Non-Calvinist Interpretation of Romans 9
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2017
- A careful verse by verse treatment of the passage that stands at the center of much of the debate on Calvinism. This is meant to be a loving and thoughtful handling of the difficult passage Romans 9. I appreciate gracious responses from those who disagree.
If you want to support my ministry work please click here. biblethinker.org/index.php/do...
Hi Mike!
Thanks for this teaching, I have been thinkng about this passage for a long time. One thing I really liked was how you adressed Exodus 9. I never heard this from any other teacher, and it makes so much sense out of the "mercy towards the vessels of destruction" text.
Thank you for your ministry, when you teach the Scripture it exalts God, and makes me long to worship Him even more.
I agree. Pulling all of that together was excellent.
Terrible teacher! Denies the word of God from the pulpit dogmatically
Saving faith is not an active human will. It is a supernatural gift of God it is a component of Saving Grace given to God's elect.
Roy Lange, Your first comment is not a helpful comment at all. Your other comment is better, but still not the most helpful for a discussion. There are many (I would think even most) who would say that the Calvinist approach is wrong. That is why these things have been debated for centuries. This doesn't make Mike a terrible teacher or say he is denying the Word of God. Please also consider the following from John 13:35 "Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples--if you have love for one another." NET
Daniel P. Clark arminianism is another gospel. It is heresy. It is rank heresy. Those who teach heresy are not my brothers in Christ!
"Trying to study these topics that should not divide us" Thank you brother.
Amen
Amen
I don’t believe doctrine regarding salvation should be treated as a secondary issue. We should divide from people that have a wrong view of the doctrine of salvation. We can still be friendly, courteous, and even have organized debates, but we should be careful who we allow to influence us and potentially our children.
@superhoga, How can the teaching of Mike not divide when he contradict what the Calvinist believe in Romans 9... Mike said that choice is not elect and God chose Jacob only for the promise..
Can God promise you something and will not save you...
What a beautiful example of a godly man demonstrating for us how to lovingly approach scriptural disagreements. As a Calvinist who disagrees with his interpretation, this was both convicting and encouraging. I have discussed these differences before, but with not even half the love and respect that this man demonstrates here for his brothers and sisters in Christ. Thank you for this, and God bless you and your family.
You disagree, and yet you were convicted! How does that work? And, why would you thank someone for teaching something you disagree with? "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."
@ Graft MeI believe the conviction was regarding the attitude with which he has shared what he believe in contrast to the way Mike presents his understanding. This is not a doctrine to divide over so there’s no need to communicate harshly or with strong emotion.
@@minmayhew I confess I may have misunderstood. (Strong emotion? That's also presumptuous.)
Thank you brother for this teaching. As one who holds to a reformed/Calvinist view of sovereignty, election, and salvation, i would have to disagree with you one a few points. One would be a point you had made several times concerning that God’s choice and election here is not concerning salvation but rather blessing and promise (which I see salvation being the ultimate fulfillment of). If it is merely speaking to blessing than why would Paul wish to be accursed and cut off? As you rightly pointed out, the language speaks of eternal matters. This sets the tone and context of the rest of the chapter. Thus, once we get to verses 6-12, external salvation should be at the forefront of discussion and this is confirmed even further by vs 14-18 and 19-24. And to further make my point the context just before Romans 9 is Romans 8! One of the most glorious chapters on eternal salvation. Thus chapter 9 should also be read in light of eternal matters.
Again thank you for the video. I learned a lot. I pray you continue to pursue the Lord with all your heart brother!
What were you convicted of or about?
Thanks Mike for the sharing. I almost became a Calvinist. I was a Buddhist for 32 years. I was saved when after one of my Buddhist prayer sessions I recited the sinners prayer showing on the RUclips channel on my iPad. I thought what harm can it do to me. I just read and see what happens. I could not be reading it with much faith because I don’t believe that Jesus could be my saviour then. But I read it with focus. Seconds later I felt like a different person with tremendous love for Jesus. That was last December. Because I studied Reformation history in my college days so I thought Calvinism now really makes sense to me! Then my pastor told me that we shouldn’t boxed God into different theologies. So now I think God is love. I made a free choice to say the prayer. By that window, He saved me. Praise Jesus!
What an amazing testimony! Oh how great and unexplainable is the power of Jesus! A simple sinner's prayer recited, and the Holy Spirit moves to convict your heart, amazing
Don't trust your feelings. Be sober minded. Walk by faith not by sight. Easy come easy go. Live by feelings die by feelings.
Fantastic testimony! Praise the Lord! :)
@@boldforchrist9000 but I would say “feelings alone”. If there is now, nor never has been some feeling of an internal change, there’s probably a reason for that. Rather, look for the facts that give rise to *true* feelings and experiences that those VERY facts promise as an inheritance to those who believe. (Rom. 8:12-17)
@@brockgeorge777 Great scripture!
I’m a Calvinist but I appreciate how you try to accurately represent both sides. You’re the only person on RUclips who will do that. Everyone else just creates a total straw man. But I’m encouraged by watching any of your videos. Keep it up Mike!
As do Calvinists.
what is a Calvinist?
@@t.g.9782 and just as valid, where is Calvin mentioned in Scripture?
@@t.g.9782 A Calvinist is a person who venerates a man, a Presbyterian pope.
@@sweynforkbeardtraindude Calvin is a human? I'm confused ..not really sure what pryestabern, Baptists , etc . Jews & Christian...whats makes all those except Jews DIFFERNT from Catholics
I love that you compare Scripture to Scripture! You don't quote other Bible commentators!!!
Great point!...To many up and coming teachers of the 'Word' spend far to much time replaying what God had revealed to past members of Christ's body (all of which I do find to be legitimate). And not giving the people a fresh look at what God is doing even now at this present time- That of course we would be able to compare with what God has already done in and through our Brother's and Sisters of the past....Great point!
Unless those commentators are quoting scriptures.
Like the reformers do
I love when Theologians do what the Jews did from the time of Jesus and quote the Rabbis of the past instead of the scriptures.
Common taters lol
Thank you for giving a clear explanation of a non-Calvinist understanding of Rom. 9! I personally am a Calvinist and of course disagree with some of your early fundamental assertions, but I really did enjoy listening to you. I’ve talked to many Free Will people but none have explained their position as clearly as you have, so thank you!
On a separate note, I really wish you would include the Q&A part in your videos, it would be very enjoyable.
Love your videos! I guess one day we will find out who is correct on this doctrine. Until that glorious day, keep preaching the word, my dude!
Wonderful comment! Thank you
jacdwis understanding Torah will helps in understand his position. What he states in the beginning is absolutely true: for Jews like me, the gospels don’t make sense at all as separate from Torah but as a continuation only, and this is precisely the way Paul understood the Messiah. He had to; the NT hadn’t yet been written! If Jesus isn’t the Messiah of the Jews He’s noone’s Messiah. Therefore if we study the gospels first without a very firm grasp of Torah we will miss much of it and make our theology based on incomplete knowledge and understanding. We should first study Torah as did the disciples of Yeshua and then approach the gospels with new eyes. Whether we do so or not doesn’t change our salvation; it simply corrects our theology.
Abba's Daughter I don’t disagree with anything you are saying. I would say that you can read and understand the NT by itself, it is also written to Gentiles who did not know the OT. But, both the OT and NT are the word of God. There are a lot of allusions to the OT in the NT and it is helpful to know the OT. We should be preaching from the OT because it is the same God and gospel.
Some of the presuppositions that he makes in this video I disagree with, namely, that this passage is not about salvation, that is all I meant to say.
SCRIPTURES ADRESSING THE ERRORS OF CALVINISM
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
Mark 16:15-16 " And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that BELEIVETH and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Revelations 3:20" Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and OPENS the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."
John 11:26" and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
Acts 2:38" Peter replied, "Repent(one must repent, theres no preordained repentance one musy repent) and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And YOU WILL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (not you already have).
Romans 8:28-29 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him(who loves him??... People who have repented and accepted the gospel), who have been called according to his purpose. For those God FOREKNEW(key word here foreknew not foremade) he also predestined(he predestines those he foreknew) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Matthew 24:13 "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.( key word "he that endure" , this is on your own part)
Matthew 24:31 "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.( This is the end of this scripture who are the elect here??... The ones who have endured not the ones God made before they were born as elect. He foreknew however he didn't foremake)
Shalom!
Toyosi Oyejobi in case you have never met a Calvinist, we still call sinners to repent and believe, but we also believe that it is under God’s sovereign plan that people respond in faith. Why did I believe and others did not? It’s not because I’m smarter, more humble, or more god-fearing, it’s because God in His grace chose to change my heart and save me. Not according to works that I have done, but according to His Grace we are saved.
Thank you so, so much for this video. I was really struggling with this chapter. I had been listening to some Reformed baptist preachers that I really liked and started looking into their doctrine more and came across unconditional election. I knew that I didn’t believe what they were saying, but I heard several of them speak on this chapter, and I couldn’t find anyone who was refuting their interpretation of this chapter specifically rather than the concept of unconditional election. It got to the point where I was on my knees crying and praying to God to show me the truth of who He was because unconditional election did not seem like the God who loved me while I was still a sinner and sent His son to die for the whole world, and yet, I could not see how else to read this chapter other than how the Calvinists were reading it. Right after praying that prayer, God led me to your video. Your analysis completely reaffirmed my trust in who God is. You are an answer to a very desperate prayer! May God bless you and your ministry.
Hey sister just wanted to ask why don’t you believe in unconditional election? It’s not just in Romans that proves it.
Ephesians 1:4-6
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
@@ShepherdMinistry Hi there. I have been walking with God my entire life, and everything I read and experienced in my relationship with him leads me away from believing unconditional selection. I have listened to Calvinist interpretations of the verses you listed, but also to others addressing that interpretation. There main point was that these verses refer to a predestination for those who are “in Christ” meaning those who believe in him rather than predestining those who will believe in Christ. As I said in my comment, everything I have experienced in my relationship with God tells me that His character is not that of a God who would select some and condemn some without giving them an opportunity to be saved. I fully acknowledge that God’s ways are far beyond me and that there could be something that He is doing with it that is beyond my understanding, but I have not been convinced that this is the way He chooses to do thinggs.
