A Non-Calvinistic Interpretation of Romans 9
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2019
- My website: www.jordanbcooper.com
Patreon: / justandsinner
This is a video recording of my podcast in which I work through Romans 9 and discuss questions of Calvinism and double-predestination in the text. I present a contextual alternate reading which avoids the problem of the eternal decree of reprobation.
3:51 General Outline of Ch 1-8
6:20 Ch 9-11 is one argument concerning Israel
8:24 Ch 9: 1-5 Paul's sorrow for his kinsmen
10:36 verse 6a Vindication of God's Word to Israel
11:20 verse 6b-7a National Israel and Israel by faith
14:13 verse 7b Isaac, Ishmael, and Messiah
15:12 verse 8 Children the flesh and children of the promise
15:57 verses 9-10 "Genetics" is not the promise
17:00 verses 11-13 Not ancestry, not works, not right of inheritance
20:24 Malachi is about God's working in the Messianic line, not about individual salvation and damnation.
25:03 verse 14 "unrighteousness with God"
26:12 verses 15-16 God has chosen to show mercy to the gentiles.
28:28 verses 17-18 Pharaoh's hardness of heart
33:15 verses 19-21 Potter and clay
35:43 verse 22 long-suffering
37:17 vessels of wrath prepared (passive) for destruction
37:45 verse 23 vessels of mercy whom He prepared (active) *in advance* for glory.
39:57 verses 24-26 The people of God are the people of faith saved by grace
40:41 verses 27-29 Isaiah
41:01 verses 30-33 Main point and conclusion of the whole argument
You saint
I recommend the reading of Luther's Romans commentary (freely available online) on this passage to everyone watching. Much more to the point.
“I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (9:15). That means: I will give grace, in time and life, to him concerning whom I purposed from eternity to show mercy. On him will I have compassion and forgive his sin in time and life whom I forgave and pardoned from all eternity. - Luther Romans commentary
@@wortzentriert Well, just shows he wasn't always right. there's a lot of presupposition (from eternity?) in the interpretation.
You missed the "works' vs 'faith' aspect of Ishmael vs Isaac. Ishmael was a child of Abraham's works, his attempt to fulfill God's promise himself, not through faith. Isaac is the child of faith. This is the difference between the Jacob Esau example.
I understand your 1st part Ishmael vs Isaac. But what is the difference between the Jacob vs Esau?
@@suganemmenaul I think he's saying that Esau (the Ishmael figure of this pair) is not similarly a product of his fathers' trying to fulfill God's promise himself, but I'm not sure.
This is a great video. Much appreciated. I am a recent subscriber and excited to have found this channel. My prior church dipped their toes in calvinism but would not come outright and say it. But the teachings said otherwise. I have walked away for the last couple of years because I did not see calvinism in Scripture. This teaching on Romans 9 is what I read it as but could not expess it as well as you did. Thank you again!
Hey Dr cooper could you explain what Paul means according to the Lutheran faith when he talks about the lump of clay? Also would you say it connects to Jeremiah and Timothy because they use the same potter and clay analogy?
P.s I understand your a busy guy so if you don't get back no hard feelings
May the Lord be with you
I think I agreed with every word of this. I'm not Lutheran but this was in line with what I've heard from the best in my camp (Wesleyan/Arminian). I think I may have too closely associated Lutheranism and Calvinism. I expected something much different. This was great. Thank you.
Me too. I'm actually kind of shocked that it falls under 'non-calvinism'. Lutheranism seems so much more biblical than Calvinism. I'm a Provisionist because Absolute Inability and Regeneration before faith seems unscriptural and because the Gospel appears to be sufficient for us to believe. But, that being said, I think I could attend a Lutheran church from a soteriology perspective. I get the feeling that Lutheranism doesn't produce the arrogance and 'cage staged' that Calvinism does.
@@huntsman528most Lutherans are pretty charitable but yeah Calvinists (not all but most it seems) are pretty arrogant and not very charitable.
I've found that many biblically-oriented Protestants who reject Calvinism often lean towards Lutheranism...sometimes I hear them talking about salvation and conversion and think to myself, "They sound like Lutherans!" But most of them probably aren't that familiar with Lutheranism....
John repeatedly preaches BELIEVE and be BAPTIZED and Paul constantly says what our sin is and what God's GRACE and MERCY and FORGIVENESS does in regards to our sin . What is so hard to understand that ?
As a five point Calvinist, I really appreciate this exegetical work. It pretty much aligns with my interpretation, but I’m really talking about Dr. Cooper’s methodology. He is right in walking through the text, using the questions and answers as a guide. I think it was really well done.
I’m not sure why he calls this a non-Calvinist interpretation though. It seems very consistent with Calvinism. He seemed to mostly be speaking against equal ultimacy (which he mistakenly called double predestination)-which most Calvinists reject. Even Dr. James White-a stanch double predestination believing Calvinist-rejects equal ultimacy.
Equal ultimacy is the belief that God predestines reprobation _in the same way_ he predestines salvation. And again, most Calvinists reject this.
Anyway, if someone asked my understanding of Romans 9, I would happily point to this video. The end kind of sounded like universalism though, even though I know that’s not how he meant it.
I agree! I didn't feel like he said anything contrary to my understanding of calvinism - although perhaps I might need a refresher on calvinisms finer points. Just humbles us to be listening open and mindful to fellow brothers and sisters
Equal ultimacy or double predestination.... At the end of the day, surely, just ultimately playing with words when the same result and conclusion result... God unilaterally and arbitrarily electing some, and the rest are reprobate hell fodder (who didn't ask to be born and had no hope of salvation, and are damned for that which they were - by decree - determined to do)
Election is corporate. Individuals are chosen for certain tasks that will spread to the corporate whole.
