Radio Free Geneva with William L. Craig on Romans 9
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Had to record due to web issues yet again. We went all the way through William Lane Craig's video about Romans 9 • What Does Romans 9 Act...
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
For James White's political content, click here:
www.bitchute.c...
This is one of the most terrifying & yet most profoundly consistent exegesis I have ever heard of The Gospel concerning the Elect. It's like I just woke up for the 1st time. I can see how this strikes fear in the heart of all men & makes many offended. God is truly just that- GOD. God bless you brother James for not wincing on these facts. Your voice is needed greatly in these times
Amen. I never understood the Fear of the Lord, until I became reformed.
Amen! I did not understand the sovereignty of God until I became Reformed.
MR JAMES YOU TEACH A MAN MADE RELIGION YOU R AN ARROGANT HUMAN BEING
@@georgeluna9729 the man made religion is the one that elevates man’s choice and sovereignty over God’s.
Arminian understanding starts with man’s thinking and seeks to read that into the text and do whatever gymnastics needed rather than letting the text speak for itself
@Aron Geissinger And considering that on Calvinism God is the sole source of my thinking, your Ad Hominem attack has zero force and no meaning. God determines my thinking. I’m a robot; this is how I’ve been programmed. Can’t help but come to the conclusion that Calvinism is complete nonsense and extremely evil.
Michael Sayad you are showing yourself to be ignorant as to your understanding of Calvinism as well as the meaning of ad hominem
Michael Sayad
@Aron Geissinger Interesting how you won’t explain what I got wrong. What exactly do I have wrong about Calvinism? Please educate me. I’m waiting!
@Aron Geissinger This is what Calvinists do. They say we anyone who criticizes them is ignorant but then can’t explain how because their theology is exactly what we call it out for - complete nonsense.
Have you ever actually read a SINGLE Arminian scholarly source? Any one of them and you would know that this is the most ridiculous of straw man fallacies. And Michael Sayad is correct, this is a subtle ad hominem, as you are falsely accusing Arminians of having a specific motive, and thus speaking ill of our character.
The sovereignty of God, is my freedom in Christ! Blessed be the Name of the Lord!
Thanks for making this clear and pointing out the flaws in his position. I had listened to Dr Craig for a long time and adopted his molenistic approach. But soon after it begin to fall apart. Reading scripture made it clear that molinism does not originate from it. I now believe in the doctrines of grace because they are most consistent and faithful to a proper reading of God's word. Thank you for your help! May God bless your ministry!
This is an honest question, does this doctrine means that no matter how grave you sin you cannot loose your salvation ? Even if you are an adulterer ? Or a fornicator ? Let's say you leave your wife for no good reason like you just got a divorce because in a particular moment in time you and your wife don't get a long, she wasn't unfaithful to you neither you to her. if you do so and you later get married again according to Jesus you will be commiting adultery and the book of revelation says no adulterer can enter to heaven. It seems to me that this is a popular doctrine because most people want a free pass on sin
@@metalvarez1 if you're regenerated you have a different stance with God and sin. They send you once loved you now hate. And when you do sin, God will punish you and convict you. To the unregenerate church goer, Grace is a free pass. But to the regenerate Christian, there will be a growth in holiness. It's one of the evidences of salvation. If someone is actively sinning or committing adultery, then they need to ask if they're even saved? Paul washer covers this subject well.
@@ScottTheProtBlankenship English is not my natural language so please be direct, does this doctrine allows a free pass on sin ? I think it's way more dangerous for the life of a Christian to feel secure about his salvation, because when tentation comes he will logically think that for sure God will forgive him if he commits adultery but no adulterer can enter the kingdom of heaven, and besides then why the apostle Paul make such a strong emphasis on working out your salvation in fear ? Honestly I feel that Dr White's interpretation of scripture is at odds with what the apostle Paul describe how are we supposed to feel about our salvation, even Christ says that you can be cut off, that you can get remove from the book of life if you don't persevere, man that seems to me radically different than feeling secure about once salvation. And another point is that what damage would it make to the life of a Christian to take Paul's and our Lord's warnings about that you can loose your salvation if you don't persevere ? I don't see any harm in believing that if you love Jesus you will keep his commands at any time all the time until your dead, that sounds way more logical and more honoring to God because God will not be mock says the apostle Paul. But in the other hand if you feel absolutely secure about your salvation, for me it's a way of thinking that will inevitably Lee's you to serious sinning and if in the end it turns out to be wrong you will end up in hell. Honestly I still think this doctrine is for people who want a free pass on sin and this interpretation of scripture ignores all the warnings of our Lord and the apostles about having to persevere until the end and don't get me wrong if a Christian persevere is because the holy spirit is in him it's not the work of his own doing but the warnings in the Bible clearly tell us that God gave us free will because if not what's the point of all those warnings ? Man again for me this is a dangerous doctrine really really dangerous I'm not a theologian but please take seriously all of the warnings those are more important than mr White's interpretation of scripture after all hi is just a man
@@metalvarez1 thanks for explaining your thoughts on this. No, we don't get a free pass to sin. If we are God's children there will be consequences. Eternal security doesn't seem right unless you understand Regeneration. Regeneration means God has changed your heart. You no longer love sin and you fear God. You can still slip up, no Christian is without sin, but God's Spirit Will convict you. As John MacArthur says, "If we could lose the Spirit, we would have done so already." The only reason we persevere is because God is actively working in our lives by His grace.