@@samanthiafarthing8591 the Bible states were dead in our sins. We are unable to choose God. God has to call us.
Total Depravity (man unable to choose God until God calls on man)- As a result of Adam’s fall, the entire human race is affected; all humanity is dead in trespasses and sins. Man is unable to save himself:
Genesis 6:5
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Jeremiah 17:9
9 The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
Romans 3:10-18
10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
As you read the verses above we see that man is dead in his sin. His sinful nature prevents him from being able to Choose God. God must call man giving Him a new nature.
Simply go read how God called and chose Saul/Paul. Paul never chose God first.
‘But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:’ Acts 9:15
I agree that God has to call first. The difference comes in that I believe that God has chosen to allow us to make the choice whether to heed the call and accept the salvation He is offering or to reject it. I believe that when the bible says we are dead in our sins it is referring to the fact that we are condemned and that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves. God had to provide the way and make the offer, then we make the choice to accept or reject it. I know this goes into more of the irresistible grace, but I think the whole TULIP concept is all tied together. One aspect can’t really stand without the others. I absolutely believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that every word is true, but I also know the Bible uses hyperbole at times. For example, I believe the verse you pulled from Genesis is speaking of the time just prior to the flood, and yet we know that not every human was evil continuously, otherwise god would not have chosen to spare Noah and his family. I think you have to look at the Bible as a whole and at the continuous narrative it shows. god’s character is revealed throughout the Bible, and I don’t think it is consistent with TULIP.
@@samanthiafarthing8591 thank you for your response.
The Holy Spirit will work in the lives of the elect so that they inevitably will come to faith in Christ. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those sinners whom He personally calls to Christ (John 6:37-40 “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that”).
At the heart of this doctrine is the answer to the question: Why does one person believe the gospel and another does not? Is it because one is smarter, has better reasoning capabilities, or possesses some other characteristic that allows him to realize the importance of the gospel message? Or is it because God does something unique in the lives of those whom He saves? If it is because of what the person who believes does or is, then in a sense he is responsible for his salvation and has a reason to boast.
However, if the difference is solely that God does something unique in the hearts and lives of those who believe in Him and are saved, then there is no ground for boasting and salvation is truly a gift of grace. Of course, the biblical answer to these questions is that the Holy Spirit does do something unique in the hearts of those who are saved. The Bible tells us that God saves people “according to His mercy…through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). In other words, those who believe the gospel and are saved do so because they have been transformed by the Holy Spirit.
Hey Mike, I have been a pastor for over twenty years and haven’t heard Romans 9 explained so eloquently. Well done brother. Thanks
Clark
Would ask is it Biblical. I've never heard anyone explain away Rom 9:15-16. It fits with the rest of scripture that on one would ever choose God on their own. Being a pastor would love to see what passages you would have to refute what i'd assert God has made clear.... i.e. "No on seek for God... NO! Not one..." We are at war or enmity with God. That is the first problem, next is we are slaves to and controlled, blinded and ruled by sin? The natural man can't understand/accept the things of the spirit. The clear passage and illustration of Christ of birth, and i'd challange you do really dissect John 3 what being born from above really means. Would assert the point Christ was making is no one may effect their own birth and for a spiritual birth would assert God is say one must be born from God, or chosen by Him as we read in Ephesions. Look at the first four chapters and consider who did what to who, when and causes buy their choice, i don't see man's input. One might eloquently explain Rom 9 but is it truthful and consistent with the rest of scripture. Bottom line of the issue is how is ultimately sovereign God or man. Then i love 1 Cor 4:7 Never have seen scripture to support man choosing God. Sure many may say or quote Joshua 24, but when did Joshua say it, or would be be uncommon to hear any born again believer to say "As for me and my house we shall server the Lord. But remember Joshua proclaimed it on or before the day he was gong to die. God told him just like Moses, get your house in order for I am taking you home... Joshua's proclamation after a life of faithful service, one of the good spies...
I have to listen to these more than once, and I'm amazed at how each video is helping me understand Romans. I am so so grateful to God for using your videos to help me.
Galatians 3:29 King James Version (KJV)
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I’ve truly learned so much from this man of God. Thank u! Praise God!!
Thank you so much, Mike, for this teaching on Romans 9. I've wrestled with those verses for a long time, but after listening to you while taking notes and looking up each verse, I have a better understanding. Thank you, again!
Hey Mike I’m just commenting randomly on one of your videos about all of them. Just so much appreciate the time and effort that you put into your content and how meaningful it is for help in my ministry to others. Your work is being multiplied and I just wanted to say thank you.
Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you for this clear and thoughtful teaching. I understand these verses in a more correct way now. I'm going to listen to the next part of this study right now, praying for wisdom and understanding all the while. May God continue to bless you and your ministry.
Hey Mike, I just wanna say this is really great work. God bless you, brother.
In order to understand Romans chapter 9, you have to read the whole epistle, as well has have at least a basic understanding of the historical context, what Paul is really talking about, and to *whom* he is speaking.
That is correct and it is the first step. Once that is clear, the text will speak by itself what is the topic, how it is defined, what is the extension and range of that topic and what responses are given to address misunderstanding. The last one is what Paul does in Romans 9 through 11 before he closes his letter as he usually does, with apostolical exhortations about how to conduct ourselves.
You are right. Romans 8 and Romans 10 teach free will pretty straight forward. I think the whole epistle teaching would show that Romans 9 is more about Israel being the chosen people but they are suffering----and of course they aren't happy that the Jewish Messiah is granting salvation to Gentiles.
@@arnolddonaldson7129 Bingo!! It took me awhile to figure this out, I just learned about it today. I've been trying to understand Calvinism and I just couldn't wrap my head around it. Now I get it and what Romans 9 was talking about.
What about ephesians 1???
@@ramonlopez5557 chosen “IN HIM” x9 or 10 mentions. Not “to be in Him”
"what do you do with Romans 9?" It's easy! I read the rest of the Bible too!
You are right!
And the rest of the Bible affirms what Romans 9 teaches. That God chooses in salvation, not man.
R L no he allows you to make a decision we see this clearly with Cain (to paraphrase)God came to Cain ask him why he was down hearted , then God showed him 2 choices with 2 different endings
1. “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
2. “and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”
Genesis 4:7
So God Himself gave Cain a choice to do well or not and showed him the outcome of either choice one a good outcome one a bad....Cain choose poorly
I think the Amplified version translated from the original Hebrew speaks volumes God word alone says it all my input is secondary “If you do well [believing Me and doing what is acceptable and pleasing to Me], will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well [but ignore My instruction], sin crouches at your door; its desire is for you [to overpower you], but you must master it.””
Genesis 4:7 AMP
Ppl need to understand it’s 100% grace but free will is not a work to earn salvation it’s a ability to make a choice to repent
Jesse Harper Paul cites the rest of the Bible to make his point clear in Romans 9.
Omar Nevarez
So salvation isn’t available to all?
Are you saying Adams sin / disobedience is more powerful then Jesus sacrifice?
Romans 5: 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
@@justlooking6434 When Paul uses the terms "all men" and "many", he does it in the qualitative context he has established from 1:16. Paul wants to announce that this gospel is for both groups of people that make the "all men" in the verses you mention. And also he described the "all men" as "many" because those many who are being saved belong to Adam in first place just as any other men. However, Paul is focusing in chapter 5 in those who are being justified, and not all of the number of individuals who inhabit the world for it is not quantitative. So, in that sense, and after reading that whole argument in Romans 5, one can cross reference with Isaiah 53:12 where it is evident that Jesus bore the sin of many. Both "all men" and "many" are desciptors of the quality of that group that is justified in Christ Jesus and when you keep reading the epistle Paul explains further that those have been forknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified to affirm that nothing is going to change that. This is not the first time that Paul makes reference of this issue in regards of salvation, the Espistle to the Ephesians also brings this reality in the qualitative fashion in Ephesians 3:6- "to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel..."
I have made my best to try to explain the text you brought in relation to the immediate context in the Epistle and then I made cross reference using arguments that present the same topic. But brother, don't stress out much with solving this or fighting this back, we understand what we understand about what we read. You can disagree, as Mike Winger, I respect that and like you, I also want the people to be saved and one thing that any calvinist or Paul or you or me don't know is who is to be turned to Christ. God bless you!
Wow! Thank God for you Mike. This has been tremendously helpful. Stay blessed.
Thank you for this video Mike! It's been so helpful for me. Keep up the good work!
Thank you for this, because I truly needed this. I love listening to Voddie Baucham, RC Sproul and others, but didn't know if I am calvinist. Sure I am not, but will not cast them away. With a grateful heart from South Africa 🇿🇦
You are a believer or not a believer. Did God choose you from dead in sins - believer or did you magically choose God - unbeliever. A dead person doesn’t choose holiness.
I'm revisiting Calvinism after studying it 15 years ago. This was such a great talk. I listened a second time, this time taking notes and following along in my Bible. Thank you for great clarity and walking through this challenging text and through the rest of the Scriptures to give more context and understanding! 📖
I think I’m in this same boat - re-evaluating my views.
Thank you!! You made this so much easier for me to understand. I think the verse by verse approach really helped as well.
❣️WOW Mike I LOVED this video!!! Thank you so much! You are a great teacher! ❣️❣️❣️
What I can’t understand is that even if Winger is wrong and the Calvinists are right, can’t they just leave those who aren’t Calvinist alone? The horror of Calvinism for the non-elect if Calvinism is true pushes so many away from the faith and makes them freaking miserable, often living in fear of God. It’s a horrible systematic and I do t understand how James White makes so much of it.
