How Romans 9 Doesn't Support Calvinism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- A verse-by-verse analysis of the use of the Old Testament in Romans 9 which shows what I think Paul is teaching (and how his argument does not support a typical Calvinistic reading).
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
A heads up that I accidently said "Israel" when I meant "Jews (at the time of Paul)". It should be pretty clear when I made that mistake.
Also: sorry for the runny nose. I haven't been able to kick a longlasting illness. Thanks for watching!
Hope you get better soon! Rest up and God bless
Yup get some quality rest and fluids brother. Your online presence has been excellent as of late, but your health is more important for the long term!!
Thank you for taking the time to teach us!
No problem, brother. I hope you get better. I'm loving the video. I'm watching it in 10-15 minute chunks, but it's great stuff. Do you plan on doing a deep dive on some of the other texts that Calvinists often use to support their position (e.g., John 6:44-45)? I love just how deep this video is going, and I hope to see more like it.
get better soon!
Old Testament use in New Testament exegesis is immensely refreshing to see, especially from a bonafide scholar. Thank you!
I would like to see this "bonafide scholar" debate the real bonafide scholar Dr. James White.
you do realize how Calvinistic the old testament is??? Arminians literally avoid it because they wanna focus on Jesus drawing all men in John 12 (out of context) vs God picking just one nation and disregarding the rest....
@@jalapeno.tabascoif you watch the full video he breaks down verses in Roman’s while using the OT to show what’s being said within the context of the verses 👍🏼
@@peytonpruett9416 he ignores the rest of Romans..... you're supposed to use immediate context before going to other books and then to the old testament...
@@jalapeno.tabasco okay
I been watching this again, and again to finally get to grips with what I also believe Paul is talking about. A forty year journey out of Calvinism, at last there is light
This was wonderful!
Thank you very much.
I hope you feel lead to make more videos like this - opening up the scriptures and pointing out all the call backs to the Old Testament scriptures. The colours within the text were REALLY HELPFUL.
(Although I don’t know Greek, I really want to see you go into the Greek, but when you do, please also put the English text/translation on the screen as well - this helps me to be able to follow your train of thought (because then I don’t have to hold 2 things in my head at the same time: the English translation AND the conclusion/train of thought you’re drawing from that - so if you have the English on the screen as well, it makes it easier for me to follow what you’re saying/arguing from that).
Btw, I wouldn’t worry about length at all - I think the people interested in this type of content have no problem with 2 hour videos.
Anything over 2 hours maybe could be split into parts. Part 1 video 2 hours, part 2 video 2 hours, etc.
Just my 2 cents.
Thank you again so much for this.
My only surprise was that you didn’t go to the end of the chapter and verses 30-32.
In your final conclusion/minutes you were basically saying that, but I was just surprised you didn’t point out that Paul says that very thing in this chapter - and which Calvinists ignore:
God has always made sovereign choices about who will be the good pots - and his ultimate sovereign choice for that was to be through people having faith in Jesus - which is what Romans 9:30-32 says.
If anyone resists believing in Jesus, they get hardened/used for dishonourable pots. If anyone has faith in Jesus, they get made into honourable pots.
May God bless you and your loved ones abundantly!
Hope you feel all better soon!
Maybe you could do similar videos about Ephesians 1 and John 6.
Yes please do Ephesians 1-2 and John 6.
I'm only halfway through, but it is already a better explanation of Romans 9 than I have ever heard. Very consistent and logical, doesn't take any major leaps in logic, and honestly clarifies a lot of what I've always thought about Romans. That Paul has a heavy emphasis on the Old Testament, and not about some strange, and novel, esoteric understanding of the word "Election"
thank you so much Dr. Korytko
I understand this is the best explanation you have ever heard, but you have not heard this one from James White which is the biblical understanding.....
ruclips.net/video/i_yngfbXH8c/видео.htmlsi=IWTUP6mHe81mY0PK
Wish I’d seen this 5 years ago. You e given me peace that Calvinism had robbed. Thank you
Outstanding explanation! I have been told, and I agree, that context kills Calvinism.
No it doesn’t.
@@HappyPenguin75034 A lot of times, Calvinist arguments for Calvinism are basically, "Look, this verse clearly says that God [draws, elects, predestines, etc], so that means the Calvinist doctrine is true and Biblical." The context shows that the meaning of the text is found in more than the definition of a single word, and the Calvinist definition of the word isn't what Paul (or whatever author) was thinking anyway. So yeah, on the popular level at least, Context kills Calvinism.
@@dawudabanoro give me the original laminate translation for these verses you dispute.
This will be interesting. In the context it means what it says.
@@dawudabanoro it says draws, elects, predestines. Even more so in the original language. I’d love to see someone actually give the original language. Let’s get to the truth.
your specific context that leads to your conclusion* you mean
I was incredibly sad this video ended… I could have listened for as long as you wanted! Lol Very interesting…. I am reformed but have never heard this before. Praying and pondering. Would LOVE to hear more. Thank you!!
That is such an awesome attitude! The Lord bless you as you study his Word!
the sentiments of “i followed all the law, how is this fair for the requirements to change” sounds similar to tone expressed by the brother in the parable of the prodigal son.
That is a great insight. They were expecting their due through their work, even though they were close to God, didn't meant they loved Him.
@@elrogers1555 i think you’re right
the requirements never changed... it's always been by grace thru faith in Christ...