Calvin and Beza's view of God's is atrocious.
@@emilesturt3377 _"Equal ultimacy or double predestination.... At the end of the day, surely, just ultimately playing with words when the same result and conclusion result..."_
Nope, they have different names because they are very different ideas and quite contrary to each other. Those that love Christ enough to obey his commandments, especially to not bear false witness ought to make sure they learn the difference. Those that hate Christ can lie all they want, God will see that they earn a just reward.
@@oracleoftroy the result is the same. Is what I said. Can you see?
And both simply a figment of Augustine's imagination; so not binding on me ; )
God has the right to actively choose to show mercy to whoever He wills. He also has the right to passively choose not to show mercy to whoever He wills. God showing mercy is a voluntary act not a mandatory one and we are all dependent upon Him who shows mercy. We were all at one point vessels of wrath (children of wrath) Ephesians 2, and God's mercy changed us (Believers) into vessels of mercy. And the very Faith we possess is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8). Believers have nothing in themselves to boast about. Knowing that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws them (John 6:44).
In Pharaoh's case God's hardening of his heart was not God heeping fresh evil on his heart but simply restraining His grace from him. The unrepentant the ones who actively refuse to come to Christ because they don't want to, God will keep His saving Grace from them leaving them to themselves. He will not drag anyone kicking and screaming into Glory if they don't want to be there. But on the other hand God is in the business of changing the disposition of sinners hearts and placing in them a willful desire for Himself.
Some of this sounds like a pretty big cope to get around predestination. Particularly the part about pharaoh at 29:00. God tells Mosses He'll harden pharaoh's heart, but you read this to mean "God will see what pharaoh will freely choose to do, then based off this God will do what is in accordance to what pharaoh deserves" despite the Bible clearly stating the purpose of Egypt's destruction was to make God's power known. In other words, God wanted to make his power known, and he had planned that, but if pharaoh had just said, "yeah, sure, you can go," then all of God's plans and His will would have been stifled.
"God hardens whoever He wills" now means "God only hardens those who freely choose, independently of God, to have hard hearts."
That's silly. God "showed my power and made my name known throughout the Earth" just as much through Nebuchadnezzar, whom he showed great kindness and mercy to, as he did through Pharaoh whom he smote. If Pharaoh had been like Nebuchadnezzar, no plan of God's would or could be stifled. You do not worship God but weakling of your own creation.
*Luke 7:30* God's βουλή (plan/purpose/resolve/counsel) for the Pharisees was to accept them. But they rejected this βουλή of God for themselves, by refusing John's baptism.
*1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2* He is especially the Savior of believers. He remains the Savior of all people. This makes the labor of evangelism and the reproach of scoffers bearable. He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the church AND the world.
*John 1:29; 3:16* The lamb of God takes away the sins of the world. God loved the world.
*Luke 8:13* Jesus asserts that some really do *joyfully believe* the gospel for a while, and actually *fall away* through trials and temptations.
*Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks.
*Romans 11:32* Who does God have mercy for? Everyone whom he consigned to disobedience!
*1 Corinthians 8:11* It is possible to destroy the saving faith of a brother for whom Christ died.
*Eph **4:30* The Ephesians were sealed for the day of redemption, yet Paul warned them that the possibility of grieving the Holy Spirit was a reality.
*2 Peter 2:1* Christ bought even the heretics who deny Him and destroy themselves.
*1 Tim 2:1-6* Christ died for all people and wants all people to be saved. Therefore, Paul commands us to *intercede* even for godless kings and rulers.
*Hebrews 3:1-12* Even "holy brothers and sisters" can "turn away from the living God" with an "evil, unbelieving heart."
*Hebrews 2:1, 12:25* The author and the audience could reject God's warning and not escape.
*Hebrews 6:4-6* It is possible for one to be enlightened, taste the heavenly gift, have the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God, and then fall away.
*Ephesians 3:3-6; Isaiah 45:19* As God has revealed his secret will in scripture, it is always to extend greater mercy.
*1 John 2:2* Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, not only for the church.
@@Mygoalwogel"If Pharaoh had been like Nebuchadnezzar, no plan of God's would or could be stifled." Where is this in the Bible? Spamming out-of-context Bible verses over and over doesn't prove your point. Show me where in the Bible God decrees only because he foresees. In other words, when does God creates, look/learn what will happen, and then decrees it to happen?
The Bible clearly teaches God foreknows because he arraigned all according to the counsel of His will:
Ephesians 1:11, "In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works *all things* according to the counsel of His will."
Romans 8:29-30 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
I think you’re misunderstanding Dr. Cooper’s position. He’s a Lutheran, not a Provisionist.
@mygoalwogel Some of the verses you quote are good ones to being up for your position but most of them seem to reveal that you don’t really understand the Reformed position here.
The sequence of the hardening of Pharaohs heart in Exodus. It’s the textbook example of judicial hardening:
Blood: Pharaoh’s heart “became hard” (7:22)
Frogs: Pharaoh “hardened his own heart” (8:15)
Gnats: Pharaoh’s heart “was hard” (8:19)
Flies: “Pharaoh hardened his own heart” (8:32)
Livestock die: Pharaoh’s heart “was hard” (9:7)
Boils: “The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (9:12)
Hail: Pharaoh “hardened his own heart” (9:34)
Locusts: God announces that he has “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (10:1,10:20)
Darkness: God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (10:27)
Death of the firstborn: God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (11:10)
I think this is an incorrect view
Excellent!
@@bobpolo2964 Yeah, direct quotations are so misleading.
@@Mygoalwogel I smell the stench of sarcasm
@@bobpolo2964 Well, when are those Lutherans gonna wake up and figure out that Sola Scriptura means that you can never let Scripture speak for itself?