@@metalvarez1 ruclips.net/video/0KPdv2HwFvc/видео.html
Here's some material to better explain what I'm trying to say. God bless you friend!
Thank you very much
dear brother, Dr. James White.
I respect Craig and have learned a lot from him. He is our brother in Christ. But Mr. White, thanks for refuting his take on Romans 9 so clearly and concisely.
This is an honest question, does this doctrine means that no matter how grave you sin you cannot loose your salvation ? Even if you are an adulterer ? Or a fornicator ? Let's say you leave your wife for no good reason like you just got a divorce because in a particular moment in time you and your wife don't get a long, she wasn't unfaithful to you neither you to her. if you do so and you later get married again according to Jesus you will be commiting adultery and the book of revelation says no adulterer can enter to heaven. It seems to me that this is a popular doctrine because most people want a free pass on sin
Victor Alvarez an elect person will not do or at the very least continue living in these sins. A severe fall from grace is possible but never a final one. Thats what perseverance of the saints means. This is why the biblical doctrine of lordship salvation is critical to understand. There is no contradiction here.
@@lexle6203 fair enough, jet I have never heard Dr White clarify his interpretation of scripture, it seems to me that you assumed what Mr White interpretation of scripture was. Another point Dr Craig's position looks way more aligned with scripture because if you can be certain of your salvation Wich objectabily you can't why is it that our Lord says so so so many warnings about loosing once salvation about being cut off from him ? How can you be cut off if you're not part of something ? You are right this is a key point and If Mr White is wrong boy you are going to regret it deeply but honestly I see no harm in taking Jesus word that one can be cut off from him that's plain and simple.
Jesus said he could say to you depart from me I never knew you and he said this to people who cast out demons in his name so in a point in time those people had a really strong faith, so I'd take our Lord's word as it is and not trust in a man because Mr White is just a man
Victor Alvarez The whole point of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7 is indeed that He NEVER knew them. Were never saved or never had saving faith, just CLAIMED many miracles in His name. If you conclude from that passage that they were once saved but then lost it you have badly misinterpreted the text. And all the warnings are indeed useful and those who ”fall away” from the faith will be rightly condemned by these words. However to make up you doctrine based on that is a misunderstanding of predescriptive texts vs despcriptive texts. I agree James White is just a man but he does indeed have an extremely well articulated and consistent doctrine that will hold the under the scrutiny of all Scripture while yours does not. So taking the Word as it is is a very good idea but it needs to hold in light of all the passages so it is not always that simple.
Victor Alvarez And yes I have heard White as well as most notable theologians such as RC sproul, John MacArthur and Sinclair Ferguson articulate the view that I just gave to you of this issue. Maybe you just haven’t heard it before from him.
More and more it is amazing me how many Christians, pastors and lay people, have so much trouble understanding Romans 9 and other passages that so clearly discuss God's sovereignty.
What Dr. White started saying around 25:00 was so powerful, about how Christians who start with Gods revelation in the NT tend to take his grace for granted instead of balancing it with his earlier self revelations of his power and justice, which is where his love and grace becomes truly beautiful. Very helpful as we work to train our children with a biblical/reformed worldview. It also exposes how much of christian worship music is so unbalanced and shallow, because it focuses on superficial view a few of God attributes at the expense of the others
REFORMED=MAN MADE RELIGION
Things don't always come before.
Craig quotes Paul's earlier argument on the way to Romans 9.
White: Nothing Paul said earlier in Romans has anything to do with Romans 9
The rest of the world: What?!
Seems hilarious to me how White always corrects literally everybody but, no body corrects him 🤷♂️
Ikr
ironically, You're criticizing James white for not entertaining the verses Craig brings forth as an argument, Whilst not entertaining the argument james makes. William Lane Craig wannabeism at it's finest.
@Steve Luibrand In Romans 3 Paul explains HOW people receive salvation and are justified. Answer: "By faith".
In Roman 9 Paul is explaining WHY some don't believe. Answer: "because of God's sovereign election".
@Steve Luibrand There us no switching of any kind. Your first question, How many believe (have faith), all who believe (have faith). Well, of course.
...
Again, ROMANS. 3 explains HOW God grants the free gift of justification to SOME and not to others. ANSWER: Because they believe/they have faith, both Jews and Gentiles.