Adam and Eve believed in Christ, Abraham believed in Christ, Moses believed in Christ
@@jalapeno.tabasco for salvation, right, but not according to the interlocutors Paul is addressing. i think that’s the point being made. the Hebrew people feel it’s unfair they had to follow the law or else be killed but the gentiles get a free pass
@@scottibreiding except Paul literally says the Gentiles are under the Law that God puts on their hearts by their conscious... if you read all of Romans you would understand this
this guy is clearly trying to separate Romans 9 away from the rest of the book to establish his own context
Hey brother, my name is Jonathan (using my wife’s account) but I want to thank you for your work and willingness to make these videos. I know life was already full before you started making these. I am so blessed by your insights and it confirms the understanding that the Lord has been leading me too, and you are fortifying those truths with much more detail and scholarly wisdom. Don’t stop!
I love you bro
Joel, your scholarly commentary offers a refreshing and insightful exploration of the Old Testament in Romans 9.
This is a valuable resource for anyone seeking to understand this rich and challenging passage.
Whether a seasoned theologian or someone approaching the text for the first time -- either one who watches your video -- your insightful and practical guide illuminates our study and deepens our faith.
Thank you.
Thank you, brother! I want to encourage you to continue to bless the body of Christ with your knowledge of the Greek language!
Thank you so much for doing this - so appreciate the teaching, but also your approach to teaching. Thanks again
Positively brilliant! Thank you so much for sharing what you discovered from careful exegesis. And, thank you for going back to the Biblical citations that Paul is taking from. Paul is using them to inform the reader what he's talking about. The same could be said of the book of Hebrews. He quotes a lot of Old Testament and when you go back to where he's quoting from it informs you better about what the author is talking about. It's another book of the Bible that Christians butcher to "prove" their theological understanding is correct. Blessings to you! I pray that you will have the time to bless us with other things that God might want you to share with all of us!
Mr Korytko - This video was too short. After decades of bad teachings I think we can sit through detailed videos like this regardless of their length. Finally someone who seems to actually understand a subject. Great job!
Great teaching. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Outstanding job.
I don’t think you laid out what Paul was doing in the first 8 chapters well, and that causes you to get the context wrong coming into 9. Paul is not saying in 1-8 that the New Covenant results in right living as the Old Covenant was attempting to provide. To be honest, that’s antithetical to the Gospel, as the Old Covenant was meant to point people to their need in grace (albeit the Old was itself gracious, but I digress), to point people to the work of the coming Messiah.
Rather, Paul’s case in the first 8 chapters was to cut everyone down to the same level. That being a Jew doesn’t make one better than a Gentile, that everyone has the same problem and requires the same solution, which is of course Jesus by faith. From what Paul lays out, a Jew might get the idea that all of the promises given to the Israelites in the Old Testament were now being fulfilled in the Gentiles, as though God is going back on what he promised the Jews. So, in 9 Paul begins to lay out that God is faithful to his promises, always had been and always will be, but those promises are his and are fulfilled in his time and in his ways. God’s faithfulness is being defended in chapter 9.
Hey hey. He is a biblical scholar. 😬
This is why real teachers do verse by verse. Then he said he isn’t a NT scholar and skipped 8 chapters. Why are people making videos who aren’t teachers by calling
@@HappyPenguin75034so anyone that does an exegesis of chapter 9, must first do a complete verse by verse exegesis of the first 8 chapters?
And one must be a NT scholar in order to teach anything in the NT?
@@scwienert Yes you need to exegete the book. Are you serious?
Do you need to be a NT scholar? I didn’t say that but yes you should know the entire Bible well enough. It’s one not two or 66. It’s all together. Pastors teaching random verses all year have no clue what they are doing. They are afraid of what it says.
@@HappyPenguin75034 no, in this video, or any single video exegeting a passage of scripture, they must first cover all that precedes? That’s the standard you seem to be laying down.
He isn’t teaching a random verse, he is very detailed in exegeting an entire chapter.
Thank you so much! This was interesting and I learned from it. I especially appreciate you bringing in the Old testament framework for this, it helps with the understanding of what Paul wrote.
If you get a chance it would be helpful for you to continue the commentary through Romans 10 & 11 next, showing how this line of reasoning is more cohesive with the entirety of the epistle compared to more Calvinistic interpretations.
Yes!
I have seen Romans 9 as speaking about nations (referencing from the O.T.) for quite a while. You have added some great details to explain it even further. Thank you! I also think that believing Gentiles and believing Jews are the true Israel. "..that the Gentiles are fellow members of the body and fellow partakers OF THE PROMISE in Christ Jesus..." Eph. 3:6... Good stuff! Hope you feel better soon!
I was hoping you would go on and put out something!!!! Happy to see this this morning in my feed.
If you think your videos are long, Mike Winger has an 11.5 hour video on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. LOL! Great video, by the way! I found you from your interview with Leighton.
Thank you so much. I never could buy into the Calvinist interpretation. This makes so much sense. I appreciate you keeping it fairly simple to understand. Although I will likely watch it 4-5 more times to get everything. lol I look forward to seeing more videos from you.
Do you think you can do a followup or a series like this video. But could you do it with Romans 10 and 11. Cause i feel like Romans 9-11 require so much context in its whole to fully understand everything thats being said.
Thank you so much!
Excellent stuff and makes a lot more sense in seeing the connection with the Old Testament, versus making it about the Reformed vs. Arminian debate hundreds of years later.
Excellent exegesis! Thank you for letting the context lead instead of starting with your presumption that this text is teaching a certain systematic theology. I just have one complaint - only two videos? I am requesting that you could do a video on Romans 8:28-30 and more.