Thank you for this!! This is how I learned this passage so you can imagine my shock hearing the reformed interpretation talking about what's being said without actually reading. Esau in history is an example of Israel as Paul literally shows us. He's talking about rejecting Israel the way he had rejected Esau, but not for condemnation. Esau was given land and inheritance by God but was always envious and contentious with Israel, his own brother. It's the story of the prodigal son with Israel and the Gentiles as the two brothers. They are both children of the father, and the younger or the last ones taking up the work and reward of the first is seen from the beginning. This passage is the sign of Jonah, Ruth, and Solomon against the arrogant position Israel had taken up. The first will be last and the last will be first. All you have to do is look at lineage to see the pattern in history as assurance for the Gentile and foreigner who comes in later and last as a response to the call of God to get up and go the promised country. It is a predetermined place and position.
Dr. Jordan, to clarify, are you saying that the unconditional election determines whom God works through to bring forth His redemptive activity in history and therefore does not apply to eternal destination at all? I'm not sure if you're saying that or not, but that's what I took away from how you handled the text. Please let ne know.
Hey Dr. Cooper, what are some commentators you’d recommend to look further into the Lutheran perspective on issues like these and more?
We publish the Lutheran Commentary Series on the New Testament which I often use. Www.jspublishing.org
Otherwise, the Concordia Commentary Series is great, along the Paul Kretzmann and Richard Lenski.
Dr. Jordan B Cooper thank you!
Very helpful. Thank you.
Thanks for this. It's also worth noting that the complexity of Romans 9 can be further clarified by what Paul states in his other epistles such as Galatians and Ephesians.
A Like doesn’t necessarily mean agree. But I Respect your scholarship and learn much from you. And like to challenge myself
Calvinism tries to explain something supernatural while at the same time being entirely logical consistent. It seems very appealing to a young Christian looking for an explanation as to why the world, and particularly Christendom, is in the condition that it is. Then you graduate from a reformed seminary and slowly realize that the whole thing has glaring holes. Then you read the Church Father's and see that none of them believed anything approaching what Calvin, Beza and the rest of the "reformed" founding father's taught. It's hard for me to fathom how Calvinism ever caught on like it did. Who would want to believe what Calvin taught?
Calvinism caught on partly in the same way that Islam caught on...through threat of violence or imprisonment to any who rejected it. Calvin and his followers at times ruled with an iron boot, stamping on any who dared resist.
I read Athanasius's on incarnation I felt the universal intention of God trying to reconcile to the whole world. Can you show me more resources of the fathers? much appreciated thanks!
Who? Anyone who desires to be consist with the scriptures. Anyone who does careful exegesis of passages specific to the topic of salvation and the atonement. When I was a younger Christian, I believed in free will and a more provisionist understanding of the gospel. Until I started actually reading through the scriptures and letting the word speak for itself.
@dannymcmullan9375
If you don't believe in free will what reason do you have to continue in your faith?
Predestination makes this entire exercise on Earth worthless. You might as well just do whatever the hell you want because it doesn't matter what choices you make.
They've already been made for you
@@bobbycecere1037 A straw man of the doctrine of predestination, of course.
That was great! It ironed out a lot of stuff for me.
Why no reference to Jeremiah 18 when dealing with the potter and clay? That also gives some clarity. There’s also a passage in one of the epistles to Timothy dealing with vessels for honorable and dishonorable use.
.....i was gonna add this exact comment myself. Those chapters are good insight on this issue
KJ B Yes amen, no lump of clay can talk back to God, but it can purge himself, repent and cry out to God for mercy and God will make him into a vessel unto honour:
2 TIMOTHY 2:20,21
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 IF A MAN THEREFORE PURGE HIMSELF from these, HE SHALL BE A VESSEL UNTO HONOUR, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
************************************
...And according to Jeremiah 18:1-13 we see a marred vessel not talking back to God but REPENTING in humility, and then God taking it again in His hands and making it again unto something good WHILE IT’S STILL MOULDABLE.
IF THE NATION REPENTS then the Lord will relent from the destruction He decreed:
JEREMIAH 18:1-13
1The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was MARRED in the hand of the potter: SO HE MADE IT AGAIN, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 IF THAT NATION, against whom I have pronounced, TURN FROM THEIR EVIL, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: RETURN YE NOW every one from his evil way, and MAKE YOUR WAYS AND YOUR DOINGS GOOD.
12 And THEY SAID, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart.
13 THEREFORE thus saith the Lord; Ask ye now among the heathen, who hath heard such things: the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing.
The obvious reason is that just because the same elements are being used, they are still two very different analogies, so it would be improper to impose Jeremiah's use of a potter and clay on Paul's usage. Why not impose Paul on Jeremiah? In reality, they are making very different points, but happen to be using a similar analogy.
Would you follow the same principle of superimposing usage of leaven in dough the same way?
The kingdom of God is like leaven:
Matt 13: 33 - The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.
Luke 13: 20 - To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21It is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened.
Sin is like leaven:
Mark 8: 15 - Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.
1 Cor 5: 6 - Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
If we force these very different analogies together in the same way you cram Jeremiah and Paul together, we'd have to conclude that the kingdom of God is sin or some other similarly heretical claim.
Is this a typical Lutheran interpretation? I always thought Lutherans were more Calvinist with a mysterious twist of free will.
This is typical, and Lutherans are absolutely not Calvinist. They disagree with at least 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism.
@@fujikokunactually we disagree with 3 points. We agree with total inability and unconditional election.
Yeah they’re not like their Luther lol
Fantastic beard Sir!
Very clear - thank you.
Question. How is “prepared for destruction” not the same as God making vessels for dishonour?
It is the same.