...
ROMANS 9 explains WHY is it that NOT ALL all believe/have faith. ANSWER : Because of God's sovereign Election, of both, Jews and Gentiles.
JLTC
04:20
No, he does choose a particular people: the believing ones.
So, God chooses those who get saved by faith. Right?
@@jltc5478 Yes, God chooses who is saved and who is not. Man does not choose for himself.
Man wants God to save them. God is the one whom chooses.
@@FabledNarrative Yes. First election by God, then faith or belief by man.
Man is unable to please God by works. Only by faith they shall have eternal all live.
Dr. Craig is correct. The objector in Romans 9 is a person who is trying to be justified through works of the law. Paul has literally been teaching this all along and his other Epistles clearly teach this doctrine.
Romans 9 does not introduce a new doctrine that can't be found in the rest of the new testament. Furthermore Romans 10 makes no sense in light of a Calvinistic lens.
Calvinism is all over the New Testament did you not watch the video?
@@shnobo9471
Yes and Dr. White misquoted many texts like Romans 8. Romans 8 is referring to how Christains cannot please God while they are living by the flesh and not by the Spirit.
According to his interpretation/eisegesis Paul is not saved.
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I (Paul) am of the flesh, sold under sin.
Romans 7:14
Furthermore it is a choice whether we live by the Spirit or by the flesh.
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Romans 6:16
Paul in another letter calls Christains out of living in the flesh. Is he merely saying they can't live by the Spirit?
But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:1
Is Paul calling these "brothers" reprobates that can't choose to move on to maturity?
Is he teaching total inability according to the text?
Calvinism is not found in the text, rather it is forced upon the text. That is why it took over 200 years for the Church to adopt a system that even closely resembled Calvinism.
@@shnobo9471
Also the NT is built upon the OT, so if a new set of doctrines come up that contradict the OT than it should be rejected. So where is the idea of Calvinism in the OT??
Calvin Peterson is I showed you where would you accept it or reject it?
Calvin Peterson total depravity read the book of judges or ya know the account of the fall of man or any of the Old Testament. Unconditional election, Jacob I loved Esau I hated pretty much easy enough to see. Limited atonement well Christ died for our sins but, before that they sacrificed sheep to atone for their sins and where justified by faith. Irresistible Grace again all throughout the Old Testament even the account of Isaiah seeing God, perseverance of the saints it is all throughout the old and the New Testament those who belong to God stay with God.
Remember, everyone, Romans 9 is not an argument by itself. It's the first part of a 3-chapter argument that extends thru 11:32. Paul is aware that his Gospel (summarized in Romans 1:16-17) makes it seem as if God's promises to Israel have failed. After all, if salvation can be for Gentiles via faith in Christ, as Paul preaches, then what happened to salvation for Jews via the Torah? Hasn't God's word to Israel failed, in that case? Much more importantly in the context of a pastoral letter to a church, if God's word to them failed, how can we be sure His word to US (believers in Rome, both Jewish and Gentile) won't fail? After all, Paul makes everything sound amazing in the climax of Romans 8, but if God isn't trustworthy, then how can we believe those glorious words?
So, Paul has to pause his systematic approach for a moment (he picks it back up again in 12:1...you can skip straight from 8:39 to 12:1 and not miss anything) to assure his readers that God's word has not failed. Paul is not attempting to explain why most of his fellow Jews reject his Gospel of Christ. He's trying to be absolutely clear that God's word has not failed, and that He is completely faithful to keep the promises contained in 8:18ff.
This is misrepresenting our view. We dont believe its apart from God. God gives a measure of faith to all men. You're also conflating COULD be saved with WILL be saved. Two very different questions. Who CAN vs who ultimately WILL
T S gives a measure of faith to all men? Please demonstrate that from Scripture. Based off Romans 1:18-32, only thing sinners do in relation to the revelation given to them is suppress it in unrighteousness and ungodliness. White even mentioned how those who try to maintain a synergistic soteriology must ignore the clear inability sinners have to free themselves (John 8:34), please God (Romans 8:5-7), or even have spiritual life to begin with (Ephesians 2:1-10). Not sure I understand your latter point either: who can vs. who will? Only those who have been chosen, predestined, adopted, redeemed, called, and sealed will be saved (Eph. 1:3-14). Who can be saved? All the believing ones according to John 3:16 which the Father gave the Son and who will draw them to the Son and the Son will raise them on the last day (John 6). This is not difficult. Why do we resist His will?
Mark OnTheBlueRidge Just to make a point here, in humility:
Paul said: “Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run swiftly and be glorified, just as it is with you,
and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith.”
II Thessalonians 3:1-2
That’s where I go to find it in scripture to make it clear that not all men have faith. Just trying to lay it down. When Paul said: “for not all have faith.” Peace!