Joel this was refreshing!! I’m tired of hearing that Calvinism is only conclusion of a slow, clear, and concise exegesis of Roman’s 9. You just proved that wrong!! Great work!!
Not if he did it incorrectly
Thanks for taking Leightons encouragement and doing a show on Roman's 9. Your insight is refreshing. I have spent all morning sending links to all my friends (Calvinist as well as non calvinists). This was a fabulous way of reading scripture. Context is king as well as understanding the seed of the promise meaning God making a decision as to how He will save the world through this Messiah that will enter into the world God's way to bless men. The real children of God must enter into this new covenant by faith, not by national status.
I was thoroughly blessed by this work, thank you for putting so much time into this analysis.
36:43 who is like Israel... So biological Israel is in the comparison of Ishmael... I think I have thought this before but couldn't put it into words.
This is the reason I stopped considering Calvinism. The OT texts + context of Rom. 9 have nothing to do with individual elections to salvation. I love my Calvinist brothers/sisters but that isn’t what ‘election’ is defined as, even in this very text. Great job Joel 👍 Thx!
Will you appear with him in glory? Is glorification a result of your salvation ?
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 Yes and yes! Are you trying to say because subjects such as salvation and glorification are in view therefore Calvinism?
@@ryanparris1021 Why does the word Calvinism even come up, I am not even a Calvinist. So when the verse explains that God shows the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy - that were AFORE prepared for GLORY, why then say this has nothing to do with individual election unto salvation ?
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 Well..the subject of this video that I commented on and then you responded to my comment is about Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches meticulous, divine determinism in the most forceful way. It teaches double predestination if Calvinism is true. This is what I found in discussions like this unless we define what we do and don’t believe and refrain from being super evasive, it’s not fruitful at all. I am not a Calvinist the closest category I could be thrown into would be provisionism. I’m also open to Molen ism although I’m not 100% committed to that. OK now if you’re not a Calvinist, but you’re arguing for the things you’re arguing what is it that you do and don’t believe briefly please? I didn’t have any problem telling you what I believe. Therefore, if you disagree, you can go ahead and tell me how isn’t it just fair that you would do the same?
@@ryanparris1021 I hold to sovereign grace - Romans 9 handles the objector clearly but the doctrine is from Gen to Rev.
Romans 10 and 11 would be good as a follow up.
I first saw you as a guest of Leighton Flowers. Much of this is a lot like what he says. I remember that he had to stop you and ask "now you and I haven't talked before". He wanted to point out that he had not coached you but that you had independently come to some of the same conclusions. I guess you could call me a "recovering calvinist". Sometimes it's hard to readjust your thinking when you have been working in a particular system of theology for a long time. It's good to see that another deep thinker has independently come to some of the same conclusions.
Thank you so much, Dr. Korytko. Very well explained, and I look forward to more in the future!
This makes a lot more sense in context than the Calvinistic interpretation.
I couldn't get the source you quoted for Mal 1:2-3 being covenant language, around the 00:52:22 mark! would you happen to have it and perhaps other such sources ? Thank you
As a Calvinist, I think a lot of this was well done and I could agree with a lot. So this isn’t meant to be an overall negative comment, but a couple thoughts:
I don’t have any stats on the common Calvinist belief, but I think it’s quite apparent that the Jacob and Esau citation isn’t about election to salvation and damnation (so I agree there). I haven’t seen any big name Calvinist emphasize that as an argument though, so perhaps too much time was spent on that. Again, maybe a lot of Calvinists do believe that and I’m just missing it.
Also Calvinists agree Pharaoh wasn’t neutral. That would contradict total depravity directly.
Where I have issue is in the objector’s question in verse 19. There I don’t see Dr. Korytko’s understanding. Is he saying the objector wants to resist God’s choice of showing mercy on believers rather than biological or working Israel? Then why would he say, “Why does he still find fault?” Wouldn’t that be off topic? This (perhaps the most important verse of the controversy) is the part where I don’t understand Dr. Korytko’s interpretation.
It is someone saying "how can God fault me for being in the wrong group now when he made the choice (for the seed to be in Christ) by his own sovereign decree? How am I the bad guy now? How is it fair that I'm in the wrong lump and actually opposed to his covenant now?"
@@JoelKorytko
Thank you for your response! I’m still confused though. Would a fair paraphrase of your interpretation be “How can God fault me for being in the out group? After all, I can’t resist and control what God decides is the seed group?”
The two thoughts don’t seem to flow together. How would the objector’s inability to resist what God declares the seed group affect the fairness of God blaming him for being in the out group?
I’m trying to make sense of the idea, but I just can’t get the two thoughts to jive. Would it be kind of like saying, “How can the dictator find fault with me for being an outlaw? After all, I can’t decide what is considered lawful”?
@@levifox2818 Your paraphrase is getting the idea.
"Why does he blame me, why am I guilty, when I didn't make the choice to be in the out group?" The question isn't unrelated at all IMO
@@JoelKorytko
Thank you for the clarification!
This one will go down in the books as a great resource for people!
Thanks for all your work here @JoelKorytko Very helpful!
@JoelKorytko Thank you for making this video! I thank God for all the knowledge He gives to you, and thank you for being willing to share with us! It makes a lot of sense. Now, let's wait for James White to make a rebuttal video of this one. I would be surprised if he doesn't! Haha! ;-)
The torah was not trying to get people to walk by it sir, the law was not sent for us to walk by, it was there to show us how exceeding sinful we were. Romans 3:19-20 " Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before GOD. v.20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. "
Read Romans 7: 7-13 " Was then that which is good made death unto me ? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandments might become exceeding sinful. " So then the law was given to show us our condition, that be a sinful lot. True the standard that we are called to live was the commandments, yes Jesus fullfilled. David knew this, Romans 4:6-8, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Great video!