Agreed
This was awesome brother Mike. I was reading Romans 9-11 and had so many questions that you definitely answered and it made so much sense. God bless you brother
@SamC_182, Mike indeed explained Romans 9, but wrongly... He said that choice is different than elect, and Jacob was chosen only for the promise.. How can God promise you something good and don't save you? Indeed God chose Jacob to become a nation of Israel but also to be saved.. Can God promise you something good and not save you?
@@reynaldodavid2913 Yes, God can promise you something good and not save you. I don't know why a Calvinist could agree with that. Clearly, God has used people for good purposes who weren't in the elect. Most Calvinists I know wouldn't think that is a good objection, anyway.
@@wesleycolemanmusic , I don't understand what you mean, do you really believe that God can promise you something good and not save you?
@@reynaldodavid2913 My comment was accidentally ambiguous because of a typo. Sorry.
@@wesleycolemanmusic, Okay, I understand..
Thank you sooooop much for hitting these verses HEAD on!
Your video is a great resources for this chapter :)
I thought this was really helpful, thanks. I’m not a Calvinist, but I have to say that I find their teaching compelling, though not entirely convincing. This sort of material is great. My understanding of this is that the major flaw with the Calvinist view of this passage, is that they believe the passage is about salvation, when its actually about the lineage of the promise. It’s a good starting point fo rme, so thanks and God bless.
@HillDueceua I read it, and I think it destroys the view that Calvinist try to use romans 9 for.
@HillDueceua , your avatar is wonderful. I needed a good, venting laugh. I wish I could find a way to get it to my PCA pastor without his knowing it was from me. Actually, he has a fine sense of humor, but I'm a surreptitious non - Calvinist in my church and don't wish to be burned at the stake.
@@bobtaylor170 thats funny. Same here
What’s interesting is when you see Esau and Ishmael were both not saved. So it must be about salvation as well. Or just a big coincidence?
@@ShepherdMinistryWhy would you conclude that Esau was not saved? Heb 11:20 confirms a blessing for Esau and the Genesis narrative ends with a reunion, presupposing repentance and transformed heart.
Mike this is absolutely amazing. You hit the nail on the head. Thank you, man.
Thank you so much for this educational video!
I’m only 20 and this is the first time I’ve had to seriously figure out what I believe about Romans 9 for myself. I decided to look it up on RUclips, but nearly every video is Calvinist, and I know little enough that I don’t even know what the difference is between a Calvinist and non-Calvinist interpretation, or what that means!
Leighton Flowers' videos on RUclips are excellent. His recent two part streaming, in which he machine guns an R.C Sproul video on Romans 9, is brilliant and hilarious in its mastery. I recommend it to you.
I think that some mistakenly believe that there is a clear line, drawn in the sand. On one side stands purely Calvinist thinking and one the other side stands purely non-Calvinist thinking. The divergence of interpretation is much more complicated than that. While disagreeing on some points of Martin Luther’s theology and agreeing on some points of John Calvin’s theology , I seem to fall so,where in the middle. Neither of them is 100% right or 100% misguided.
Thanks Pastor Mike.
May our Lord keep blessing you.
Amazing teaching and learning! Thank-you Pastor Mike!
I, too, struggled with this passage. Your teaching helps me a lot in understanding of it. I appreciate the clarity and succinctness of your explanation, especially regarding “ love” and “hate”, about election as a choice for the nation of Israel to receive the promise and covenant of God, and not about salvation. Thank you so much. I plan to listen some more, especially the book of Romans.
Loving these videos on Romans. I have several dear Calvinistic friends, but I have struggled with their theology. These videos have been quite helpful in sorting through some of their claims
You should also check out "soteriology 101" on RUclips. There's a good brother there who deals with the issue in a way that is soundly biblical.
@@MrMarkovka11 leighton flowers Isn't as exegetical as i hoped he would be as a I was looking for something to challenge my view on predestination. Anyway seams like he preaches out of love!
"...For whom He foreknew, (* *who would accept salvation**) , he predestined them to be conformed to the image of Christ."
@@MrMarkovka11 )[
I
2 Peter 3:9 and 1 John 2:2 completely destroy Calvinism.
I want to give you a genuine thank you for this video. You are extremely intelligent sir. This has blessed me well.
While you didn't convince me to abandon my calvinist interpretation of this text, I do appreciate your humble, non-confrontational approach and your embracing calvinists as your brothers and sisters in Christ.
Our identity as believers is in Christ Jesus and what he did at Calvary for his elect.
John Calvin happened to be a Protestant preacher who shed light on the Bible
doctrine of Predestination at a pivotal time in modern Church history. Mike Winger
appears to endorse the contemporary Western doctrine of men having freewill
for salvation. John Calvin and early church fathers never preached this doctrine
because it is not Biblical. Jesus tells us in John 15:16 "Ye have not chosen me,
but I have chosen you, and ordained you," This not only applies to his apostles;
this applies to all believers. Mike Winger also seems to be endorsing the
Edict of Toleration, first planted in the Church by Constantine. Titus 3;10 tells us:
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject, knowing
that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself".
I don't call myself a Calvinist. I call myself the redeemed of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nobody can embrace a person as brother if they think they made the decision to choose Christ when Bible says not possible. Do we embrace church of Christ and Mormons and Catholics in general as brothers? Let’s just all go for works based salvation.
@@gregorycox2377 Sure, but whenever you have factions in the church, you have factious people claiming the mantle of being the one faction that are 'just Christians'.
Look at 1 Corinthians 1:12 -
What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
I accept God's election and that I'm saved by grace alone, and that his will is sovereign as per your reading of Rom 9. It doesn't mean I accept e.g. limited atonement or Calvin's take on any matter at all, e.g. infant baptism.
It's not a one sided thing here: the factious man is to be cast out of the church. So you ought to be thinking really hard about questions like: Does regeneration entail correct theology re: the economy of salvation (I say no), even if yes, is that sanctification instant (obvious no), does the intellect remain subject to our carnal nature (yes, at least in part), what is the objective criterion for salvation (all who believe shall not perish), etc, and ask yourself: should someone saved so recklessly declare who is a child of God and who is a child of the devil?
This a GREAT teaching, praise God for your insight on this and that we, the church, can share it ....Your assertions about the context for "hate" are consistent across the Greek OT and NT as well, in all your examples (Luke 14:26 , Gen 29:31, Mal 1:3) *_it is the same Greek verb_* too!! μισέω you'll also find this construction in John 12:25... I have never heard a Calvinist address the Greek of Exodus 7:22-23 and the use of νοῦν (mind) and the value of the "noia" part of metanoia_ the repeated emphasis on the νοῦν, νοε and our _responsibility_ to determine our _treasure_ so that our _heart_ will follow... these are mental recognitions of God's authority from the basic observation of the evidence of creation, for which we are held accountable to respond with gratitude and in worship of that CREATOR which is truth manifest in His works... (something we reject in our self-proclaimed wisdom and for which we are judged)... No. Calvinists never address Is 55 or the whole of the dynamic outlines in Rom 1, 2 cor 4 or 2 thes2:9-11 and those things for which we are _given over_ or by which we are _taken captive_ .. if we are born determined to damnation then God is inconsistent for giving _all_ men a love of the truth and complaining about them not being able to receive it. That would be like throwing a man with no arms a ball and damning them for not catching it. .... you can't dress up that perversion in "sovereignty" and call it mercy or grace. That verse, whereby all me are _given_ a love of the truth so that their crime is in not _receiving_ it only makes sense if the judgment of the delusion that follows is just, if the individual refused to receive what they were already given. Thank you.
If you heave never heard a Calvinst talk about our responsibility to act in accordance with God's revealed will then you haven't heard much Calvinism. Sorry to burst your bubble but the pursuit of holiness its the subject of numerous sermons, books and teachings that to miss it must be a deliberate effort. I'm sorry you don't believe that Jesus always told the truth, or that Paul was right about how the salvation we receive is an unmerited gift but you really should believe it because it is the truth. If you think God loves everyone, the same, unconditionally, then you haven't read the bible at all.
That God hated Esau means that He did not love Him like He did Jacob. He chose Jacob to be saved but not Esau. "God's purpose in election."
@@yeoberry No. God chose to love a sinner like Jacob and chose to hate a sinner like Esau. Romans 9 is very clear both are from the same lump of sin.
@@rainbomikie :
Romans 9 says God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau before either had done good or bad, because of "God's purpose in election", to show that salvation "does not depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy" (Rom. 9:16).
@@yeoberry That is EXACTLY the same thing that I stated.
Thank you! This helped immeasurably in my understanding of this chapter and most importantly, gave me a an understanding of the text in a way that doesn't contradict (as Calvinism does) the word if God in both OT scripture and the NT Gospel
Lol I was just thinking about that:
Calvinist: God choses some. Look, he hates Esau
Non denom: God loved the whole world
Atheist: oop, contradictions. See, your Bible’s wrong.
You are the real guy. Openness is what I personally do appreciate.
I am in awe really in awe... May God continue to use you and Increase you more. I am in awe. You blessed me. South Africa.
Amen! Thank you, Mike! As a pastor I've been teaching along these lines as well many times. In particular I believe it's crucial to see the epistle to the Romans in its entirety. It's all about the Jew/gentile issue, which was a hot issue for debate among the Christians of the first century.
Rom. 9-11 also need to be view in the light of the chapters 1-8, while the whole epistle rests on a firm OT foundation.
Election in the bible is always with a purpose: 'elected in order to...'. Election doesn't mean exclusion of the others. Abraham was elected to bring forth a nation of people, and to be a blessing to all nations. Jesus is the elected saviour, not to exclude people, but rather to include people. God's choice presented in Rom. 9 is that salvation is by faith and not by works or descent. Being in the covenant is not a matter of descent, or works of the law, but of faith in Jesus Christ. Even in the OT this was so. The Israelites had to spent another 40 years in the desert, only because of unbelief.