@@davismorgan9905 God is the God of ALL grace (1Peter 5:10), abundant in both mercy (Ephesians 2:4) and grace (Ephesians 2:7). He is full of grace (John 1:14). God's grace is a gift (Ephesians 2:8; 3:7; 4:7), and of His fullness, we have all received grace (John 1:16), in Christ (1Corinthians 1:4; 2Timothy 1:9) and through Christ (John 1:17; Romans 1:5; 5:15-21), given to EACH of us according to the measure of the gift of Christ (Ephesians 4:7).
Therefore, He gives grace to all men (Romans 5:15-21; Titus 2:11; see also 2Corinthians 4:15), pours out His Holy Spirit upon all men (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18) richly/abundantly though Christ (Titus 3:4-6) without measure (John 3:34) in order to restrain their depravity (Romans 1:19, 21, 25), enlighten all men (John 1:4-10; 12:46; see John 8:32; Romans 1:19, 21), convict all men of their sin (John 16:8-9), draw all men (John 12:32), call all men (Matthew 22:9-14), and open the heart enabling them to respond (Acts 16:14).
In fact, God even sovereignly orchestrated every circumstance in everyone’s life, including the time and place of their birth (Psalm 139:16; Acts 17:26), so that each person has the MOST opportunity to find Him and be saved (Acts 17:26-29).
@Curtis MH said the papist who has to delete comments
This is gold!
Thank you Dr. White!
MR JAMES STOP TEACHING YOUR MAN MADE RELIGION THANK YOU
@@georgeluna9729 bro free will doesn't exist just accept it if you are determined to accept it
@@georgeluna9729 if it's man made then demonstrate that his exegesis of Romans 9 is wrong
@@4jchan soteriology 101 with leighton flowers,listen to his explanation on romans 9
@@georgeluna9729 yeah I did listen to Flowers view of Romans 9. He adopts the corporate election interpretation which does not fit with the immediate context of Roman 9. Paul is correcting the misunderstanding of God choosing Israel as his people. He explains God's sovereign choice in electing only some of the Jews as his people ie the remnants of Israel. Corporate election as relating to Israel's role in God's plan of Redemption does not explain this misunderstanding. That's why this interpretation does not fit the context
I don't think people realize that it is sinful to insert our ideas into the text...Rather than BOW before scripture, man would rather change what GOD HAS SPOKEN. The problem is NEVER with scripture...but in man's refusal to bend the knee! The doctrine of election makes GOD'S GRACE all the more valuable, HIS MERCY all the more valuable, HIS Salvation all the more secure! Let the dogs bark, who seek to hold up their works based systems...we, who have been FREED, will continue to give GOD PRAISE FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE!! HALLELUJAH!!!!!!
Thank you, Dr. White for how you are such a source of discernment! May William Lane Craig drop his man-centered theology and submit to Scripture.
Who DOES James White agree with? It would probably be more helpful if he came out with some teaching series', rather than polemically rebuke everyone he disagrees with over and over again in an uncharitable manner.
Great Suggestion
But i suspect the series would be mostly polemics
For me, I’ve read every Calvinist scholar I could buy, I also read the best non cals on Romans 9… from Abasciano (expensive) to Godet to Arminius himself.
What the debate turns on is what the two camps see Paul as addressing. The best Calvinist case is that Paul languishes to answer, after Romans 8’s closing, “who can separate us from the love of God?” The answer, Paul it seems like God’s faithfulness, his love is worthless since we know he supposedly love the Jews. The Jewish plight is then the counter example to Paul’s point.. he must defend this original and seeming objection.
This sets up this sort of rhetorical and supposed objection style format that naturally flows from one to the next.
The layout from there is simple:
1. The Jews are cut off from Christ because they reject him. Paul believed and wants his brethren to believe.
2. The Jews were the most advantaged towards a belief in Christ, as all the prophets and indeed they are his blood line.
3. So why do they reject Christ? The Arminian contention in this light makes no sense… if they answer that Jews reject because they don’t have faith, then that’s circular. It’s already been established that salvation is by faith. What victory is it to now see, as they try, that God’s choice is only *how a man is saved by faith and not works.
3. Paul explains the Jewish rejection of Christ as having a divine purpose, which makes sense as the progression makes clear.
4. Abasciano, in his lengthy dissertation, was right. It is the inception of the arguments that must be challenged or refuted. By this time the Calvinist has won and arminians defeated.
5. They must therefore recontextualize what is being said entirely.
So in sum, is Paul explaining why Jews reject? As we see flow from Romans 8.. or do we see Paul showing that faith was the point all along. I contend that if we begin from where Paul did, the Arminian case seems more implausible.
As James White says in the final minute ,”How can you do that?”
The answer lies in Willian Lane Craig’s philosophy in not accepting it is God’s decision to save His undeserving elect for His glory .