In Romans 9 where It says about the twins, Jacob I loved and Esau I hated, Calvinists say Jacob was elected to salvation and Esau was passed over as a reprobate who remained dead in sin and not saved.
But in fact, according to the Old Testament Esau was blessed, given grace and repented and saved.
And Jacob and Esau even went from being enemies to being reconciled, and Jacob "saw the face of God in Esau", Genesis 33!
There goes Calvinism's unconditional election proof text!
I'm not certain that Esau repented. He took wives from pagan nations in contrary to Isaacs instructions
Very helpful distinction
You skipped the part about how Love/Hate is used biblically. Like Jacob with Rachel and Leah. Jacob didn't hate Leah, he made a lot of kids with her, but he chose Rachel so much by comparison that it was like he hated her. Or Luke 14:26. Love != Saved and Hate != Reprobate.
"If you want to be my disciple, you must, by comparison, hate everyone else-your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-yes, even your own life"
Jordan, THANK YOU for walking us through this! I've been attending an LCMS church for the past few months and working through many of these issues. I'd have considered myself a "5 point Calvinist" for a couple of decades. However, I realized that I had morphed the TULIP tenets so much that they aren't true to form. I realize that I may have more theologically in common with a confessional Lutheran theology. This brings with it a struggle to conform my thoughts and mind to that of scripture and accepting paradoxical tenets at times. Inasmuch as I have a comfort worshipping a God that can be apprehended vs comprehend exhaustively, I'm still called to walk through and seek out the truth in his word. One suggestion: please point us to additional reading on this subject to get a deeper dive. Again, thanks for these longer form videos!
So you believe you must be water baptized to be saved?
@@ShepherdMinistry - I'm not sure what (specifically) you're referring to... All baptisms require water. It's in the original language, and when referenced throughout Christian tradition and the English language, they all refer to the use of water... 🤷♂️
@@joshuawarren1715 there’s Baptism of the Spirit
If you haven't done so yet or in a while, I'd suggest (re-)reading the Canons of Dort. I only mention it because many present "TULIP" in a way that is very far from the confessional statement it is meant to point back towards. A confessional Reformed and confessional Luthran believer would probably overlap a lot more than some of the modern crop of "Calvinists" and "Lutherans" with little connection to their historic defining confessional statements, and "TULIP" as found in Dort is certainly a lot different than many anti-Calvinists falsely represent it to be. Historically, Lutherans and Calvinists, while certainly not identical, had a lot more overlap than is usually represented today.
so, now you affirm, a) "salvation-by-water", and b) "loss-of-salvation"? WOW, you've REALLY IMPROVED yourself!!
So, what are your thoughts for or against the view of Hebrew "block logic" being used in Chapter 9? Meaning it was designed to show a paradox rather than an answer: the Hebrew way of basically giving a taste of that which is outside our understanding.
Hi, Dr. Cooper. Before I conclude that you're a Provisionist (wink), can you please explain how this presentation of Romans 9 differs significantly from Leighton Flowers' "Provisionism" systematic? Because if I had read the transcript of this video, instead of listening to and watching you on my screen saying these things, I would have bet big money it was Leighton Flowers.
Excellent treatment Jordan. Thanks for the video on the text.
At 8:02, "We can gleam things about the doctrine of predestination because it certainly is under discussion here." No one has ever said (to my knowledge) that the only thing that Paul is doing here is laying out the doctrine of predestination to the exclusion of any other point... The doctrine of predestination is an understood universal truth that Paul is here appealing to in order to continue his discourse on Israel. Ergo, Romans 9 acts as an object lesson for those who wish to explain God's choice from eternity past of individuals and nations for His purposes. Predestination is therefore proved.
The posted video is not trying to deny predestination, of course there is predestination. The idea that the video is attempting to oppose is double predestination. As for double predestination, it is unbiblical, and was rejected, and declared a falsehood at the counsel of Trent.
@@henrykorvus6954im sure the Lutheran pastor holds to the council of Trent…
I think this is the most sensible comment I’ve read.
Hebrews seems to imply that Esau was not saved.
"See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears."
Hebrews 12:15-17 ESV
What do you make of that?
The author is making a parallel between Esau, who could not get his birthright back after giving it away, and the inability of those who were to fall from the faith to receive their heavenly inheritance through apostasy. Does that mean that Esau also gave away his eternal inheritance? Maybe, but I'm not sure the text implies that. But whether or not Esau ever genuinely repented is not really all that relevant to the argument in Romans 9 anyway.
@@DrJordanBCooper But don't you think that Romans chapter 9 is a soteriological passage of scripture?
From a Calvinist's perspective, due to Total Inability, Esau could not have sought repentance at all if God had not already regenerated him first. As Pastor Cooper stated, it was specifically his decision to sell his birthright that he could not repent from, because it was too late. Thematically, we know from Genesis that Esau was later repentant and converted. There are three falls in Genesis: the fall of Adam, the fall of Cain, and the fall of mankind before the Flood. These three falls are paralleled later in the book by three acts of obedience. Adam failed to protect his wife Eve from the serpent, but Abram protected his wife Sarai from Pharaoh. Cain murdered his brother, but Esau was reconciled to his brother. The world fell into wickedness in chapter 6, but in chapter 41 Joseph converts Pharaoh and rescues the world from famine. We have no real reason to say that Esau was unrepentant for his whole life.
Who? Me? Great comment! I was about to post what you said, but then I saw your post. 😁
Theophilus Godlover If this passage is about salvation, then it contradicts everything else in Scripture concerning those who seek God and repent. Jesus gives rest to all who are heavy laden and come to Him. It has to be specifically dealing with his birthright on earth, not his eternal state.
