly what this election was about (Romans 11). God selected Israel to establish them as his people and him as their God. and if a nation does not have the true God as their God it is most assuredly an issue of salvation. what plan other than redemption could God be meaning to bring about in election.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

He itemizes their part in his plan in verse 4, 5. They laid down the OT, carried out the temple service, creating a predictive picture of Jesus' work, in a word, created the setting where Jesus could come and have everything make sense in that he was the missing piece in the puzzle.

[ajdesau]

also i don't think you sufficiently or adequately answered the following question: if this is not about salvation what possible meaning could it have for those to whom paul is writing? why would they care about some O.T. issue that does not have any application anymore? the gospel can go to all nations now, so God's electing of a nation would not matter. it makes this chapter arbitrary. you can't detach Rom. 9 from the book of Romans, which is all about the gospel and about salvation.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

These people were intense about the OT. That was their Bible. They had a burning need to understand how what God is doing now fits with what they had always known from the OT. Seeing the Jews called God's people, but seeing that most of them didn't follow Jesus was intensely confusing to them. How the Jewish part of the church in Rome was to relate to the gentile part too.

[ajdesau]

and how were they to relate to them? based on your understanding, what did the jewish believers in rome learn concerning their relations to the gentiles? your explanation pushes christ further out of the picture. their O.T. bible wouldn't make any sense to them without the revelation of jesus christ. and jesus christ came to save his people (matt 1:21). in which case he and his ministry (salvation) is the understanding of the O.T. passage of which paul speaks.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

It shows where Jews and gentiles are in God's plan, and how gentiles should not discount God's chosen people (continue through chapter 11). The church gets to participate in the Abrahamic cov. but does not replace the Jews.

[ajdesau]

i just think you're being too vague. you keep using the word plan but not defining it. i'm submitting to you that the plan is the plan of redemption. and if the plan of redemption is what is in view, then you cannot detach this passage from the context of salvation. in your understanding is the book of romans not about the gospel and the consequential salvation of those who are born of the gospel? and if so, how do you disconnect romans 9 from that context?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Of course it's the plan of salvation. But that doesn't mean all Israelites are saved or ever were. They played a role in setting conditions for Jesus, and it's a misunderstanding to think they were chosen for salvation. Rather, they did related tasks listed in v. 4, 5 which furthered God's plan for the world.

[ajdesau]

ok, so concede that it's salvation. but understand, i am not saying that the israelites in being chosen are all saved, paul himself says that they aren't. what i am challenging is how you are seeking to understand election apart from salvation. the end goal of their election was for salvation. sure every israelite was not saved, but the end goal of their being chosen was to bring god's true chosen people (true israel v6. & Ch. 11) together for salvation...

[4thstreetstudycenter]

You just wrote that Israel was chosen, but not all saved. So you also see election as different than salvation. By referring to the end being salvation, you mean not their salvation, but others. So you see the same thing I do.

[ajdesau]

...and that's precisely it. you use the word "world", but it was not god's plan for the world merely, but more specifically god's plan for true israel (i.e. to redeem them). in which case when paul speaks of god's chosing in rom. 9 he is speaking of salvation. why else does paul speak of those vessels who are not chosen as being those of god's wrath? finally if the election is not about salvation, why would paul wish do give up his own salvation (v3.)? ...

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Vessels of wrath in the OT context refers to temporal punishment, not to damnation.

[TCMAO0]

Please have ears that hear. The OT in general is a "picture" of a greater truth. Nation of Israel ---> Spiritual Israel. Temporal punishment ---> eternal punishment. King David ----> King Jesus. Exodus to the Promise Land ---> Earthly dwelling ----> Heaven.

The main point of the whole OT is to reveal THE PLAN /Christ saving His people in a way very similar to how God chose and saved Abraham and a select group of his offspring. Do you not know these things and yet claim to be a teacher?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

These are secondary meanings for the church. I don't follow a allegorical hermeneutic, like Catholics do. I interpret according to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic.

[TCMAO0]

Exactly! The secondary meaning applies to our understanding of how someone is saved. By God's election. Just becasue the bible teaches two truths via one historic situation doesn't mean the secondary truth is any less true.

[ajdesau]

paul's affections seem not to fit if election is not about salvation. surely paul would not want to give up his own salvation if the election is not about salvation, because paul can simply preach the gospel to them, and it would be up to the hearers to receive the gospel. there has to be something greater at stake with this election than you suggest, for paul to wish to give up his own salvation.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

He did preach the gospel and some did believe. The key question is "has the word of God failed?" No. because his election was never based on them believing in the first place.