God's election means He chose to save those who belief in the redemptive sacrifce of His Son at the cross. That is the will of God made clear in the bible. Jesus Himself said, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18). Could it be plainer?
Man, you've certainly twisted a whole bunch there....
For starters....
You said:
"Election doesn't mean the exclusion of others"
Really!?
When Biden was elected wasn't everyone else excluded from being president?
When Jacob was elected wasn't Esau excluded from bringing forth the promise?
When Jesus was elected, wasn't everyone other Savior excluded? Hence "I am the way, the truth, and life, no one comes to the Father EXCEPT through Me."
Further, you have God's election defined as a REaction, which is not Election.
No where can you support God's election as reactionary. God's election stands on His will, not man's will. Man cannot thwart the promises of God. Proof? How about the fact that His promise to Abraham was brought through an entirely sinful people who were written about PRIOR that they would reject Him. See Isaiah 6:9-10 and John 12:37-41.
@@toddcote4904 I don’t think he was implying that election is by man’s well, whatever that means. Although I will say that first part was worded rather clumsily, to put it mildly. For the record, I am not a Calvinist, and I don’t think it’s a safe or wise idea to be in Armenian, even if I Cleve that way perhaps in my head. I don’t think it’s a good idea to be at the extreme end of that spectrum in either respect. Of course, I don’t believe that about everything. You’re either Christian or you’re not. And morally speaking IM firmly in the conservative camp, so that’s not to say you can’t lean toward or be on one end of a spectrum about everything. But when it comes to Calvinism versus Arminianism, I think both of them have some decent points and pretty horrible points. Ultimately, the word of God has the final say. Doug bless you and yours. Happy belated Thanksgiving.
@@blindvision4703
"Calvinism" or the "doctrines of grace" do not have any "horrible points".
Arminianism doesn't have any truth to it, only an appearance of truth through the MISunderstanding of several proof texts and completely ignoring or altering entire chapters of text.
@@toddcote4904 Limited atonement is an awful, unbiblical doctrine. And the arguments given for it are always from philosophy, rather than scripture.
1 John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." And yes, the "whole world" means the "whole world": (ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου)...contains the definite article
John 1:29 "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (Also contains the definite article)
Hebrews 2:9 "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."
John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (Contains the definite article)
2 Peter 2:1 :"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (The word translated as "bought them" is ἀγοράζω, which literally means "to buy in the marketplace, purchase" is also used in 1 Corinthians 6:;19-20 "19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."
@@nikkowood4476
Huh, never read those passages......
🤦
Jk
Please define "world".
Does it include all those who have been under the judgment of God throughout the scriptures ie, the pre flood people, Cain, the tribes that had to be killed in the promise land, or Nadab and Abiu? How about King Saul or Ahab, or the Amorites? What about Judas, Annanias or Saphira who were killed by the Holy Spirit? What about all those in Rom 1 who are storing up wrath for the day of wrath and end up in the firey lake? What about all those who don't repent and REMAIN in their sin?
You really think Jesus died for all those millions and billions? The perfect blood of Christ was wasted and didn't actually save everyone?
Do you really want to include all these people in John's use of "the world"????
Or is it possible "world" is just a generic term to include everyone, as in, not just Jews, but the Gentiles too. Surely you don't believe John meant to include "all mankind of all time" in the word "world" do you?
Otherwise you have a double jeopardy situation that makes The Father unjust whereby He punished His Son for everyone that's in Hell. So the Son pays and the unbeliever pays....
I think it's much more biblically consistent to say Jesus died and she'd His blood to actually cover the sins of those who believe. Everyone else remains in their sins (John 8:24) and pays for their sins in eternal darkness. Not one drop is shed for them. It's not philosophical, it's just what the text says.
Further, the messiah was to bare the sins of "many" not "all". So there's that. Good luck twisting "many" to mean "all mankind of all time".
See Is 53:11-12
Love this teaching totally in agreement with it ....the teaching of Calvinism changes the character of the God of the Bible....and opens the door for pride and arrogance in some of the 'so called' elect. I pray that God will our eyes when we don't see the truth.
How can the teaching of Calvinism change the view and character of God if it is based directly on what scripture teaches?
Perhaps the character of God that many traditions teach are not Biblical. After studying most of the books of the Bible, I myself have found that the previous View I held, diminished the Holiness of God as well as the sinfulness of man.
@@StudioGalvan Calvinism changes the Nature of God as it destroys His attribute of Love. Remember whatever GOD has, God is. If He is loving then He is Perfectly-ALL LOVING. He loves all and wants ALL to be saved as this was demonstrated on the cross when He died for all.-1Jn 2:2. A God who loves only some is not perfect in love and therefore can't be God as He(the God of calvinism) is not perfect in love.
Whatever God has He is in totality. Again if He has love then He is All loving, if He is Holy then He is All Holy and so on. Whatever attribute God has HE is perfect in it. So therefore God can't be some loving or some holy or part mighty.
So when Calvinism presents a God that could save all but only choose to save some and pass others by is not perfect in love and not the God of the Bible.
The biblical God tells us to be good Samaritans and not pass by the wounded. Whereas the God of Calvinism is a hypocrite of his own word by choosing to save some and passing by other sinners not extending help to them.
This theology (calvinism)is based off the teachings of 2 murderous men Calvin and first Augustine who was a Gnostic and brought his Gnostic teachings into Christianity. From the 2nd century to the time of Calvin no church father taught this theology. All church father's held to free-will and rejected the determinist view that Augustine brought from his Gnostic teachings.
Im sorry i can go on and on about this heresy but i shall stop here.
Again the Calvinist God lacks perfection and therefore cannot be the God presented in scriptures.
God bless. I hope this helps.
@@Notacalvinist_24 nope...your hatred doesn't help at all.
@@timothykring4772 My brother in Christ, please show me where I was being hateful in my comment. I stated nothing but scripture and Theology Proper(The study of God) Taken from Dr.Norman Giesler's Systematic Theology.
Would you not agree that Dr.Giesler is one of thee Greatest Christian Apologist of our time?
Again, show me where I was hateful in my post, otherwise I take your comment as being disrespectful and hateful.
@@Notacalvinist_24 this is hatred. "Im sorry i can go on and on about this heresy but i shall stop here.
Again the Calvinist God lacks perfection and therefore cannot be the God presented in scriptures."
God is loving but he is also JUST. Romans 9 says it has nothing to do the man who wills. That in itself proves this video wrong.
I was raised in a non religious catholic family. Went to church once a year on Christmas until I was 6 or 7 and couldn't care less about what was said. I knew very little about God. I had a very frightening physical experience at 36 years old that I did not fully understand. Before this experience I did cry out to God because of something that I did not understand at the time. Today I follow the God of the bible and fully believe that my heart was changed because of that experience. I pieced things together over many months and realized that everything that was happening to me was explained in the Bible. I do believe that we can not receive God unless He pulls us forward. It just so happens that Calvinism seems to recognize my situation better than other theologies, but I do understand why people don't accept it, as before my life changing experience I would have thought it was insane. God Bless
Yes but Calvinism teaches He only draws the elect. Jesus said...when I be lifted up..Will draw all men to Myself. Calvinism is error. The drawing is giving every individual the opportunity to choose to accept salvation. Not everyone chooses to but all men get the choice. Freewill.
@@janetcadieux6427 it’s your opinion that Calvinism is in error. I do not believe that mans will trumps Gods will. God has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction
@@vinbelmonte5951 Paul is explaining how God chose Israel of the FLESH in the old covenant. It is not application OF HOW HE chooses now....as pertaining to salvation. He was working with a nation then. He is working with the WORLD now. Rightly dividing the word of God is about knowing the difference between the old and new covenants. The text you mentioned isn't even about salvation. It was was about God accomplishing the workings of Israel during old covenant. National Israel. A remnant among them chose to believe the gospel preached to Abraham and for that reason God calls them elect. So...dont try to sell me the god of Calvin. He did not know the real God who demands now that all men repent...because now...the day of salvation is available via the new covenant that the remnant that believed looked forward to by faith. Why? Because they believed. As for who God draws to Himself in this day...John 12:32. Are you going to call Jesus or Calvin the liar, choose.
@@janetcadieux6427 I can see how much you disagree with Calvin but your understanding of Paul’s letter to the Romans as an application only for ancient Israel does not make sense. Gods power is revealed through Paul’s writings as well as the gospels and Old Testament. All is for our learning. You lean towards Arminianism and I lean towards Calvinism. Let’s just leave it at that. I didn’t make my first comment to get into a debate about salvation. It was simply my personal experience and how I relate to Calvinism. God bless Janet
And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
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
@@vinbelmonte5951 it is not my misunderstanding. It is the fact that the bible itself interprets itself. Paul was demonstrating the state of carnal Israel. The bible itself says some of his writings are hard to be understood. It also says the unlearned twist it...to their own destruction. Context is important. Here is the answer to the question concerning whether he was referencing the old covenant...even though the very chapter in question makes it clear. Hebrews 9 makes it clear that God always had in mind the promise if a new covenant. That new covenant has replaced the old one. God predestinated all who walked by this new covenant. The question that He predestinated some to reject it without even having a chance to believe is the issue...I am speaking about. Calvinism us a lie. God did not ever say that. His plan was to draw all men to Himself via a new and living way..as He Himself stated. John 12:32. If I be lifted up...Will draw all men unto myself. It doesn't mean all will accept. It does mean all will be able to accept. Calvin taught opposite if Jesus. Leave it at that? Nah...I'm going to call out these false teachers who lead people astray. I am not Armenian. Theology is of the devil. God's people hear HIS voice.
Thank you Mike for this message!
I'm in agreement with your prayer Mike - that we are not striving to fight for one camp over the other, but that we want to know GOD'S truth, and we will be in prayer as we read the HOLY SCRIPTURES - seeking GOD'S truth, and
praying for humility and love in our hearts for one another, as we follow where GOD'S truth leads us.