Thank you brother Jordan for this excellent presentation. We see that God's elective purpose of choosing Jacob over Esau was in order to bring the Messianic promise into fulfillment, as God had said to Rebecca, "two nations are in thy womb", i.e., the Messiah, according to the flesh, was to be of Jacob (Israel), and thus salvation through the instrumentality of Israel would result in the salvation of the Gentiles through faith in Jesus the promised Messiah - the offspring of Jacob (Israel) according to the flesh. Thus God's purpose in election is to be seen not as an arbitrary choosing, but rather as an insurance of the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan for all nations through the knowledge of Jesus Christ, the hope of Israel and the light of the Gentiles.. Love you brother. Keep up the good work.
Thank you. Helpful.
Thanks bro. I gained a lot from your careful exegesis. however, I do think Paul is talking about predestination. for he is arguing that God will never forsake His elect. Even though at that time, the majority of Israeli were against Jesus Christ(the stumbling stone), God will finally in His sovereign power make all Israel to believe and get saved. So the point is God's sovereignty over human being's response. If not, God cant make the promise to Israel that finally they all shall be saved, or at least large part of Israel. For if God is not sovereign over an individual salvation, He then cant be sovereign over any group of individuals' salvation. In Romans9-11, Paul were amazed at God's sovereignty and His faithfulness to His promises. The choosing of individual is very common in old testament times. Think about another example Paul referred, 7000 Israeli God reserved not to bow to Baal when Elijah thought only he was worshiping God. You cant say God is not sovereign over each of the 7000 Israeli's faith. God is over each of the people's faith so that He can be sovereign over the all 7000's attitude toward Baal. Therefore Romans9 doesn't' support dual presdestination as you proved. But God did elect individual to be saved and let alone cross those He didnt will to be saved.
David Wang ROMANS 11:3-5
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I HAVE RESERVED TO MYSELF SEVEN THOUSAND MEN, WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO THE IMAGE OF BAAL.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the ELECTION OF GRACE.
1 KINGS 19:18
18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, ALL THE KNEES WHICH HAVE NOT BOWED UNTO BAAL, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.
QUESTION: Did God just unconditionally reserve 7000 to salvation before the foundation of the world?
OR
Did God CONDITIONALLY only reserve those who freely did not bow their knee to baal?
What does the verse clearly say?
The reason God had mercy on them was NOT for no apparent reason.
Scripture clearly tells us the reason they were reserved was BECAUSE they did not bow down to baal.
@@apilkey if they didn’t bend the knee to Baal on their own, in what way did God preserve them? What need does he have to preserve them if on their own they didn’t bend the knee? This is silly exegesis, it’s in the same vein as those who say God looks down the corridor of time and see those who will believe and so elects them because of this foreknowledge. God preserved them and kept them from bending the knee to Baal just as God foreknew the sinner and so they believed. It is by grace so that no man may boast.
@@mustashi7361 Not silly at all.
God preserved them PHYSICALLY.
He didn’t destroy them PHYSICALLY.
Has absolutely nothing to do with bring reserved spiritually.
That’s a gross assumption on your part that’s not found in the text.
I agree with most of what is taught in this video. My only issue is the lack of distinction about works. The Bible makes clear the difference between works of the law, works with love, and works without love. And while I won’t argue that we are saved by God’s grace, we can better understand why Romans 9 isn’t Calvinist if we specifically consider “works of the law.” Especially when you add in the historical context from Acts 15, at the council of Jerusalem. Paul is dealing with Jews claiming that Gentiles must submit to the Law of Moses in order to receive the grace of God. This is why we are baptized instead of circumcised. The elevated position of a Jewish Christian is one of wrong authority, there’s nothing special about them. Now both Jew and Gentile are elect of God, not by “works of the law” but by faith. In chapter 8 we learn that God works out all things for those who LOVE God. Is that love for God not a work from our hearts and not a work of the law? Which means nothing can keep us from the Love of God, and that by loving Him we may know Him. Maybe that Love is God’s grace working through our faith, and faith is belief in the things unseen. If I choose to believe is that also not a working in my heart?
I have a question~
It seems like the keystone argument against double predestination is the interpretation of verse 22 and the inequality of those "prepared for destruction" as opposed to the vessels of mercy which "HE has prepared beforehand for glory." But isn't this an extrapolation of verse 21, in which the potter actively makes clay for honorable use and dishonorable use in an equal way? Equal in the sense of being actively chosen for a particular purpose. Of course, Paul being Paul, would want to emphasize his mercy by leaving out the pronoun, but the subject who is preparing would still be the "potter." I don't get how you say that the overall point is that the point of Romans 9 is not about individual salvation, because the whole thing is about justification by faith independent from ancestry/works and the role of election of that process. In verse 24, he says even us (individuals) whom he has called. Isn't that the whole idea, that he calls those whom he has predestined and doesn't call others, who are "prepared for destruction"? So in what way, in the sense of predestination, is it unequal?
In Romans 11:29, he separates the gospel from election... I feel like that is relevant?
If any Lutheran could reply, I would greatly appreciate it!
the bible revealed a universal condemnation through the law and the universal desire for salvation through Christ.
It's important to note that Romans 9 uses the same imagery as Jeremiah 18. In Romans 9, Paul is lamenting Israel's rejection of Christ, and continues into expressing God's freedom to do what He wants with His own creation. He is the potter and can do with the clay what He wants. No one deserves anything, and the fact that God even decides to elect anyone is purely by grace. Also, the fact that there is a potter and everyone else is the clay immediately calls into question our ability to be held accountable. He calls the shots.