Conclusions usually come after arguments. You are getting on to WLC for going to Paul’s own conclusion as a interpretive principal while also importing your anthropology from nowhere in scripture.
Also, though a Molinist, he is not bringing this as a molinist argument. That is a red herring you keep trying to distract with.
Thats called reading it backwards. Its not a red herring because molinism is centered around human autonomy and a universal effort by God to save everyone. Its going to effect how you read things like Romans 9.
1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 disproves William Craig’s statement.
This was a watershed video for me years ago. It was one of the main things God used to convince me of Calvinistic theology.
Lane Craig is great, can't deny the facts here
Sure you can deny them; you don't even know what the facts are.
Why does Dr. Craig look like his make up and lipstick on all the time
I'm not trying to be carnal or jest, genuinely asking ??
Like why?
Our FAith is from God, not from us. Luke 22:31-32
BINGO! The definitive comment. That's why christendom is so messed up. A fleshly self-conjured faith no better than the dead faiths of the rest of the worlds religions.
Solomon reminds true believers that the LORD 'scorneth the scorners: but He giveth grace unto the lowly' (Prov.3:34); and He designed the gospel with those in mind (Is.61:1), those whom He intends to save (Ps.149:4), that is, His sheep 'hearing' the Shepherd.
Both James and Peter remind us of this as well (Ja.1:21, 4:6, 1Pet.5:5).
God grants grace, and salvation, to humble individuals believing in the blood of Christ (Rom.3:25) as the 'new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us' (Heb.10:20, Rom.5:8). These truths are simple, 'brethren beloved, knowing your election of God' is 'through the gospel' (1Thes.1:4, 1Cor.4:15, 1Pet.1:25).
Possibly Peter may have had Zeph.2:3 in mind when he wrote, 'give diligence, brethren, to make your calling and election sure' (2Pet.1:10), for God 'made choice' that we 'should hear The Word of the gospel, and believe'! (Acts 15:7). Think about it; God made the choice, that each of us 'should hear...and believe'. O, the wonder of His grace!
So how does Genesis 26:4 mean that there's going to be a lot of people in heaven?
Didn't Jesus say in Matthew that the gate that leads to life is narrow and few find it?
Yes and no. If you're talking about it numerically yes, if you're talking about percentage of saved people out of all people then no.
@@Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh123
So I'm looking at the greek word few. Not sure you can get percentage out of that. And God promised about descendants not saved people right?
Ethnos/Ethne translated gentile/gentiles does not mean non-Israelite(s)
Instead of refuting the argument, he argues that if that was the case then verse 30 would come first lol James White have you ever heard of climax? doesn't verse 30 start with "what shall we say then" as if Paul wasn't trying to reach his final remark, terrible from James White once again
21:37 He makes the classic Reformed blunder. "Not because of what someone is doing". The text doesn't say that. "Works" for Paul isn't the mere activity of doing something, but the working out of God's structure of commands (whatever the epoch). JW then implies that since Faith is something someone does it can't be based on that (therefore denying Paul's clear conclusion in 30-33). Fallacy after fallacy. This is how one gets set on the wrong track. The little errors that totally uproot correct methodology. Such a blunder.
Craig looks like Bill Nye.
Hum,God loved us because we loved Him first? Really? That's the Arminian idea of Election.Also,some plant,some water,but God gets the increase, in their understanding.
Who are you to question God for whoever he chooses to offer his salvation here the Gentiles Or to forgive Israel after they worshiped another God even thou they didnt derserve to live, he had mercy on them. Who are you to question the potter who can use even a marred clay to fulfill his purpose like he did with Pharo, who hardened his heart and God as a result further hardened it for him.
The clay was marred on its own. God never caused it to be spoiled.
Man can not be self justified thru HIS own works but Only thru faith in the works of Christ and thats God's grace as he did all the work on the cross and left man two choices, to either believe or not.
Doesn't make sense. How can a man believe what he cannot know? He is BLIND! He is DEAD! He is FLESH! Believe what for crying out loud? "Who made the blind and the lame? Was it not I the LORD?" God didn't say Pharaoh spoiled himself; He says He specifically RAISED UP Pharaoh for the purpose of revealing His power and making His name known throughout the earth. And before anything even happened, God tells Moses He is going to HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART. If you can't handle the text for what it says straight up, but have to massage and manipulate it, why bother? You think this is about some bogus choice? That's what tens of millions of EX-christians walked away from, you're phony fleshly gospel of the imagination where faith is blind and conjured up in the imagination and totally void of the Spirit. It's no better than the faith of any other dead religion. Or don't you know what TARES in the WHEAT are?
A non born again person has a sin nature, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, even the most altruistic and sacrificial works are “not for the Lord’s names sake” I.e idolatry.
Those who do not have faith, which is a gift from God, cannot please God.
Is this a rebuttal or correcting supposed error
18:10 “There is a LAIMA, a remnant”.