Debating Dan Chapa on this... so this is great practice... Would love to send you my opener and let you critique it for my debate prep. I'm taking the Calvinist position. Here's some preliminary feedback where I would very much disagree with this. The first is that the answer that Paul is striving to give is the explanation as to how God has not failed precisely because of Israel's rejection of Christ. Therefore any answer offered or any commentary must address or explain a lack of faith in Jesus. If one's explanation for this is that, well God is free to choose the ones who place faith in Jesus as his seed, then that is wholly inadequate to answer the precise situation that gave rise to the indictment of God's credibility. In short, faith, doesn't explain why not faith. This is confirmed but missed by this video in that the first illustration of how God has acted such as to never have failed nor word spoken he did not perform, is the citing of Isaac's story. What cannot be admitted is that Paul must needs have in mind every aspect of every OT story in mind AND intended into each text unless it is warranted by our text or grounded in the flow of thought. Thus, we understand "child of faith" and child of promise" as grammatically opposed and ask, what constitutes this and what role did God play in the story such that we know he will be faithful to his word (a question the video cannot answer)? We see the key in verse 9, "This is what the promise SAID (word of God)"... then we are told that "I will return" to what effect does Paul see? "Sarah shall have a son." Thus God performs a miracle in Sarah when nothing natural could produce, he performs something supernatural by the power of his word. This is as set as antithetical to the story of Ishmael the child of the flesh whose conception was solely due to the wisdom and abilities of what Abraham in his error with Sarah and Hagar could achieve. This defeats our problem Paul has raised because the rejection of the Jews is what the flesh produces (by parallel) and cannot defeat what God has promised because how God advances his word which promised seed (not physical only) is produced by his creative power. This is in support, which I have written at length elsewhere of the word, "called" verse 7b which the video also does not address. God's word guarantees its end because it performs it... Thus any promise God makes will certainly come to pass and his word shall stand. Any explanation where man (Jew or Gentile) can opt out could obviously nullify God's original promise to Abraham which is why the premise problem even occurs in Paul's mind. It could also nullify Paul's words in Romans 11:26 that "All Israel will be saved" in reference to physical Israel... how could this ever be guaranteed if God is not working to secure the end.
Brother- why did, "By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going." - Hebrews 11:8 NASB95 somewhere in Genesis 11-12, when he was 75 yrs old or less; but was not justified by faith until Genesis 15:1-6 when he was about 85 yrs old, he built an altar to the LORD and even called on the Name of the LORD- why then wasn't he justified by faith until, "Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." - Genesis 15:6 NASB95?
Why wasn't Abram's faith counted as righteousness walking by faith and obeying until Genesis 15:6????
How does this explain the Gospel outlined in Romans?
What are the works of Abraham that he was not justified by living 430+ years before the Law?
Romans 4:2 (NASB95) For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
What is the ONE righteous act that justified us?
Romans 5:18 (NASB95) So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
So in the outline of the Holy Spirit through Paul in Romans about the Gospel- you must exposit both in the text and the OT references each one laid out before you these two great divides- a line that runs from Adam until the Liberty of the sons of God, the Redemption of our bodies- the unseen hope that even all or creation groans for with eager expectation;
First the Law of Works- that is what Abraham stumbled upon and when discovered, contemplated according to the flesh, that by works (by faith obeyed, by faith built an altar, by faith called on the Name of the LORD, by faith looked to God's Grace, by faith looked to God's promises, by faith looked to God's Covenant; look up, go walk: that is in the strength of the flesh that no flesh will be justified; as Abraham contemplated his own body as good as dead when he was about 100 years old(Gen 20-21): that no one In Adam has faith, faith that can be tested an approved faithful, Blameless abiding Face to face with the Almighty in the Fear of the LORD relying upon His Strength to fulfil His promises: declared righteous. No one has genuine faith that has grounds for justification with God: Pros Theon- Face to face: no one- not me, you or the father of faith Abraham: None: all are ungodly- that is unacceptable worshipers, all are unrighteous- that is covenant unfaithfulness not obeying God's covenant authority. No one's faith is reckoned righteousness until God reaches down with His Dorean- His unmerited & undeserving Gift of His Firstborn Son and reaching down through the Gospel- the testimony of the Seed with believing: Justifies that believer at the Mercy Seat of God before His Sight in the Holy of Holies- Christ shed His Precious Blood on the Cross to make Peace with me His enemy, and sprinkled that shed blood on the Mercy Seat of God to me an unfaithful harlot and cleanse me with that Blood making me His Own Treasured Possession: His Beloved Bride: justified and co-heir of His Reward.
So it is very clear- no one has faith that justifies- but when our simple & helpless faith trusts the Testimony of God about His Son; Lord, Adown- the faithful Steward of God's Reward: we are joined to Christ in an irrevocable union of covenant love: justified on that Mercy Seat- His One Righteous Act that brought justification- the sin offering offered on the place- on the basis of the burnt offering of His Blamelessness- the faithfulness of Christ in every instance.
So then you say- we are not free in our faithfulness in Adam to be justified but yet we can believe the Gospel and be justified.