PRAISE OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST!
GLORY TO GOD!
Great video mate! I’m a calvinist, but I always want to dig deeper into this issues and have different point of views. It’s an interesting take on Romans 9.
What I enjoy the most about your videos is your high view of Scripture and how you don’t avoid difficult passages.
I haven’t seen many non-calvinists approach this text.
God bless you!
Why when faced with the truth, do you not doubt your “Calvinism” ? And leave it?
better hope you're one of the elect buddy
@@IconoclastX why?
@MScorpion90, I don't believe you are a Calvinist , Mike contradict what the Calvinist believe that Romans 9 teaches also election for salvation.. I agree with the Calvinist although I am not a Calvinist..
@@djvgallery4304, because he is fickle minded.. but Mike is wrong about Romans 9... Mike is not half the wisdom and adherence to Jesus than RC Spoul whom I listened to some of his videos when he was already dead for several years...
I don't even have to get past the 12 minute mark...once I realized this passage is about Israel it all clicked into place. I'm seeing Romans 9 with new eyes! Thanks brother Mike.
very encouraging and biblically researched. I love the thought that this is "family discussion" with our Calvinist friends. Actually at times easier said than done. :)
Calvinist here. Great video.
Grace - faith - gratitude - works. This is how I was taught, by Gods grace we become faithful.
How do you reconcile, Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
Amazing explanation….. one that I didn’t think existed. So thankful the Holy Spirit revealed this to us
This is Good News. I honestly have been pondering with the Lord about Calvinism and faith for about a year. He’s really patient and kind to help me and give understanding. He had me in Romans 9 this morning and that’s why I clicked on this video. Thank you for sharing what the Lord has put on your heart. It brings some clarity as I keep asking Him questions.
can you explain to me why in Ephesians he also talks about predestination?
Ephesians 1:4-6
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
@@ShepherdMinistry I admittedly have much to still learn, as I have just started learning and exploring Calvinism in the last two weeks. I had never even heard the term before then, and the “elect” and “predestination” are completely new to me. It threw me for a loop, as I am still wrapping my head around it. That said, in my opinion, I think when we hear language speaking to predestination, I think while it’s obviously speaking to the body of believers, I don’t look at it as the door to salvation only being open to a preselected few, and shut to the rest of humanity. In other words, I don’t think it refers to a preset list of names, but rather the future body of believers. God always knew only a select group would choose to follow Christ, hence him referring to the path to salvation as being a narrow one. Those future believers make up the “elect” if you will, but I think they choose to be part of that group of their own free will. They are then reborn, and guided by The Holy Spirit. It also pains me to think Christ’s sacrifice was only for a certain number of people. I think Christ died for all, and the choice to follow and be saved is available to everyone. That’s how I always interpreted the words “world” and “whosoever” in John 3:16. Once you choose to follow, you are now part of the “elect”, or that future body of believers God always knew would manifest itself. Just my opinion. I am enjoying learning more about the subject though. Always a good thing to dive more into Scripture. God bless.
@@dr.mofongo9001 Good afternoon brother,
The Bible says it is not up to human will to choose God.
Romans 9:15-16
[15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
If Christ died for every single person then every person would be going to heaven, that is universalism. Christ died for those who believe, the children of God.
God bless,
SM
@@ShepherdMinistry I appreciate your input. I’m just not sure I agree or interpret it the same way. I’ve heard that same argument from many, “If Christ died for every single person, then all would be saved”. In my view, Christ dying on the cross makes the gift of salvation AVAILABLE to all. It does not mean all are automatically saved. Even if you believe in the “elect”, to be included in that group one must still believe in Christ for salvation. Otherwise why bother believing, you’re already in. I just do not see it that way. All in all, we are believers, and part of one family. I will keep studying Scripture though. One never stops learning. God bless.
@@dr.mofongo9001 If Christ died for everyone and all their sins then everyone would be saved (universalism). Why? Because even unbelief is a sin and if Christ paid for all sins then all would be saved even for their unbelief.
Christ died for those who believe. Christs atonement is capable for more than everyone, but is only given to those who have faith.
To be the elect you must have faith. Calvinism believes once you make the choice to believe in Christ, it must have been from God changing the heart. It’s glorifying God for every gift, even the gift of faith.
Ephesians 2:8-10
[8] For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
God bless,
SM
Truly you have an amazing gift Mike. At time 39:35 you perfectly explained what I was going to at about your teachings. Thank you so much.
Idk how many times I’ve watched this and this is the first time it has made sense. Thank you Lord
I’ve taught missionaries romans as prep for the field just because it’s so important for a foundational theology. Romans 9 has always, initially been a sticking point for people but as we move through it, just as you have here, it tends to make sense.
My boys are 17 and 16 and part of their homeschooling this year is romans this fall and then Galatians during the winter.
Thanks for this as an additional resource to help discuss and study this awesome and important book.
Love the videos and podcasts. You are appreciated
Jgod
Wec international
Thank you so much for this teaching. This summer, I began looking into reformed theology/calvinism and it has been very difficult. Before, when I would get to certain passages of scripture, I would have questions about “free will” vs “sovereignty” and what was at work in a particular verse. But, I would quickly chalk it up to the “mysteries of God,” and would keep moving right along. But, this summer I visited a Presbyterian church which I enjoyed tremendously, began to become interested in Christ-centered preaching, redemptive-historical Bible teaching, and reformed liturgy. I assumed I was becoming reformed, that this was what it meant to be reformed. But, I took a deep dive into TULIP and its implications and began to struggle immensely! I struggle with ocd/scrupulosity and it has taken me a very long time to get to a place where I could believe God loved me. For many years, I could see His bigness, His holiness, but I struggled so much with self-condemnation and the concepts of His love, grace and nearness. Learning about TULIP has been disorienting and caused me to struggle greatly with reconciling who TULIP described God to be, with the God that I believed I had been getting to know over the past 11 years. Lots of emotional and mental turmoil. After several months of research, I can say that I do enjoy some elements of the reformed tradition, but I haven’t been convinced that the soteriological view of Calvinism is correct. I hold this with an open hand, though, because I truly desire to follow after truth, and submit myself to truth. I am grateful for this teaching and glad to see there are scholarly treatments of the text that aren’t necessarily Calvinistic in nature. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments. Yours has been a very similar path to mine through Presbyterian, reformed theology, etc - only to reach a disturbing and disorienting confrontation of my truth-grounding against the election and pre-destination imbedded in TULIP. This video and interpretation has really begun to free me from the unsettling trap I felt confined by within “election” in Calvinism.
@danijax24
I just want to tell you that you are not alone. I also struggle with OCD. And I’ve been in the same boat as what you just explained over the last couple months regarding the doctrine of grace and TULIP teachings. And my whole life I have struggled with whether or not my faith was enough to save me. Did I have enough faith? Was it the right kind of faith? Did my doubts in my mind cause me to lack true faith? I recently found a SBC that taught exegetical sermons and I could tell I was growing, not only myself but also my husband. Then shortly after, I discovered the pastor leans toward the Calvinist beliefs. It doesn’t come out in his sermons. But they do hold separate Theological Reading Groups discussing the main Calvinist interpretations of “common grace” and “predestination” When I did research on what Calvinism was, I began to struggled (the TULIPS) I was repulsed by the implications. And I started to doubt my faith even more. But in my research, study, prayer, and listening to other teachers like Mike Winger, I found peace. Peace I letting go of the worry that my faith is enough because it isn’t my faith online that I am given eternal life. It is by Gods grace through my faith that I am saved by Jesus’ death on the cross. And that is truly all I need to be certain of right now. Like you said, I want biblical truth. And I’m not shutting out Calvinism, and I won’t demonize them. I will continue to go to church here, because I can see how much it is helping me grow. And I was continue to study scripture on my own as well.
Wonderfully put, and you are answering a vicious debate with balance and with humility
This is the best interpretation of Romans 9 on the entire internet!!!!!!! I listened to PHD scholars, countless books and videos but just 18 minutes into this video and already God answered me!!!! this is brilliant
Do you read your Bible at all? It is quite apparent that you don't know much. This teaching is juvenile junk.
@@fastlane6096 You must be reformed
@@fernandopaulus9088 What gave you that idea?
@@fastlane6096 It goes against your teachings
Not againstmy teachings, its against the plain teaching of god@@fernandopaulus9088
Hey Mike, we have a wonderful church and pastors but I feel like you are also my pastor, I listen to all your messages and learn and grow so much in faith and wisdom.
Really appreciate all your work! Bless you!
I continue to be amazed at comments from those who take an opposing view. My experience (which is obviously limited) has been that most of those who hold to the teachings of John Calvin have shown themselves to be angry Calvinists. When a teacher/preacher comes to a different conclusion, more often than not they will say he has done "poor exegesis". To them, the only sound exegesis is one that comes to their conclusions. I have pointed out that some Calvinists have done very good exegesis with a passage but still came to a different conclusion. And when a Calvinist does "his/her thing" in teaching, I really don't get uptight about it even though I strongly disagree. I roll my eyes and move on. But man! Calvinist responses to this have been for the most part filled with anger. Some were very respectful. The majority though remind me of what I have said about modern day atheists or agnostics - bitter and angry. What I really don't get is this: Why, if everything is predetermined, do they get so angry toward someone giving a different interpretation when even that different interpretation is predetermined?
Tim Baines you made a straw man fallacy in your statement. Secondly, it’s on both sides, the disrespect that is.
God saves everybody he loves freewill gospel a satanic lie
I found your statement not true. We don't follow Calvin sir, we follow the Holy Spirit. I recommend you study The book "What is Reformed Theology" by Dr. Sproul. There you learn the truth of what we really believe.