OK, so I get that the German system of Erasmian pronunciation doesn't distinguish 'ει' from 'αι' in words like “λεῖμμα”, even though it was never, ever pronounced like *λάϊμ in history.
But, honestly, is it really so hard for an English speaker to say /LEIMA/?
Who lost the molinist vs calvinist debate? Oh yeah you
Jacob I've loved, Esau I've hated? Yeah, well WLC does mention it. By talking the CONCLUSION of Paul's argument in R9:30-33, he affirms it: the text is about groups of people and their blessings (not individual salvation). How about we look to the context of Malachi 1 to determine the hermeneutical principle for understanding Romans 9? Nah, that wouldn't lend itself to JW's dogmatic conclusion.
Lol so Jacob and Esau were groups and not people? Lol okay interesting. I guess this applies to Moses and Pharaoh too. "It depends not on human will or exertion" I guess thats about groups will not actual humans. "You will say to me why does he still find fault", dont know why Paul is using 2nd person pronouns here. Cause this is just about groups.
No. He tells you all the way drom the beginning of Ro.ans that he is in fact contending with those who might appose grace through faith as thebmeans to save all people. It is clear as day in that context. Than he Drives home that point at the end of Romans 9. Most false doctrines come in this way taking a passage out of its complete and whole context.
I'm honestly astonished at how often White straw man's his opponents. Here's what Romans 9 does not say: (1) That God elects every individual. (2) That God's election of Jacob over Esau was in order to delimit the scope of his election to individuals.
The passage, instead, opens up establishing the CONTEXT: Paul would wish, if possible, to be cut off for the sake of his own people--the Jews (corporate). God elected Isaac and Jacob's line in order to bring forth his elect people (the direction is from the individual to corporate) vv. 6-13; God then brought forth one man from the nation (Christ); God reserves the right to elect whom he will (vv. 14-22); God's election then, is for "us, the ones he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" (v 24); God calls a "people who are not my people" (vv.25-26) including a remnant and new "offspring" (v.28). The conclusion? "30 What should we say then? Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness-namely the righteousness that comes from faith. 31 But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not achieved the righteousness of the law.[u] 32 Why is that? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were by works." (vv.30-31). The whole movement of the passage is from individual election TOWARD the general election of the two people groups. Craig is right and White is wrong.
Have you considered the logically necessary conclusion of verse 16?
Verse 16 makes it clear that being a child of the promise is on an individual basis.
I would encourage you to study the passage for yourself, friend, in light of the rest of Scripture. According to what Jesus said in John 3:19-21, humans do not come to the light of truth on their own because they love their sin. Thus, if God chose people to salvation on the basis of faith inherent to the individual, literally no one would be saved. As Romans 9 also points out, if the Lord had not intervened out of His great love and mercy for Israel, they would all have fallen under the righteous judgment of God. Sovereign election does not mean that God does not want all humans to be saved. On the contrary, the Lord so desires to save us that He in mercy saves a remnant of the human race, both Jew and gentile, in spite of our utter hatred of Him.
Love you, brother! May the Lord bless you!
Im a little confused
It seems to me Paul is saying that the nation of Israel was hardened against the mssg. of salvation that it might spread to the gentile nations whose elect might hear, and hearing might believe the good news.
If this is so then those who were hardened against the hope of salavation effectively fall under condemnation for their sins.
Isnt this the basis for Paul's anticipating the readers question of apparent unfairness @nd inequity?
This choosing to harden Israel and soften gentile nations to the mssg of salvation according to God's election obviously takes place in the hearts and lives of people.
How, then is this not ultimately about individual salvation?
Craig is very week. He applies his presuppositions and bends Scripture to make it fit.
Title is intentionally deceptive...
So glad I am not radically Reformed anymore. #ProudlyConfessionalyLutheran
What's "radically reformed"?
@@danielomitted1867 It's whatever he imagines it to be.
Smh 1st Peter 1:20 there is no private interpretation smh you are Esau ...acts 5 we ought to obey God rather than men ...1st maccabess 1:1 Alexander the snake the Grecian aka greek aka idumean aka edom aka Esau aka you ...the book never belonged to anyone but israel....Joel 2:27 Joel and he shall know that I am in the midst of isreal and that I am the Lord your God and none else and my people shall never be ashamed...gigs up Esau.....Jeremiah 3:23 truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills and the multitude of mountains truly in the Lord OUR GOD IS THE SALVATION OF ISRAEL
Smh
06:20
Romans 8 says one of two things, neither of which are bulwarks against man procuring faith.
1-A man who's "mind is set on the flesh" (Rom 8:7) surely can not please God. Therefore, when a man applies his mind to the things of the Spirit he is categorically not with a mind set on the flesh and therefore can please God (via Faith).