Now the second great divide: For God has shut up all (Jew & Gentile) in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all (Jew & Gentile). - Romans 11:32 NASB95
disobedience: apeitheia, obstinacy, obstinate opposition to the divine will: impersuasible- that is- unwilling to be persuaded.
God holds out His hand with the Gospel to men- the natural descendants of Abraham a slice of humanity for demonstration: But as for Israel He says, "ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE." - Romans 10:21 NASB95
How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" - Romans 10:15-16 NASB95
God holds out the Gospel to men: but all are caught in a fishnet (Hab & 2 describes the captivity to satan's pride & injustice\violence) in the unwillingness to be persuaded: hardened & obstinate in heart to believe God's testimony of HIs Firstborn Son. All disobedient, all apathetic to the persuasion of God about His Firstborn Son.
And Paul starts with a Gentile: Pharaoh to make sure you only think this apathy is from the Jew only- Pharaoh did not know Joseph- what does Moses mean just over 100 year apart- it is better, Pharaoh did not acknowledge Joseph & his testimony of the coming Lord from Jacob who would render salvation to all.
This in view of these things- the LORD says to Moses: For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. - Romans 9:15-18 NASB95
so none have faith that can be justified under the Law of Work- the same Law that Abraham was not justified by his works- by faith obey; captive in Adam
and none will be persuaded by the offering of God's Dorean- in the testimony of God about His Firstborn Son, Lord of the possessions of God Most High; the reward.
so here we see: For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." - Romans 9:15 NASB95
Who are the ones God has mercy upon- and justifies by His Sprinkled Blood- those He Foreknew- Those God Chose to reveal His love to in Christ.
Gen 11-14 demonstrates this stage of Abraham's faith. "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. - John 6:45 NASB95 By faith Abraham obeyed- ungodly, unrighteous: in Adam & under God's Wrath. But then God drawing this man to Christ in the testimony of the Gospel for justification:
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. Isn't it interesting to not that in Gen 22 God did show Abraham the resurrection unto life through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten & Unique Son- beloved by the Father: Heir of the Reward- the very son when he was conceived only AFTER Abraham contemplated his own body as good as dead.
God foreknew Abraham before the foundation of the world, called him while in Adam, justified him into Christ and will glorify him in the Reward of Christ: His Eternal Kingdom.
Just thoughts
this guy does not know more than the reformers. Spugeon being chief. And RC. Romans 9 definitely says what it says what Calvin affirms. Internet if full of clowns like this guy
Thanks for this! Would you ever consider doing some of the other calvanist proof texts?
If God , willing that none should perish, has had His willingness made of no effect, by a weak sinner with a weak and sickly will, what kind of God is He? How has your freewill served you ? Why does God do this : JOH12.40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. " if He wants "all" to be saved ? If Jesus is willing to save "all", like His Father, why did He use parables here in MAR4.11 "And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: MAR4.12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." He blocked them from receiving the truth. Why would we try to explain it away when it is plainly put ? Why did Jesus appear to paul and not his companions, when on the road to kill more christians ? What about Pauls freewill ? Did God not want to over ride the free will of Pauls companions ? If God, willing to save all, appears to Paul in a very radical way, thwarting Pauls pathetic will, which at the time was set on killing christians, why dont God appear to "all" in some way, to save them ? Pauls doctrines line up with the stories all through the bible, which show God's choice to save or condemn. Arguing over the word "all" is not the right way. God is sovereign. He has mercy on those He wants to save. Solomon knew that you come up against the infinite God whose ways are past finding out when He brings you far enough to see the boundaries between the finite and the infinite : ECC11.5 "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all." There is danger in false doctrine, and what the Lord has revealed of Himself we should take at face value.
soooooooooo amazing! Best ever! Thankyou so much! I look forward to more from you.
Wonderful teaching, my only criticism, way too short :) We need more like this, more in depth, more detailed explanations of Paul's use of the OT. Absolutely brilliant!!
Joel, thank you so much, brother, for making this video and for deciding to use your knowledge to help non-Calvinists. PLEASE make more videos re other Calvinist "proof" texts!
One thing I hope you do in the future. When you cite another scholar, is it possible you can place their work/paragraphs on the screen (along with a citation) the way Leighton Flowers does That way, I can follow the train of thought better and chase down the scholars work/publications. Thanks SOOO much!
By the way, my brother watched the video at my suggestion (he had already seen the video you and Leighton did on John 6) and he liked it so much that he's going to try to support your channel financially.
Grace & Peace to you.
Well now you did it, James White has you on his radar now! You're clearly not qualified to speak on Romans 9 because you've not read JW's works on this matter 😆
Odd, isn't it, how the self-proclaimed "Reformed" have their very own papacy that they appeal to.
Aahh man awesome really great. Not to get too personal but if you felt let to share more of your background that could be really a blessing. For example in one context, Ive done some out reach in prisons and i believe theres many "scholars" there who have the mental acumen to become scholarly but just dont believe that they can or that such change is even possible or exists, so i jiet feel like your testimony could particularly impact a wide range of bwckgrounds-thanks for all the work! Godspeed
Harden: Study all of the OT instances, and in every other narrative, the same pattern of Romans 1 is plainly evident. God makes Himself known, man understand, man rejects/trades the truth, man BECOMES (not born) useless, and God gives them over/hardens (confirms) them.
"Verse-by-verse" explication? Isn't it in simple, hermeneutics 101, the contextual meaning of a particular verse within a paragraph is established by the immediately preceding verses & immediately succeeding verses?