[stopnthink777]

ok, that's a different story then. I agree with you then that nonbelievers are not predestined to go to hell by God. They are already on their way to hell because they are not only born with the original sin but also, by themselves, have hardened their hearts toward the Gospel. However, we were in that category, but because of God's grace, apart from any good deed on our behalf, He saved us, according to His own good pleasure. why? We can't know, it's a mystery that only belongs to God.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

In my view, God reached out to us, drawing us to Jesus through the Spirit (something we never would have done without God's drawing), and we decided to accept his conviction. I don't believe it's irresistible.

[stopnthink777]

what about the greetings of Paul to the 1 Cor 1 and 1 Thessalonias 1:4 or Letters of Peter to the churches where they refer to believers onto salvation as the ELECT? or where Jesus in John 6:70 said to the twelve "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" ....Were these passages about a mission? or salvation? or what about when Jesus said: "the son of man has come to seek and save that which was lost." was it to save nations or individuals?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Everyone agrees that believers are elected, and Peter says they are chosen according to foreknowledge. Paul also adds that they are elected "in Christ" which means they partake of his election. Only Rom. 9 suggests (if improperly understood) that non believers are also elected to hell.

[truegrit5755]

What a load of bunk. This is one of those dime a dozen studies on Romans 9 that obviously for people who can't come to grips with God's sovereignty

[TulipActionHero]

So Paul is talking about Salvation in chapter 8 and chapter 10 but not in 9? LOL! HILARIOUS! Wait a minute, let me change the subject for just a second.. I have spent the last 12 writing this letter building a systematic theology of Salvation, but I am going to shift gears and talk about something else for just a second and then I will finish what I was saying.. Your screaming Hermeneutics yet you ignore the rest of the book of Romans.. You treat Rom9 like its a different book entirely.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Again, the next lecture with Ch. 10 and 11 is on Youtube under Jews and Christians. Maybe you should listen to that.

[TulipActionHero]

...Cont.. So it wasn't just the fact of Edom serving Israel, God had decreed his hatred towards the nation of Edom, with all of its people, with all of their land, through Esau. You may have an argument IF God would have blessed Edom as well and they only served Israel.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

You've failed to come to grips with the difference between choosing for salvation and temporal choosing for a mission. This passage says nothing about the individual salvation of either Jews or Edomites.

[TulipActionHero]

Choosing for a mission? That explains why Paul "had great sorrow and unceasing grief in his heart.. And could wish that he himself was separated from Christ for the sake of his brethren.. For missions? Come on! The more I look at this, the more ridiculous your exegesis is sounding.. You have done nothing but solidify what I knew was the truth in the first place..

[4thstreetstudycenter]

What do you think they were chosen for? Judas was a Jew. Are you saying he was chosen to go to heaven?

[TulipActionHero]

Was not Esau Jacobs brother? declares the LORD. Yet I have loved Jacob; 3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness. 4 Though Edom says, We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins; thus says the LORD of hosts, They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant forever.

[TulipActionHero]

What I find tremendously funny is that no one has a problem with God choosing a nation of people in Israel, blessing and protecting them, handing them nation upon nation destroying anything in their way, such as in Joshua11, and tearing down Edom every time they built it back, such as in Mal.1.. Moreover this was multitudes of people, not just a couple. But mention election after Calvary and WOE, WOE, WOE, How could anyone think such a thing! VERY disturbing.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

But it never argues that all Israelites had individual salvation.

[TulipActionHero]

This is true! And that is what Romans 9 is about. Gods Sovereign choice from among the Israelites. And this is why Paul has Grief and unceasing anguish. Paul says, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel".... So your saying "They are not all the nation of Israel that are descended from the nation of Israel"... Paul is OBVIOUSLY talking about INDIVIDUALS..

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Of course. As explained, he is showing the individual choices of Jews doesn't discredit God's choice of the nation.

[TulipActionHero]

Your interpretation doesn't not merit Paul's motive for his grief and unceasing anguish.. Why would Paul Labor reassuring that he was telling the truth and not lying about his great sorrow and unceasing grief? So Paul says that he wished he was accursed, separated from Christ, for the SAKE of my kinsmen, and he wasn't even referring to salvation? Come on! Its right there!

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Of course, that's exactly what I argued in the video. Point being, the stumbling block of Israel's unbelief raises questions about why they are God's chosen people. Thus the later discussion.

[patrox247]

This "National Election" has been refuted and shown to be undefendable from the text. That is why we won't be seeing Mr McCallum allowing himself to be examined. The text could have used used collective nueter forms and signified non personal relationship by using Greek constructions that disagreed in gender and number therfor signifying that it was a nation or collection that it was speaking of, but instead the Greek text agrees and is personal and not nations or group.Doesn't fly in Greek.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Neuter and collective grammar would have been totally inappropriate when discussing the individuals in Old Testament history that he's using to make his case. Again, I call you to look at the example of "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated in Mal. 1. Although he uses third person singular, he also, in the same stanza calls them Israel and Edom. He is talking about nations, and using Old Testament citations to do so.