@@foreverinchrist1 Lol then why call it calvinism. It's literally in the name haha
@@adamduarte895 Because a Lutheran coined the term for people he disagreed with and the name stuck. But you'll find that "Calvinism" as a term is still far more popular among anti-Calvinists than among Calvinists. Calvinists call themselves "Reformed" after the historical events or "Presbyterian" after their system of Church governance. It's rather unfair to all the other theologians that shaped Reformed theology to single out Calvin as if he is the only one involved.
Excellent! Letting God's word explain God's word. Praise the Lord!
I'm so thankful for your exposition. simple explanation but it resourceful to stand of the bible.
Brother Mike, with all due respect, I strongly disagree. I will explain:
1. Romans 9 does not teach calvinisn, is the other way around, Calvinism teaches Romans 9. Paul wrote it first, then Calvin explained it after many others.
2. You are saying that the chapter is not about salvation, but you never mentioned that it comes from the argumentation from chapter 8 which ends exposing the qualitative range of salvation in Christ. Why is Paul mourning about? Israel not being elected for being people and having promises? That is against the whole argument of Paul from the beginning, which is salvation through the gospel.
3. Your explanation is not different from others. It is base on reading 4 verses and breaking to insert a comment or to apply a ramdon verse that is not in the context of Romans 9. Why not reading the chapter in conjunction with chapter 8? The answer is: because it is going to sound as what Paul really intended to mean.
4. Hermeneutics matter. It is not to say what the text does not say, it is a matter of exposing the text. The context is clear, it has been established from chapter 1: The gospel is power of God for salvation for jews first and then gentiles. The condemnation is upon all and salvation was accomplished for all in a qualitative sense. How do we know it is qualitative and not quantitative? Because Paul stays on topic (salvation) in chapter 9 and states that not every individual of Israel is under the promise as a reason for God's word not having failed in the sense of those who don't believe (which is clearly evidencing that Paul is talking about salvation). So God is who elects who is under the promise and who isn't because salvation comes from Him from the beginning to the end.
Omar Nevarez thank you for your comments. I consider myself a "Calvinist" (at least I am accused of being one) and your connection of Romans 9 with Romans 8 was helpful for me. WhileI truly appreciate Mr. Winger's thoughtful and gracious manner of delivery, the comments he made concerning free will were troubling because I don't think Calvin taught that people don't make free will choices, but rather that their ability to make "right" choices is bound by their fallen natures. I recognize at my age, after much sin and self-delusion, that my desire to be "right" invariably clouds my judgement, which actually makes me desire the security of God's election all the more. I too used to exult in my "free-will" decision for Christ, 'till I failed so badly that I lost all confidence in my ability to be saved by "free-will" obedience. I NEED Calvinism. Evidently some don't. Thanks again-
@@Steblu74 I feel you when you mention the accusation of being calvinist. I don't like to be labeled, although I don't take any harm when they do. In fact, Calvin was just another theologian who presented this position on the doctrines of grace. Moreover, he did not founded the calvinist view, but his followers. If you read his writings, he is always encouraging readers to read the bible by themselves after explaining certain things. The calvinistic points displayed in the TULIP are spread out in his many apologetic writings to people who were mostly Roman Catholic oppositors. He was mostly focused on restoring the order in the church worshiping rather than establish a theological position. Being that said, I appreciate your reply and like you, I also rely my security in God's sovereing election and that makes me cry and repent everyday just for the simple fact that He has been more than merciful and graceful with this sinner. That is the motor of my conviction to fight back with my nature while I am in this imperfect condition. Yeah, brother Winger has my respect and I recognize he, just as me, has traditions that might be impeding him to approach to the text the same way he does when explaining other doctrines we have in common. Anyways, that is no problem, all the contrary is part of dealing with our pride and accept true brothers as ourselves, in Lord Jesus.
@@nevarezomar I used to be big on the doctrines of Grace but I've been kind've stuck after watching Mr. Winger's video, "Why Im Not A Calvinist", especially after these two questions he presented,
1. Do you consider faith to be a "work" in the sense that it merits anything?
2. If then how can a non-Calvinist position be considered "synergism"?
Not only that but I just have trouble believing limited atonement, considering the many verses that say Christ died for all, or that He died for the world. And yet at the same time there are many verses that make it seem that Christ died, or laid His life down for the sheep, and also that His death actually bought salvation, not just make it possible. And the gospel call is literally a call to make a choice, so I don't know I'm just stuck, I just want to follow the bible but theres so many different views.
@@luxchristus343 I appreciate the way you are approaching to this matter. I see the seriousness of your thinking. This is a very deep topic. Along with Christology it is a continuous study to clarify and refine our understanding of what has been a treasure given by our Lord. I will try to answer the questions you make in the most clear way possible.
1. Do I consider faith as a work? Yes and No. Yes in regards to God, it is a work of God. No in regards to us because it is a completed work given by God as a mean for act upon us. I encourage you to read the passage in John 6:25-34. You will see how Jesus knew that the human search for Christ is based upon their own needs and not for have eternal life. When he rebuked them, he said to them to WORK on what is not perishable. This is what we quickly conclude here:
If Jesus is asking them to work in what endures to eternal life that means they can do it.
But that is not the case here, because they asked the natural question, a one that does not make sense: "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"
This question can be understood in two ways:
a. How can we contribute in the works of God?
b. How can we emulate the works of God?
Either way it is an absurdity, because the works of God belong to God, whose purpose and means transcends our understanding. But notice how Jesus answers: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
So Jesus is saying that the action of believing in Jesus is the work of God.
If you keep moving on this passage, you will evidently run into absolute statements that reinforce what is implicit "this is the work of God".
Jesus said: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day".
Notice how he is saying "I should lose nothing of all that is given by God. The complete number of those who are given by the Father to the Son will be resurrected in the last day.
Another evidence on why faith is a full work of God is that as they started to grumble against the gospel, he said plain and simple: “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day". The next verses are only to confirm this and close any doubt of this being the God's work, Jesus says: "But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
2. A non calvinism position is consider synergist because of its definition of faith. Faith is not believing, that is just a partial definition, the effectual component of it. Faith is testimony driven by the power of God upon a person. There is people who says regeneration comes first, I like to say that faith comes embedded in regeneration. It is a full conviction that Jesus is our only necessity. That is only testified, sent and worked by God in human beings with no failure, no delay, no trial and error. Luther defined faith as: notice, acceptance and embracing. A three component mean to the end of salvation caused by the sovereign and free grace of God. When a non calvinistic position defines faith: they say that it is the act of believing and that is the error because they turn the faith from being a work of God to be a work of our part. Calvinism submits the act of believing inside the work of God, making it a inevitable reaction. It is like he created Adam from the dust, Adam did not work or decided or resisted his creation. There is no effort from us, we are being moved irresistibly by the power of God. As the text in John says: "“THIS IS THE WORK OF GOD, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Believing is a response worked by another agent: God.
I know you will have more questions. As I said, this is a deep doctrine, so I hope you delight in pursuing Christ now more than ever.
I would love your interpretation of Isaiah 5. In terms of the Sovereignty of God and how God says in verse 4 " what more could I have done for my vineyard, that I have not done it"?
Also the quote of the Potters house from Jeremiah 18 how do you interpret this chapter? Seems clear this is speaking clearly of nations.
Last in Luke 7 Jesus is amazed by the Centurions faith. If faith is a gift by God the way you define it, how do you interpret this chapter, as Jesus is amazed by his faith.
Mike! thank you my dude. I haven't watched yet but I was having a hard time with this chapter today trying to see around the Calvinist interpretation (not to mention I was reading the MacArthur Bible which was a mistake) and this is just the video I was hoping existed.
wow, I really loved the analogy of a child's perception of how things "are," a certain way to them. actually, just before this my son and i got into a bit of a disagreement about a game he was playing. he wanted to make some sort of account to save his progress and i told him to choose "not now" and he was so upset at first because he was dead set on "it won't show up again if i exit the screen." i had to explain to him that if it had no way of accessing it later, it would have said so. he still wanted to disagree with me and say " well, it won't show up until tomorrow." my patience flew out the window, but thanks to God i didn't become angry, i just told him the game makers know what they're doing and not to worry.
it kind of tickles me to think this literally just happened and then this type of example was in this teaching 😄
I love your explanation Mike and you bring up a really solid argument. I can see your passion and knowledge for the Gospel and for truth. I love you as a brother in Christ for it. Keep up your awesome work and spread the word of Christ. I do not come to the same conclusions. Even if we delete the entire book of Romans from the gospel I would still come to a Calvinistic understanding. Each system of understanding (Calvinism and Arminianism particularly) have a lot of support and they bring with them their own questions and tripping places. I think it just comes down to which questions you would rather leave a mystery.
What was clarified here is only the Tip of the Ice Berge!!!
The absurdity and incoherence of Calvinism is much more massive!!!
Thanks for beautiful interpretation of this highly misunderstood chapter. It's easy to cherry pick, be short sighted and be misled unless we read this chapter with overall context and audience it is intended to. It is also good to know the state of audience when it is written.
Hello Mike. I watched your video and appreciate the effort that you have taken to address a challenging chapter. Though you started to delve into God’s selection of Israel as a nation through Jacob, I believe the lack of exegesis left some significant issues in the chapter untouched.
1. Why is the proposition of injustice referenced?
2. Why is God’s mercy under consideration. Mercy is a verb in verse 18 so this is an action that God has actively performed
3. Why are the actions of God efficacious versus the ineptitude of man? It is not about free will but the ability of one’s will achieve a goal.
4. Why are the actions of Jacob and Esau not used as the basis of God’s preference for Jacob.
Though the chapter begins with Israel selection by God, it is clear that as you read the entire chapter, Israel’s selection is an archetype for God’s sovereign choosing including those he elected to salvation.
Because arminians are simply wrong, end of story. Regardless what they say, every effort made to disprove the truths of predestination and monergism is due to a desire to make God's grace less offensive to the flesh and to preserve human autonomy. Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6, etc. none of these are "hard" texts to a heart that delights to simply submit to what God has said without questioning it. The truth of predestination is God's final and ultimate kill-blow to all pride of the flesh and the highest exaltation of His grace.