2-If you want to somehow deny 1, we can say that the context of Romans 8 is pleasing God so as to "submit to God's law" (Rom 8:7). So yes, a mind set on the spirit can't please God, in sanctification (the topic of Roman 8), by submitting to God's law. What does this have to do with procuring faith? Nothing, nada, zilch.
James White refuted... again.
This is not a refutation, but eisegetical assumptions. Exegetically, "the mind set on the flesh" and "the mind set on the Spirit" is a contrast between unregenerate people and regenerate people. Those who are in the flesh (natural state of man) set their minds on the things of the flesh. Those who are in the spirit (regenerate) set their minds on the things of the Spirit. Apart from regeneration, no one in the flesh will ever be able to do that which pleases God. That is the point of Romans 8:5-8. Can the person being in the flesh (unregenerate state) set their minds upon the things of the Spirit? Paul says in Romans 8:8, absolutely not. Comic Junglist refuted... again!!
@@johnmyers3450:
Amen!
And to just add : Hebrews 11:6 that without faith it’s impossible to please God. It would seem only natural then that if they cannot please God then that would include not being able to produce faith
@@andypietrowski6915 Yes. However, not just the fleshly man, but even the regenerated believer cannot please God or produce Faith while he sets his mind on the things of the flesh, which I find a majority of "christians" doing today.
@@Caleb-xf5yn : you’re misunderstanding that passage. Paul isn’t simply talking here about sinful acts that people commit. He’s putting everyone in one of two categories of a spiritual state as he and Jesus both do numerous times in the gospels and epistles. He qualifies here by saying “but you are not in the flesh if the spirit of God is in you.”
James White reads Calvin and Luther into Romans ... his obscurantist reformed proof texting is tedious ... tedious!
6:20 “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
Is this really supposed to be a universal rule without exception? Can a non born again person not help another person? Sacrifice themselves for another? Feed the poor?
A non born again person can do those things but those acts are only pleasing to God when done to worship God. Only those who walk according to the spirit can rightly acknowledge God and therefore only those who are born again can please God.
there are lots of things man can't do:
The Bible informs us that men are not only finite, but are now also sinners, who:
by nature cannot bring forth good fruit (Matt.7:18 , Lk 6:43)
by nature cannot hear Christ’s word that they might have life (John 8:43),
by nature cannot submit themselves to the law of God (Rom. 8:7),
by nature cannot please God (Rom 8:8)
by nature cannot discern truths of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. ),
by nature cannot confess from the heart Jesus as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3),
by nature cannot control the tongue (James 3:8),
by nature cannot come to Christ (John 6:44, 45, 65),
by nature cannot receive the Holy Spirit (John 14:17) and
by nature cannot see (understand) the kingdom of God unless they're born again (Jn 3:3).
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge I'm guessing that you like analogies more than the Word of God
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge no, you are right- I was addressing Beau H bu mistakenly replied to your comment. My apologies- I think we are on the same page with this.
A non born again person has a sin nature, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, even the most altruistic and sacrificial works are “not for the Lord’s names sake” I.e idolatry.
Those who do not have faith, which is a gift from God, cannot please God.
Idk. Looks like WLC is wearing make-up, thus making his arguments invalid
😂
Yeah. I was wondering that too.
Loving like Jesus, are we?
@@michaelcastro2395
Yes we are.
@@michaelcastro2395 spare us the false piety
9 32 is Paul's explanation of what he's saying. Idk why thats not obvious dr white
False. 9:30-32 is the introduction of a different discussion that flows into chapter 10 about justification by faith.
@@johnmyers3450 no, "what shall we say then?" Is an obvious reference to what has been said. Salvation is by grace through faith. Not by election via irresistible grace
@@coryalbright9798 Um, Cory, Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, “What then will we say” in 9:30 comes AFTER 9:6-29. This means that Paul is introducing a new subject (one he discussed in chapters 3 & 4) after his discussion of God's election according to His will.
Further, you are assuming that you either believe you are saved by grace through faith, or you believe you are saved by election via irresistible grace. This is a logical fallacy. You can believe the former in light of the latter.
God can have an eternal purpose to save a particular people irresistibly by His grace, and grant them repentance and saving faith at His appointed time according to His will. They are not contradictory concepts. We believe *both,* because the Bible teaches both.
@@johnmyers3450 God does save a particular people, it's just not by irresistible grace or unconditional election. God tells us what particular people He will save - those who believe.
"What shall we say then?" Is that how you start a new topic?
Calvinism is built off of 5 or 6 proof texts taken out of context. Calvinism and context do not go together. Calvinism is a set of cleverly worded philosophical arguments for why scripture isn't true.
@@coryalbright9798: right….but the reason anyone believes is because of God’s choosing. Romans 8:28- end of chapter tells you not only why you believe but also why it can’t be undone. Take a look particularly at the moment in that passage where God predestines someone to be conformed to the image of His son. What you see is that EVERY single person that He calls after that IS justified and EVERY person justified IS glorified. There are no dropouts. It’s completely a work of God and why nothing can separate us. You take away God’s election and LOTS of things can separate us
Cool swords
They're genuine 14 karat plastic!