In Jeremiah, God is making similar plea. Jeremiah witnesses a potter who has a vessel that is spoiled in his hands. The potter reworks the clay and makes it something he sees as good. He could've trashed it. He probably should've trashed it. But He didn't. He decided to do something with it that was beyond its ability. This, technically, is God doing something against its will. God also similarly mentions two groups in Jeremiah - He says there are those that He intends for destruction, and those He intends for building/planting. He tells those intended for destruction that He will relent if they turn from their ways. Conversely, He tells those He intends to build, that He will relent if they are disobedient.
He tells Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to turn from their wickedness because He is forming disaster for them. Nevertheless, they decide to follow their own ways. Many will read Romans 9 as saying, "Doesn't God have the right to predestine some to reprobation and others to salvation?" But that's not what it says. The text just mentions God having the right to make from one lump of clay, vessels for destruction or vessels of mercy. He can do what He wants with it. If they are spoiled, He can destroy the vessel or He can make it a vessel for honorable use. The fact that that decision is His is what makes Him God. In Jeremiah 18, He tells Judah and Jerusalem to turn from their ways. But they won't. So they are that vessel of destruction. Hardheaded like Pharaoh.
Consider the words of Paul in 2 Timothy 2:20-21, which also uses this same language:
20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.
Paul's words here sound exactly like what God said to Jeremiah. Turn from your dishonorable ways and be a vessel of honor. I was reformed for many years too, and have put out a couple of videos discussing limited atonement. Romans 9 is actually the next text I plan to discuss. I hope this helps!
God bless
not sure if it is helpful, but the 'prepared" in the prepared for destruction is a different word in the greek than "prepared" in prepared for glory. I am figuring this out myself (somewhat calvinist still I guess?), but it seems that it is a "both and" scenario. It is both family ties and individual salvation. God endures those who reject him personally. God also endured Esau's rejection of covenantal blessings (Even though Esau seems to be reconciled at the end of his life).
God prepares glory for His creation. He also may harden/turn over to their desires/etc, those who reject Him. Which is a passive preparation (which the greek word suggest).
I am still figuring this out myself as I had said, hopefully that is helpful (a whole year later lol)
@@corammundo5400 Is it also important to note that Jesus uses the same imagery in Luke 13: 20f and Matt 13: 33 as Jesus used in Mark 8: 15 and Paul used in 1 Cor 5: 6? But then we would conclude that Scripture teaches that the Kingdom of God is sin! After all, if the kingdom of God is like leaven, and sin is like leaven, and if we use your same methodology, that is the obvious conclusion.
Just because two different authors (or even the same speak er in the case of Jesus) use the same elements in two different analogies, it doesn't follow that the analogy can be collapsed into the same teaching. That would lead to all sorts of heresy. Jeremiah and Paul might use some similar elements in their analogies, but the actual analogy is quite different in important ways and their points don't really overlap.
Couldnt help but notice you skipping total depravity in romans 8 when you were summing the chapters up. The context flows into Gods election in 9. Anyone who tries to interpret this to teach anything other than monergism is decieving themselves.
Amen! It says what it says, not too hard, people just hate that Our God is in the heavens and he does WHATEVER HE PLEASES!
Judicial hardening. Is Paul expanding his point on Rom 1:18-32? Interesting.
This seems to misunderstand the Reformed view that Jacob and Esau is not about election of the two individuals used as saved or unsaved in themselves but it is that the manner in which God chose one over the other is how God is unilaterally furthering his seed which entails their faith per vv 1-5. This to be chosen now makes you a child of God and all that entails.
How is this different from the active-passive view of double predestination? God is active in salvation and passive in reprobation. The reprobate is predestined as such only in the sense that God does effectually act to save them.
Word salad 🥗
Esau being reconciled to Jacob is meaningless, he needed to be reconciled to God. Hebrews 12:16 tells us that Esau was sexually immoral and unholy. Verse 17 tells us he found no chance to repent, even though he sought it with tears. Esau was not saved.
God hardened Pharaohs heart before Moses and Arron even got to Egypt to bring the plagues. Look at Exodus 4:21 and 7:3. That's why Pharaohs heart was hardened in 7:13-14. Pharaoh didn't start to harden his own heart until after the 2nd plague. He was not judicially hardened. His heart was hardened by God so that God could humiliate him and Egypt.
"he found no chance to repent" of what? "being reconciled to God". no... read the verse *_you_* cited: "... Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For you know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected (by his father for inheriting the blessing) for he found no place of repentance (with his father... NOT GOD!!) though he sought it (FROM HIS FATHER, NOT GOD) carefully with tears.
"God hardened Pharaohs heart before Moses and Arron even got to Egypt to bring the plagues".
Yes, making the part about Jacob and Esau about double predestination is wrong b/c thats not what Paul was talking about just before or right after. "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs" simple means (like verse 32 says) its by faith and not by works. Its always been about faith like Paul says since Abraham.
The decision to have faith, if not a gift from God, is determined on a man’s will..
@@ShepherdMinistry The decision is ours
but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.) Luke 7:30
They rejected the call of God which is to all.
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself." John 12:32
@@fernandoperez8587 If the decision to have faith is your own and not Gods then that means you willed it. Correct?
@@ShepherdMinistry God calls all and we either resist or submit.
It appears God lets us decide. We either listen to Him or we do not. If we do not He allows our heart to increasely become hardened even to the point of no return.
@@fernandoperez8587 Thank you for the response. I was not asking that though. I was asking, if God calls you and you choose to respond with faith that is generated on your own, does that mean you will it?
Good explanation as a recovering calvinist I find these videos helpful. I was wondering how you would respond to someone who uses verse 11 to say that children are wothout sin? While it says they had neither good or bad scripture is also clear that we are conceived in iniquity ie sinners even in the womb. Also Jacob and Esau fought eachother even in the womb.