Mike: thank you so much for your teaching! I have looked so hard and so long for a teacher that helps me examine myself! I get uncomfortable and that is a total wow! my test for a teacher is there. So I have a question (not sure if I am Calvinist or what 'camp' I belong in). I learned that there is a "common grace" for all mankind. This gives even the unsaved the ability to know right from wrong. and I also learned that when God hardened Pharoah, He pulled back that common grace to allow him to act out the desires of his own heart. I also feel this is "he that restrains" (Holy Spirit is this grace). I love Bible study and trying to see if my life is in line with Christ's teachings. so I guess my question is am I correct and accurate in believing this about the grace of God?
Brother Mike, you explained it so well. I have never heard like this explanation about this passage before. Of course I am a non calvinist. God blesss
Hi Mike, I am a Calvinist. I really appreciate your honesty with the text, this was one of the best exegesis of Rom9 from a non-Calvinist that I've heard thus far in my research and I actually agreed with almost all of your interpretation. That said, I'm confused about how there is a difference between being a child of the promise and being saved? That was my biggest disagreement. Could you elaborate more?
It’s obviously about salvation. If not then is it just a coincidence both Esau and you Ishmael we’re not saved?
He explained it's about lineage, not salvation. Israelites are God Chosen People. Not all of them are saved, just as not all Gentiles are unsaved.
Calvin's interpretation of sovereign grace and predestination was the same as the apostle Paul's and the whole church until recently.
Twist it how you will but predestination is very clearly taught in scripture.
Yes, the doctrine of predestination is hard to swallow for all believers, but that doesn't mean that it isn't accurate. That's exactly why Paul asks the rhetorical question in Romans 9:14.
God doesn't need an attorney. He can and will do as He pleases and doesn't need any man to protect His reputation.
The god of Calvinism is not God. If the god of Calvinism exists then God doesn’t exist similar to how if Allah existed I would not call him God. Your god has the moral character of Satan, just arbitrarily picking and choosing. God is good. Your god is evil and I really question whether or not Calvinists can be saved. They reject the very heart of the Gospel, “for God so loved the World”. If Calvinism is true, then God would save all people. He doesn’t, therefore it’s not true. The entirety of Scriptures teaches God’s hatred of sin, to think that he hates what he caused as the puppet master is a perversion of scripture.
So how do YOU know with absolute certainty that YOU are one of the elect?
@@michaelsayad5085
Spot on
Predestination means a Christian their destiny is heaven it has nothing to do with God picking and choosing
Theo Logian God’s sovereignty isn’t in question, but where predestination gets it wrong is that both God and man have free will. Just as those who live in any Kingdom who break its laws have free will. The King is sovereign and free will exists. What mystifies the theology is the element of linear and eternal time. When combines with sovereignty and free will, it can get down right confusing. That and translations does word meanings and usages. We’ll all know when we get up there, but for now, we need to read the NT through the lens of the Hebrew Bible. As a Jew I can say that he has it absolutely right. Don’t approach the Hebrew Bible from the lens of the NT approach it the other way round and you’ll see what he means.
Mike is such a great teacher. This was a respectful critique of a difficult subject. Great work.
wow such an amazing teaching. Thank you!
Let me encourage you and say you did an amazing job on this video. I think you prefaced this topic very well and presented the Bible in Romans very well. Romans 9 is not an island of a theological system.
+StevenWayneJones thank you!
StevenWayneJones I couldn't agree more.
StevenWayneJones it's a bad sign that you complimented him on this sermon...
The context of Romans 9 has to be seen in the light of the context of Romans 8. Especially verses 28 and onward. I think the problem here is that Romans 9 was grouped together with chapters 10 &11 as "parenthetical" instead of taking it in its direct context from the end of Romans 8.
I think Dr. James White does an exceptional job of exegeting Romans 9 in the entirety of its true context including Romans 8:28 and on. He emphasizes on the word "called" in those passages as key to understanding the passage.
I encourage you guys to check out Dr. James detailed breakdown of Romans 9. Also, see Dr. White's Romans 9 debate with Professor Leighton Flowers. In that debate you see the serious inconsistencies in the "corporate election" argument.
I didn't know JW debated LF on the issue. That should be worth watching.
Personally, I have a hard time listening to JW monologue. Too many rabbit trails. And the same can be said about LF. Plus, LF doesn't apply a consistent rationale to his points (wheter or not I take his side, it's quite irritating, actually).
But JW tends to be quite good in debates (where he's timed ;) ).
Thanks for the mention. I'll definitely check it out.
@@christianmissionforthedeaf1522 - Oh no probably. "Iron sharpens iron". I agree with both of your points. I listen to JW's "Dividing line" frequently and there are times that he can go on rants lol but I appreciate his zeal for the gospel and his consistency.
Now LF, on the other hand, I cannot listen to anymore. I had never heard of LF before that debate, but after the debate, I decided to listen to some of his podcasts and watch some of his videos. Then I started noticing what JW was saying about LF going on a full on assault against Calvinism. If you look at the majority of LF's videos, they all have to do with refuting Calvinism. Then you get into watching his refutations and you start to see all the inconsistencies and the misunderstanding on his part on the doctrines of grace. He doesn't do a good job of representing Calvinism or providing a good rebuttal to some of the claims of Calvinism.
Please check out that debate and lmk your thoughts. Pray it blesses you.
This is amazing! Thank you Pastor Mike! God bless you and your ministry!
Thank you for this video!!
Very good teaching so far - I’m at the 18th minute mark and I just had a thought on the heaviness and the continual sorrow that Paul was experiencing... and my question was this:
Why would Paul feel continual grief and sorrow and even wish himself accursed for the unsaved, if he knew that God has already predestined those people to damnation and they have no chance of salvation? If he knew that it wasn’t God’s will or heart towards them to see them come to believe in Jesus and be set free from sin?
From a Calvinist’s perspective, Paul should actually be rejoicing over this because according to their view, God gets glory from what He has already predestined, whether it be salvation or damnation... and secondly, to wish himself accursed to see these people saved - While already knowing that God from the foundation of the world, did not choose these people to election, also makes absolutely no sense.
Your teaching is helping me see this passage from a new perspective and also, I was never a Calvinist because it’s such a horrible doctrine. But I’ve seen these verses clearer than before...
I too use to believe in this passage in this way. But as i read the Bible for what it says and begin to understand the depravity of man i cannot escape the glorious truth of calvinism. As Charles Spurgeon said, "Calvinism is just a nickname for Biblical Christianity."
I understand your confusion, however, the reason why Paul was upset is bc of his people whom he loved (that were jews) that were given the promise as the people of God (as a nation), but did inherit the promise of Abraham because ,"for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." (romans 9:6b) From a calvinist perspective, we are deeply saddened by our brothers, sisters, friends and family that are not born again and we understand that only those who are chosen will live by faith and be made righteous. But we understand that God is under no obligation to save anybody and we understand that he chooses people out of love according to His own will.(Ephesians 1:4-5)
I do however believe that, "whosoever will" will be saved but I also believe, just as much that, "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14) and I believe that they never contradict. As man we cannot understand how that never contradicts, but I have faith that God is good and infinitely wiser than I am. 1 Corinthians 1:25 says "for the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man."
I do not wish to stir up anger or start arguments but to inform you of the calvinistic understanding and maybe a little better of why I can believe such a thing that is difficult to grasp the understanding of how God could be good and predestine as He wishes.
good point !!!!
good point !
@@isaiahardoin9574 I also think Paul was distraught by his people's situation, he mentions as much. But he also points to a puzzle, a conundrum if you will, It's that they should be saved but they are not! I mean if you have all the parts to make a car, the instructions to assemble it, and the instructors to guide you, yet you come-up with a drill press, there must be a problem! So, yes Paul is deeply grieved for Israel, yet the question remains why are they not saved? Is it God's fault ? A question he answered without even formulating it: "Now it is not as though the word of God has failed." Rom 9.6a.
From here he proceeds to explain God's choices in Israel's history to bring about His Salvation plan and concluding in verse 29 "It is just as Isaiah predicted: "If the Lord of the Heavenly Armies had not left us some descendants, we would have become like Sodom and would have been compared to Gomorrah." " In other words if it was not for God's love they would have been destroyed.
Concerning salvation, God supplied every thing Israel needed to be saved yet they resist him, what more can God do?
And at the end of Rom 9 Paul says the major difference between the gentiles who believed and the Israelite who didn't is faith. "What can we say, then? Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, have attained righteousness, a righteousness that comes through faith. But Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the Law, did not achieve the Law. Why not? Because they did not pursue it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on achievements. They stumbled over the stone that causes people to stumble. As it is written, "Look! I am placing a stone in Zion over which people will stumble-a large rock that will make them fall-and the one who believes in him will never be ashamed." "
(Rom 9:30-33)
But this is not the end, Paul did see Israel's salvation, but only in it's time. "For I want to let you know about this secret, brothers, so that you will not claim to be wiser than you are: Stubbornness has come to part of Israel until the full number of the gentiles comes to faith. In this way, all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." " (Rom 11:25-27)
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones to death those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling! Look! Your house is left abandoned! I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'How blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!'" (Mat 23:37-39)
Yes the depravity of man is complete yet after he sinned Adam was still able to hear God. But without God's intervention the latent depravity of man makes itself complete as described in the flood account. God then intervened in mans affairs by exacting his vengeance upon those that did evil. "Whoever sheds human blood, by a human his own blood is to be shed; because God made human beings in his own image. " (Gen 9:6) This is echoed in Rom 13: "For they are God's servants, working for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for it is not without reason that they bear the sword. Indeed, they are God's servants to administer punishment to anyone who does wrong." (Rom 13:4) If it was not for this intervention, there would be no reason for God to enact another flood, and an another... So you are wright in acknowledging man's depravity, but one must also consider God's plan in preserving man so that he would be ready for the first coming of Christ. For without free will, it's impossible to love.