I have reserved 7000 for myself that I’ve caused it not to bow the knee to baal
Here is Douglas Moo, a Reformed scholar, doing exactly what James White denies is correct (stating that the conclusion follows the evidence):
Romans 9:30 (NICNT Ro): 30 The question “What then shall we say?” need not suggest that Paul is responding to the objection of an opponent. Rather, Paul uses it as a rhetorical device to introduce an implication of his teaching in 9:6b-29 (and esp. vv. 24-29): “Therefore, in light of God’s calling of Gentiles and of only some Jews, what do we find now to be the case?” Verses 30-32a give the answer to this question, which is then expanded in 9:32b-10:21.
Again, it is a basic convention in not only hermeneutics, but writing and lastly SPEAKING. What a fool.
This is a pathetic argument.
He really asks if the key to understanding a passage should come before, rather than after? Like Jesus, or no other Scripture author for that matter, has ever said something difficult and then explained it further AFTERWARDS making it more understandable...
Dr. Craig should stick to philosophy and debating atheist, though I'm not sure the hard line Calvinistic approach answers all of our questions either. I tend to lean reformed, but see man's responsibility and God's Providence as friends, no need to reconcile, which CH Spurgeon also recognized.
Dr. James White is presuppositional.
@@electronicMI yeah , I am minimalist presuppositionalist
@@asamanthinketh5944: When you say "minimalist," in a nutshell, how would you contrast that to say, Greg Bahnsen's presuppositionalism? Thanks.
Solid take
That's what happens when eisegesis is done.
Holy smokes, Craig looks like a demon.
WILLING ONE DOES NOT SAVE HIMSELF!!! GOD SAVES!!! EVEN WHEN YOU ACCEPT HIS PROVISION!!! YOU ARE ARGUING A WRONG POINT OF CONTENTION LIKE ALWAYS!!!
Using caps - big mad
Willie Craig's got more makeup on than Tammy Faye Bakker.
I sure wish he had the nerve to go live with Dr White!
😂more makeup on then your wife
Whew I thought it was just my eyes 😂🤣
Oh, I thought he was debating WLC. Lame.
Do some infants who die go to hell? If so why?
T S no they do not. They go straight into the arms of Jesus. People who believe infants go to hell really do not understand the God of the Bible.
@@jamessahagun8888 i agree. I just dont understand how calvanist reconcile that with their version of original sin. They belive we are punished for adams sin. Not just seperated from God but damned to hell.
@@TS-ql2gl I don't know whether or not all infants who die in their infancy go straight to Heaven, but Romans 1-3 and Romans 5 make it clear that everyone is born into sin. I don't think King David was lying when he said that he was conceived in iniquity.
@@jacobgarcia4826 the bible also makes it clear we are not held accountable for the sin of our father. Youre reading into the the text. Being conceived in sin doesnt mean you yourself have sinned. Born into sin as in we have a proclivity to sin. Babies cannot sin. Obviously. If you recall David alluded to seeing his son again in heaven. Despite his son never having the capacity to have faith keep torah etc.
@@TS-ql2gl What exactly am I reading into the text, as you claim? When did I say that we are punished for our father's sin? I'm simply quoting the Bible. All men, that includes infants, are born with a sin nature. Babies, when they get to a certain age, do sin. Do they sin knowingly? No, but it doesn't take long for a baby to start showing signs of selfishness and conceitedness. If babies are automatically innocent, then physical death would not be an issue for them because one of the consequences of sin is physical death.
David did allude to seeing his son again in Heaven, but is that a general principle that's taught throughout Scripture? Was David teaching that infants go straight to Heaven? Or was he simply stating what his hope was regarding his son? I'm not making any conclusions on this issue, but I am simply stating what Scripture teaches about the condition of all persons from birth and asking the questions that need to be asked regarding this issue. Although I myself don't have a set in stone conclusion on this issue, I'm almost inclined to agree with what Dr. James White, a calvinist, said when he was asked this question, "I believe God has the exact same freedom in the salvation of infants as He does in the salvation of adults. Are only some infants part of God's elect? I don't know. Are all of them part of His elect? I don't know. God has the exact same freedom in the salvation of infants as He does in the salvation of adults. God is the sovereign judge of the universe, and He will always do right".
Keep in infighting Christians. We non-believers take each of your claims and will wait until you’re author of non-confusion decides to back that claim, and clear all it all up. But I myself am not holding by breath. The best I could cognitively hold is that (deistic) god enjoys a good laugh on how confused his subjects are
God is infinitely smarter then us. Do you expect us with our simple minds to understand everything God says? Its easy to form a different understanding when not having researched properly