Letsss gooo💪🏼
@JoelKorytko I have slowly been making my way through chapters 9-11, so forgive me for continuing to ask questions. Would you agree that the same objects being prepared for wrath (unbelieving Jews who were hardened for the sake bringing salvation to Gentiles) are the same subjects that Paul refers to in Chapter 11 as those who can still be grafted in if they do not continue in their unbelief? In other words, an object of God's wrath can still become a vessel of mercy? Paul even referred to himself in Ephesians 2 as having once been an object of wrath.
Any refutation of Calvinism is great. However, Paul had the firstborn/second born concept in mind when he quoted Malachi. Jacob and Esau; the two "nations" they represented were Israel and the Church through Christ. I'm happy to expound to anyone who's curious about this. I have a published work out on the topic.
Only people that truly understand how depraved you are ,being 100% truthful with yourself . Dead would be your condition. Dead thing can’t make a decision for Jesus . Your so called Free will is 100% corrupt by the sin that is in you . Leaving you DEAD and again dead people can’t choose anything. That is why Jesus said NO ONE can come to Me unless the Father does it for you . John 6:65 John 5:21 states Jesus gives life to WHOM He wills . That makes me a Calvinist because I don’t lie to myself about my depravity. God saves not a dead man’s decision
Thank you so much! Where can we read your work you mentioned?
I think I've heard it all now... The clay "kicks back.." so the clay does in fact respond to its potter, "Why have you made me thus?" The analogy is completely meaningless... Let me recite what Joel himself sees as the parallel linguistically: Isa 29:16, "You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, 'He did not make me'; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, 'He has no understanding.'" No, indeed the potter for Joel doesn't have understanding but is made to be the clay; so the "clay" will decide what the "potter" can make of it instead of the CLEAR and OBVIOUS converse where we are but clay in his hands... this is some scholarship...
So "seed" refers those descendants of Abraham to whom the promise is given and through whom it is carried forward, and then eventually applies to all (Gentiles included) who are "in Christ", children of Abraham by faith? Am I getting that right?
I think the translation of the Septuagint in Exodus 916 as been “persevered” 1:29:12 1:29:12 is a lot better than the “raised you up” translation in Romans 9:17 .If you grew up in a Calvinist background, raised up sounds like “raised from birth”. Whereas as “preserved “could mean that “I have kept you around and did not destroy you earlier.”
This verse by verse is excellent. I appreciate your efforts and time to edify the church and refute the errors of Calvinists. I have subscribed and look forward to more of your videos.
Maybe you'll get to it in the last 10 minutes, but I'm not seeing how this doesn't support calvinism. The point remains the same as I've understood my calvinist husband to understand it.
Very enlightening presentation and thought provoking. First of all, thank the Lord that you escaped the entrapments of Calvinism. That's a mysterious theology that I as I listen to more and more Calvinists, it seems to be anchored in a very strong adoration of John Calvin. I never hear of him or any of his other teachings unless its listening to a popular Calvinist pastor.
Ive only listened once to this presentation, but if Im correct, you seem to be making a case that the Lord is modifying or redefining/refining the "chosen" as presented in antiquity. It caused me to reflect on some of the negative comments regarding the "replacement" theory, that the Gentiles have taken the place of the non-believing nation of Israel. I dont recall you mentioning that, but Im curious what your opinions are on that and your interpretation of Romans 9 and the OT scriptures in Isaiah. God Bless!
They as in non-Calvinists always fail where it’s obviously speaking about salvation. They have to claim that Ishmael and/or Esau is saved or it unknown what their eternal status is (you only have to read Galatians and Hebrews to know they weren’t saved). Neither are saved. Pharaoh is not saved. Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction are not saved. That a coincidence? That those not chosen are not saved. You read this even in Chapter 11.
I don't understand how this does any violence at all to the reformed view of this text. As far as I can see you haven't said anything that is different from what has been taught in reformed theology. The only part that I think you may be glazing over here is that because the election is of the "Seed" (which is a reference to the Israel of God, the true Israel, those who will be the recipients of the promise of God of redemption), or group, class, etc. does not reduce the weight of the topic of the election of individuals who will be in said group. It is logically incoherent to posit that you can have a group with no individuals in it. It kind of requires that there's at least 2 members. They aren't nameless faceless hypothetical people; they are particular people. God knows His sheep by name. Chapter 8 preceding this should help provide more context.
Both Jacob and Esau were not simply representatives of nations, they certainly were that, but they were also individual people. One of which God sovereignly chose to be the one who was to be the progenitor of the seed. The other was cut out of the promise.
The real emphasis of the whole passage is to make the point, that " It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy." The "it" is election.
Now, it has been argued that the only individual who was a particular member of the elect is Christ Himself, and that any who believe are only chosen by proxy to their relationship to Christ. However, to hold that view you kind of have to ignore the many examples of people in scripture who were specifically called by God, including Saul of Tarsus. They were also individual people.
I don't blame anyone for not liking the implications of this. It took me a while to accept it, because it really rubbed me the wrong way, but that was something that I eventually needed to repent of. God tells me who He is. I don't get to define Him.
Thank you for your work in clarifying this part of scripture for alot of us. I appreciate all the effort you a put into sharing this with us. Thank you and may your work bless our God and father Amen.
I hope you would agree that it is impossible for Paul to be a “bad scribe” since Paul is literally writing Scripture. This trend of casting doubt upon the interpretation of the OT by the NT authors needs to be emphatically rejected by the church.
The element of faith could be even more emphasized. God has made the choice that whoever believes the promises and the overarching Word of God throughout the ages becomes spiritual Israel. Of course you just said that while I was commenting!