P.S. The abolition of capital punishment is hastening the second coming of Christ, but this is another subject, or is it? I think, maybe it is, for we know that at the time of His second coming He will find the earth as in the time of the flood, Luke adds the time of Lot. : " "No one knows when that day or hour will come-not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father, because just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be when the Son of Man comes. In those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage right up to the day when Noah went into the ark. They were unaware of what was happening until the flood came and swept all of them away. That's how it will be when the Son of Man comes. At that time two people will be in the field. One will be taken, and one will be left behind. Two women will be grinding grain at the mill. One will be taken, and one will be left behind." (Mat 24:36-41). Thanks for taking the time to read.
Spurgeon made similar comments to Paul and he was a calvinist. In the end, we do not know who will be saved, who were elected before the foundations of the earth. The doctrines of grace are beautiful, ask the ones who believe it how it humbles them and fills their heart with gratitude.
David Bercot put it this way when talking about hardening hearts
"There are to objects left out in the sun 🌞
Ones is a candle 🕯️
Another is a clump of clay 🪨
The sum says
I will harden one & soften the other "
Wow!! Romans 9:3. I love how much love and concern Paul has for the unsaved.
Wow! Now, that was a class. Thank you Pastor.
Mr. Winger's point at (35:08-35:19) is a distinction without a difference. The Calvinist understanding of "love/hate" is not that God wants to ruin the lives of the non-elect and mess them up in every possible way. That is the non-Calvinist's caricature of the Calvinist understanding. Folks like Mr. Winger and Leighton Flowers need to come to grips with this.
John Calvin is the author of the idea of "double predestination." The most extreme minded Calvinists are the most consistent to his teachings. You have to borrow sanity outside of Calvinism to function. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
they have and Leighton was a calvinist for 9 years, himself.
@@seanchaney3086 You’re delusional
These guys can’t hold a candle to reformed theology. Constant misrepresentations throughout this presentation.
Great job! It's nice to hear someone teaching this passage correctly.
Hes not teaching Romans 9 correctly!!
@@Rbl7132 "Correctly" You need your head examined!
Thank you Mike. This was really helpful
Great job. Very thoughtful and insightful
I embraced Calvinistic teachings … but this is a very good “other-side” explanation of Romans 9 - and it makes a lot of sense. Re-evaluating …
You do well to re-evaluate
Finally, a sane man gets ahold of Romans 9 and pays attention to Paul's concerns as a 1st century Jew, his copious references to the Old Testament to build his argument concerning the current position of the Jews with respect to God's mercy in Christ, and the real and obvious complexity of Romans as a whole; that it is an argument for justification by faith (vs. Jewish heritage and vs. works) that requires both Jews and Gentiles to rethink their status before God.
Cody perhaps some further reading. I found God’s Strategy - R T Forster and P Marsden a helpful way in
Hey Cody. You are right about justification being by faith. The question then becomes "where did you get your faith?" HB 12:2 says Jesus is the author and finisher of faith, that is that he authors it (creates it) and finishes it (totally, as in you have no part in it). Man is dead regarding faith. God is faith-FUL. RM 12: 3 identifies God as the dealer of faith, dealing out in measure. Ephesians 2:8 says that we are saved by faith through grace and that it is the gift of God. So faith is a gift, authored and finished by Christ, dealt by God. (Sounds like God is Sovereign, meaning Calvinism is biblical Christianity.
@@rupertmedfprd4432 You have no part in your own faith?
@@bobpolo2964 That's correct. You make a choice, obviously, but that choice is always based on your will, which is the condition of your heart's hardness or softness. So it's more accurate to say that you have no part in your own faith. John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them." Faith is from God, just as salvation is from God (Jonah 2:9).
@@alphablitz1024 I think you're misinterpreting John 6. I also believe faith is a gift from God and not something that's self produced. But John 6 is nuancing the actual process. It's not so black and white
Most helpful, appreciated.
when we stand before God, we will fall flat on our faces in awe of Him.
“We’re nfver told that God is hate.” Technically true, but we are told in Nahum 1:2, “The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD is avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.” Wrath is just as much an attribute as love.
God's wrath is born out of His love.
Josh Peterson God’s wrath, more than a capricious emotion, as in our case, is probably more likely the absence, perhaps even withdrawal, of His mercy, in the instance of a hardened heart. It’s not that God is angry in the sense that we get angry, but we are left to receive nothing of His love and grace when we live in rebellion against him. Thus, like Esau, who was an ingrate and unholy, wrath abides.
@@rickkelley4618 You may need to rework your interpretation of God's wrath. Remember, God's wrath will be poured out on Satan on our behalf and for His glory.
@@rickkelley4618 Sorry, Rick, but I think you need to spend more time studying the wrath of God. He is described in Heb 12:29 as a "consuming fire", and dire warning is given to everyone who treats His passion with indifference:
[+] For if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. If anyone disregards Moses’ law, he dies without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know the One who has said, Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, and again, The Lord will judge His people. It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God! (Heb 10:26-31)
That's a quote from Deut 32. I don't think Deut 32 can be understood as "withdrawing love and grace". Words like "fury", "anger" and "vengeance" are proactive words, not words describing an omission of grace.
Thanks.
Ezekiel 22 adds to this as well, but the difference is that wrath is geared toward refinement out of Love.
Well addressed brother! 😊🙏🏽
Thankyou!! So refreshing to hear this in the context of the large story of the Bible, not just an isolated passage.
Thank you for the study, Mike!
Also I love the jump-scare at 50:43
Thanks Mike. I came to this video because of my struggling to understand Romans 9:13. The context and depth you provide through all these verses really help. Thank you for your ministry
Thank you so much for this 🙏 I am totally on your wave length with all this and your humility speaks volumes brother. I don't understand why there are all these people saying "oh I'm a Calvinist, or an Arminian or a Lutheran or whatever other man made label folks want to use. As a newish believer hungry for His truth and His truth alone, doesn't Paul address this issue in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 as sectarianism...which is sin?! "I am of Apollos or I am of Paul!" 🤦 I simply just consider myself to be a follower of Christ and isn't that what we all should just simply be in humility of the amazing gift of salvation that we really don't deserve! I just pray Lord Jesus for all of us to be representing you as we are called to, in love and humility, simple faith and obedience to your God breathed word. Amen 📖✝️🛐❤️
Once you start going down searching for truth, we see both of this sides in a believe. We lean more on one side. And when that happens we just get referred to famous theologians who once made an impact because of their intellect and we learn from them
Have you ever listened to Jeff Durban's explanation of Calvinism in His video Objections to Calvinism? And if so how would you respond to a sermon like that?
Soteriology 101 with leighton flowers did just that with Durban.
AMEN!!!! JEFF DORBIN NAILS IT
Ill have a beer and a cigar with Jeff😎😤...thats what i think about your hero🤮
@@carlospadron488 sound doctrine and a thorough exogesis of scripture is always my hero. What's yours
Thank you so much for tackling a passage of Scripture that is difficult to understand and explaining it in a way that makes sense through he lens of other Scripture. God is sovereign, God is good!!
FANTASTIC JOB!!! Blessings!!!
“Is this about salvation?” Yes! Look at the context. Verses 1-5 are raising the question, “Why don’t all Jews believe in Jesus?” That’s about salvation. Then, Paul uses the words “called” and “election” referring to Jacob. Where have we seen those words recently? Romans 8:29-39. “Those whom He predestined, He also called. Those whom He called, He also justified.” This results in the statement, “Who can bring a charge against God’s elect?” The immediately preceding context already defined the words “called” and “election.” They are soteriological words. Paul uses them a few verses later in chapter 9 and has not changed subjects. He’s still talking about salvation, namely why Jews aren’t saved. This is undoubtedly, unabashedly, without hesitation about salvation.
Understanding Torah will help in understand his position. What he states in the beginning is absolutely true: for Jews like me, the gospels don’t make sense at all as separate from Torah but as a continuation only, and this is precisely the way Paul understood the Messiah. He had to; the NT hadn’t yet been written! If Jesus isn’t the Messiah of the Jews He’s noone’s Messiah. Therefore if we study the gospels first without a very firm grasp of Torah we will miss much of it and make our theology based on incomplete knowledge and understanding. We should first study Torah as did the disciples of Yeshua and then approach the gospels with new eyes. Whether we do so or not doesn’t change our salvation; it simply corrects our theology.
I agree so much! and welcome to the family dear sister Nikki! How much joy is stirred in me to hear that you believe on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Jews hold a special place in my heart after reading the Pentateuch (I'm still studying the rest of the OT). The Bible is a whole piece. If you only know the OT, then you are as Cornelius who needed the gospel because the Holy Spirit had prepared him for salvation. But if you don't know the NT, it's a little difficult to understand context of where it all came from and how it came to be that Jesus, the Messiah, could be rejected by His own people although He proved He is one with the Father and has the power to forgive sin. The Bible is this beautiful history and foretelling that we have sooooo much more to learn about Jesus because it's not fully fulfilled; we're waiting for His return. May you grow in your faith and may many more children of Israel come back to the Lord. His anguish for Israel just reverberates throughout the Bible. But He will redeem the remnant! This is the mystery of the blindness of Israel but are we not as Israel was in our sin? Did we not love our sin more than God? This is one reason why we must have humble compassion with the Jews; we were just as dead in our trespasses and sins and the law was written on all of our hearts... the conscience. Be encouraged and I hope to meet you in heaven!!!
@@aurorahw7085, you're a special one, kiddo. I'm glad you're my sister in Christ.
Amen, Nikki!
You're absolutely right the old testament is an essential part of Christianity we can never separate it from the new testement
Such a good teacher of scriptural truth. Thank you.
Delivered with great simplicity