I would respond to them that the text doesn't say they are without sin. Like you'd mentioned, they were conceived in it. It's just making the point that they hadn't been born yet and consequently done anything. Someone could argue that they fought in the womb, and that this is technically doing something bad. However, Scripture just says that after Rebekah conceived them, God made the proclamation. It doesn't tell us at what point of gestation He said this. It could have easily been within the hour they were conceived. The text doesn't have the clarity necessary to argue that children are born without sin.
What broke you out of Calvinism? I have been there for 8 years but struggling with these beliefs. This interpretation of Roman’s 9 seems valid and harmonious with 2 Peter 3:9 and 1st Tim 2:4. Unlike a Calvinist who is forced to explain away these passages.
@@christopherlampman5579 Lutherans believe you must be baptized to be saved. Work based belief system. Not relying on Christ alone.
@@christopherlampman5579 I would check out John Piper in regard to your problem with those verses. John Piper has a little bit of a different view in regard to limited atonement. He calls it definitive atonement.
You misunderstand what is going on in Baptism, it is God’s work for us rather than a work of human hands. Baptism isn’t a work we as humans do, just like faith and repentance aren’t works that we do that merit salvation. I’m sure you’ll agree that Christ’s finished work on the cross is how we are saved - that doesn’t mean you believe in a works-based salvation, right? Gods work is not man’s work, as it is actually and immutably righteous. Jesus clearly wants us to be baptized as well as believe in order to be saved (Mark 16:16), and Peter clearly ties both repentance and baptism to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). At Jesus’ baptism, was it the work of John the Baptist or of God that caused the Spirit to descend? At Pentecost, was it the work of the Apostles or of God that caused the Spirit to wash over them? We rely on Christ alone, which includes the gifts He has given for us so that we might persevere.
No offense, but I’m guessing from your comments that you are haven’t progressed past the “Cage-stage” and into the nuances of Calvinism. For the record, even the Westminster Confession of Faith ties baptism to a normative means of regeneration (chapter 28, article 1). God isn’t confined to His sacraments and is permitted to work outside of them, but that doesn’t mean He hasn’t left us them as a gift of the normative means of grace to be distributed.
John Piper and others try to distance themselves from “limited” atonement by using “definitive” or “particular.” This doesn’t really change anything other than semantics though, as they all mean the same thing: Christ doesn’t die as a Savior for all people. This of course contradicts the plain reading of 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 4:10, which both have unlimited extent for the atonement. I urge you to read more on the topic from Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike, especially the church fathers and earliest witnesses to the faith.
Excellent as always! I did a pretty extensive overview of Roman 9 and why it teaches that election is inclusive, redemptive and expansive which is the total opposite of what Calvinists teach. If anyone with a theological bent would like to watch and give feedback I'd be truly grateful!
I'll watch it.
Where is it?
24:47 - “So we have to read Paul in light of the Old Testament text, which is making a particular point - which isn’t about these two individuals’ eternal destiny - and in light of Paul’s overall argument, which again, is not one about double predestination.”
25:11 and 25:35 - Paul answering the objection, “that’s not fair”
27:50 - We don’t save ourselves; it’s about God saving us through Christ.
29:17 - Pharaoh’s heart
33:30 - “This doesn’t seem fair.”
34:50 - The clay
To evade what is written malachi 1 like that is quite misleading.
“They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.”
God promised to lay waste to Esau and he chose to do this, as you say, before he was even born. He promised to have indignation forever against Esau and his offspring. Why?
If
Thank you so much for doing this
Thanks for taking the time to do this. I lean towards calvinism. The things you've explained in this video don't seem to contradict calvinism.. It kinda seems like the doctrines of calvinism would be the logical conclusion of all of these points, unless you were to say that God doesn't know the end from the beginning
You can learn towards certain points of Calvinism with Romans 9, but that is not the whole of what scripture has to say on it. You have to abandon it on the point of limited atonement certainly.
@@fujikokun John 17:2 ESV - since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
John 17:9 ESV - I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
does not matter if you believe in predestination or free will, Pre destination is predestination.. Pro orizo in the original greek. it means pre (pro) horizon'd (orizo). pre determined for the light which is Christ. You have been predestined to be conformed to the likeness (image) of Christ through the fiery trail which all partake of if they are born again, to kill the outer man which is the flesh and increase the inner man which is Christ in you the hope of glory. Take up your cross daily and follow Christ, die to self. As John the Baptist said I MUST decrease and He MUST increase. My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.. the Pharisees were told you cant hear me because you are not my sheep. Jacob have I loved but Esau have I Hated Mal 1:2-3 because Esau did not get the Commandments of God. Just like every other person in the world that died outside of Christ, they have been ordained to hell, children of the devil. While the predestined elect have been given grace unto adoption as sons. Never heard of a child determining who adopts them, The Parents choose the child. Noah and the flood is a picture of it only He found grace in the whole world, so is literal Israel who believed, for the unbelieving were killed, and also spiritual Israel the bride of Christ, The Church. "No one can come to the Father except by Me".
I think the only reason that was a "non calvinist" interpretation was because it was done by a Lutheran. I can't see how this is non calvinist otherwise. Though perhaps some calvinist see more of a "double" predestination here, but only to the point of saying what you said: some pots are for dishonorable use, prepared, in part by God through passive judicial hardening, for destruction. Alsl at the end of the day its not possible to believe in "single" predestination since the non elect also have a destination by virtue, in part, of their being non elect). Anyway, the title may work out well as it may draw non calvinist in to hear a great bit of exegesis.😊
John Calvin would agree with you that "the gift of faith takes precedent in believing the reality of the Atonement."
Well done. Thank you.
I think the key passage or word here is “of the same lump”. Meaning God prepares vessels unto mercy in an active work of the Spirit(Rom.8:29) and He prepares vessels of wrath fitted for destruction by just simply leaving them in their sins and letting them self destruct(Hos.4:17 and Rom. 1).