Around 9:20 you say Rom 7:5 is not talking about before the Spirit came but then around 9:50 you say that it is.
Are you trying to suggest here that “in the flesh” refers to those of Jewish ancestry under the Law,, rather than to all men born into “sinful flesh” after Adam? But “there is no difference”! 🤔
Dont want to hear opinions, sir, just the facts...
I appreciate the time Joel took but I find myself still persuaded by the Calvinist line of reasoning on Romans 9. It's def a difficult passage and hope people can talk about in a edifying way.
You suggested that the return of the northern tribes is being fulfilled by the gentiles being grafted in. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that gentiles are under somehow under the new covenant, which Jeremiah prophesied would be only for Israel and Judah. Since the n.t. includes gentiles in the new covenant, that implies that we are considered part of Israel and Judah. Perhaps this is why James addresses his letter to "the 12 tribes scattered abroad", but then writes things that do not have a jewish flavor the way that Hebrews does.
Paul is writing to the church in Rome. Saying "you" in 9:19 is an unbelieving Jew is unsupported and unsubstantiated.
Furthermore- if this is just about election to a specific purpose, why would Paul refer to "unrighteousness from God" or "finding fault" in man?
You also say the pottery refers to nations when it comes to being prepared for destruction, but Paul refers to vessels of mercy coming from the Jews and the Gentiles.
"Does that make sense" you asked. No, it doesn't.
I've heard this mental gymnastic before. The text means what it says by what it says. This is nothing more than a form of hyperdispensationalism that renders the OT almost irrelevant to NT soteriology.
Thank you! Keep these coming as best you can. Truly enlightening and certainly a blessing!
Dr. Korytko, do you believe there is a distinction between "The Elect of God" in Romans 8:33 and " the children of the promise" in Romans 9:8?
In other words are these two different groups?
To me it seems like Paul really narrows down on his “brethren according to the flesh” in 9:3. Or as he described “Israelites”. If there is a genuine reason to think Paul is not now narrowing in on Israelites as “children of the promise” let me know and I’ll really look into what you say. Always good to dig deeper.
@@tomascastro6716 your observation is 💯% correct in my estimation. But my question was according to Dr. K, are the "elect of God" (8:33) and "children of the promise" 9:8 two distinct groups?
there's really only 3 options:
1. Yes, (2) distinct groups
2. No, referring same group
3. Overlap i.e. (all priests are Levites, but not all Levites are priests)
On one hand Calvinism claims that we are save ONLY by Grace but it must be through FAITH but on the other hand demands works to authenticate that FAITH!.In other words the way for us to judge if someone believed the gospel and is save is by 1st looking at his works to determine if his FAITH is the type of FAITH needed to be save or NOT!.That is works salvation because our salvation is not dependent on how we performed but on the sole redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross who through his payment to God The Father of our debt declares us JUST in God's eyes (we acquire Jesus Christ Justness).
Jacob and Esau IS the child of God, singularly. We need to talk.
1:17:16 who are the vessels of wrath that are being shown patience? I read an opinion that this was bringing up the previous categories of gentile vs Israel. And the ones who would be referred to as vessels of destruction, would refer to the unchosen gentles - not that they could not believe but that they were not chosen for the plan of God for redemption to come though.
Isaiah 63:11 the Holy Spirit was IN the followers of Moses.
1:34:34 well God nearly did with moses. God was going to wipe out Israel and make Moses the vessel of the promise to “restart” it lol
Amazing how many Calvinists use Romans 9 to validate Calvinism and ironic Romans 9 brings out this former Calvinist
Romans 9 definitely is a Calvinistic doctrine. Only the Blind dont see it. Or dont want to
Come of Joel,how bout an actual debate on Romans 9 where people can see why your interpretation is wrong.Rogue Calvinist can debate you on 31:32 your channel or his, he is chomping at the bits to debate you.Show your subscribers that you will stand behind your interpretation, both of you can exegete the whole chapter in front of an audience. Walk the walk,just don't talk the talk.
Esua and Jacob were indeed individuals, but they are also the 2 types of people on the Earth, in fact,Pharaoh was an Esua and Moses was a Jacob.How did Esua serve Jacob? We never see this happen between the 2 individuals, but we see it in reality when the reprobates give Christians jobs,protect countries,they grow our food,and serve us in many ways.God also uses them to chastise His people, to debate with them,to strive with them in many ways so that we can practice debate in gentilness and truth,God has them do things to us so we will pray for them, forgive them love them when they don't deserve it.Once people understand these things, they will see things in a different way and understand the truth of scripture,if the Holy Spirit😊 dwells in them.
Excellent, very clear explanation. Thank you!
Who did Jesus come to diee for? Jesus came to SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS. Did he actually accomplish this or did He just create a possibility or a TOOL that each man can use if he feels like it? Who is God's ISRAEL according to the scriptures?
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.1Jn.2:2. Jesus died for the whole world. “And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins.” Mt.1:21 Nothing in that verse distinguishes between "accomplishing" on the one hand and "creating a possibility" or "tool" on the other hand. Jn.3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." NOT God so loved the elect. NOT whoever was arbitrarily picked.
@glstka5710 Hold on ,you have to understand what you're reading. 1John 2:2 Speaking to Jewish Christians about Jesus being the PROPITIATION, (GOD SATISFYING SACRIFICE) not just for Jews,but Gentiles too : the WHOLE WORLD,but this isn't Speaking of each individual Jew and Gentile. All the salvation verses taken together, you get ,JESUS DIED FOR MANY OF ALL MEN.
JESUS CAME ,TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS and that's exactly what He did.He knew each on by name that He was dying for, all the names of everyone the Father gave Him,before time.And those He died for were saved at the cross and they believe it when the Holy Spirit rebirth them.
@@CBALLEN You are imposing all that onto the text in order to support your system. Nothing in 1 Jn. is talking about Jews and gentiles.
@glstka5710 I answered your questions, can you answer my questions in my OP?
Prodigal son alluding to Jacob/Esau is a nice idea!
I cringe any time someone announces himself to be a scholar and brings “my view” and “in my opinion” of Biblical interpretation. Bible is not a secret book that we need specialized “scholars” to unpack it for us. Yes scholarship has its place, but simple and plain reading of scriptures is how we need to approach Bible study.
I started closely reading the scriptures when I was about 8 years old. It was not an English Bible, but it was in my native language and it was rather a poor translation to be honest. I would say 100% of the Christians that I knew were Arminians. However, none of the believers or I had any clue what Arminianism or Calvinism was all about. But even at that age with no external influence I was starting to wonder when I read so many portions such as Romans 8 and 9, Ephesians 1,2, 1 Peter 1, John 1 etc., whether it was me or God making the first choice. Years later as I studied the scripture more clearly it became more convincing to me.
What I am getting to is this - if you want to understand the Bible for yourself, sit down with a Bible, leave all biases or preconceived notions, pray and ask the Lord to open it for you and seek for a plain reading and a plain understanding of the texts. Forget Calvinism or Arminianism or any --isms. The Lord will help you understand if you’re earnest. That is what he does. Scriptures will make us wise unto salvation. The Lord will help us understand.
I still refer to other works and scholars in my ministry, but primarily it is my own study that opened my eyes to election and doctrines of the scriptures.
The key word is plain reading of the Scripture. Paul provides the inspired interpretation of the Old Testament. Not the other way around! The key verse is in v. 6. The children of God is the children of the promise (or the remnant) and they are ones who will saved. In Romans 9:27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, Romans 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
Even Apolllos had to have the way explained more perfectly to him. It's ok to be a scholar, and it's ok to be taught by the Spirit directly, and indirectly by other saints. That is what the gifts are given for. The edification of the body. Just make sure we all are Bareans
@@yeshuaneitheristheresalvat8018 Being good Bereans means going to the text above believing in scholarly “opinion.” I am not against them. I make use of wide scholarship in my study and ministry, but they have their place.
@@philos212 I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think the Bereans are a good example of what you’re describing.
The Bereans clearly had the wrong understanding of what/who the Messiah would be, so when Paul told them about Jesus being the Messiah and the necessity of his ‘suffering and resurrection’ what they did right was ‘receiving it with all readiness of mind’ and subsequently verified it with the scriptures. It wasn’t obvious from a ‘plain reading of the text’.
By the way, they believed BECAUSE they searched daily and verified what was said.
@@philos212no never believing in scholarly "opinion," or non scholarly opinion --(and no one yet that has searched the scriptures daily, whose minds are habitually in it, have understood this as his "opinion. you are making an assumption. You have not shown us where it is just his opinion, only said it)----- but as Lord Jesus says to us in Acts, "... but these were more noble than the Thessalonians in that they search the scriptures daily to see if whats being taught is the truth." Something is being taught here, correct. So we search, unless we already have and can show others why it's "opinion." And also we search just like the Bareans to "study to show ourselves approved to God, workmen that need not be ashamed, cutting in a straight line to the truth." Again, Bareans.
In lawyerly fashion, Paul is answering the obvious question. In light of Israel's rejection of Jesus as Messiah, Romans 1-8 and the revelation of the mystery, "What about Israel?" A major reason for God's choices is found in verse 7 regarding the lineage of Jesus Christ would come through Isaac and again God chose Jacob and not Esau. I don't know why these Calvinists can't see this. There is nothing at all about salvation in these verses. I think they are reading their philosophy into the clear intent of the chapter.
If a person non born again can have faith that Jesus is the Christ is wrong. 1 John 5:1
None are good. None seek God.
You can’t get past basic doctrine.
What do you think about the weaker brother in Romans 14?
You talked too fast. This was very difficult to follow.
A particular view ? ...wow
Great content! Thank you for taking us to class!
James White is working on his reply video as we speak to let you know that you don't really know Greek.
Great video, Dr. Korytko. I just disagree with your kinda replacement theology take on Israel's identity, I would take a different conclusion about Israel and the Church; for instance, Michael Vlach's book “Has the Church replaced Israel?” would be a reference to my position. But still, I appreciate the commentary a lot. It's helpful for it to be out there in video format. Like you said, this is not about calvinism. The Old Testament context of the references that Paul used, makes it clear. God bless you, Dr.
Thanks! Definitely not trying to say Israel has been replaced. Rather, Israel is reconstituted around Christ, with believing ethnic Jews being within that (and also Gentiles get grafted in).
‘Reconstituted’ is an interesting word choice. I’ve read Dr. Vlach’s book referenced above and held to that view for most of my Christian walk. Have been studying under Steve Gregg and appreciate his perspective of referring to the Church as a fulfillment of the promises God gave and fulfilled in Christ. Seems to me to fit the Scripture more clearly than Dr. Vlach’s Progressive Dispensationalism. Always studying to understand more precisely, tho. 😊
Wow Joel, really good stuff!