I think you also have to look at Paul’s audience. It’s the ROMANS, Gentile believers. If he was strictly wanting to make a point about the Jews, he would have done this in Hebrews.
There’s no doubt Romans Romans 9 is talking about Election and Predestination. The fact that it uses both Jews(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and Gentiles(Ishmael-indirectly, Esau, Pharaoh) to prove that point should be proof enough. God is talking about a universal work here.
Boat Rockers yes it’s talking about election of course it is... election to SERVICE
@@apilkey Service apart from salvation?
bob polo Scripture is clear that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance.
ROMANS 11:29
29 For the GIFTS and CALLING of God are without repentance.
SALVATION REQUIRES FAITH IN CHRIST.
God elects or chooses unbelievers all the time to accomplish His will.
He arbitrarily chose Jacob so no one could boast.
He wasn’t choosing individuals to salvation, but was choosing THROUGH WHICH individual would CARRY THE PROMISES of God by faith to the rest of the world which eventually would be the INCLUSION of the Gentiles giving them an opportunity as well to be saved.
God’s PURPOSE all along was to use the elect nation of Israel to bring salvation to the Gentiles.
His plan was INCLUSIVE and not exclusive.
Israel was the elect chosen NATION of God.
We see that Israel was the elect nation that God chose to give all of the below to:
The adoption.
The glory.
The covenants.
The giving of the law.
The service of God.
The promises.
The Fathers.
The lineage of Christ:
ROMANS 9:4-5
4 Who are Israelites; TO WHOM PERTAINETH THE ADOPTION, and THE GLORY, and THE COVENANTS, and THE GIVING OF THE LAW, and THE SERVICE OF GOD, and THE PROMISES;
5 Whose are THE FATHERS, and of whom as concerning THE FLESH CHRIST CAME, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
...Again we see they were chosen by God to be given the oracles of God:
ROMANS 3:1,2
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that UNTO THEM WERE COMMITTED THE ORACLES OF GOD.
...And in Acts 10 we also see that similar to Romans 9:4 and Romans 3:2 the WORD was given them to preach peace BY JESUS CHRIST to the entire world.
To preach that Jesus Christ is Lord of ALL and not just that of Israel:
ACTS 10:36,37
36 The WORD which God sent UNTO the children of ISRAEL, PREACHING PEACE by Jesus Christ: (HE IS LORD OF ALL:)
**If we don’t see God’s purpose in election and using the nation of Israel to bring salvation to the Gentiles throughout the scriptures then we don’t see God’s heart throughout the scriptures.
This is the heart of the Gospel that salvation is available to all who believe THROUGH FAITH.
bob polo ...Because God chose Israel for all these tasks and blessings they automatically ASSUMED they all would be saved because they were God’s elect.
This was a false assumption because salvation WASN’T dependent on God choosing them as the elect nation.
It was dependent on FAITH.
Salvation was only to be found by FAITH in Christ.
That’s exactly what the phrase “Not all Israel is Israel” means.
**All physical Israel was NOT all spiritual Israel because some DID NOT BELIEVE.
Salvation came THROUGH FAITH and not election.
That’s the issue the hardened Jew has in Romans 9.
He ASSUMED he was automatically saved because he was part of the elect nation.
Paul explains in Romans that regarding their SALVATION, Israel couldn’t simply rely on being the elect chosen nation of God through whom the saviour would come to all the world and through whom the Gospel would come.
They still had to rely on FAITH.
For only those Israelites who came by the PROMISE were counted as TRUE ISRAEL.
Salvation had to come through Isaac’s seed which represents FAITH because Sarah and Abraham had Isaac in FAITH in their old age.
Isaac represented the seed of PROMISE which was that of FAITH and not of works or the fact they were physically Abraham’s descendants.
God had PROMISED Abraham that he would be the father of many nations and that his descendants would be as the stars in the sky.
Isaac who was conceived in FAITH was the seed that this would happen through.
Not the father of many physical descendants but SPIRITUAL descendants who would be COUNTED AS his descendants THROUGH FAITH.
The elect nation of Israel ASSUMED that because of all of God’s promises to them as a nation that they would all automatically be saved.
They were trusting their physical election as a guarantee of their salvation.
But God is saying no, it’s NOT through the promise of election as a nation that you’ll be saved;
but rather it’s THROUGH THE PROMISE OF THE SEED OF ISAAC that you’ll be saved (FAITH).
If you were just a PHYSICAL descendant but not a spiritual descendant by FAITH then you were still Israel in the physical sense but not “OF ISRAEL” in the spiritual sense through FAITH:
ROMANS 9:6
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For THEY ARE NOT ALL ISRAEL, WHICH ARE OF ISRAEL:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the PROMISE are counted for the seed.
9 FOR THIS IS THE WORD OF PROMISE, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
**You’re not counted as the seed of Abraham simply because you’re a Jew.
You’re only counted IF you BELIEVE which is what the PROMISE is.
Promise of FAITH in Christ which is available to ALL.
Q: What does not all Israel are Israel mean?
A: It means those who DON’T BELIEVE are NOT real Israel!
Only those who obtain it THROUGH FAITH /through the promise are counted as true Israel.
SPIRITUAL circumcision NOT PHYSICAL.
CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART:
ROMANS 2:28,29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But HE IS A JEW, WHICH IS ONE INWARDLY; and CIRCUMCISION IS THAT OF THE HEART, IN THE SPIRIT, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
@@apilkey Oh ok. The gospel is that Jesus died to bring people into service of God apart from salvation. And Paul wished to lose his salvation, so his Jewish brethren can come to serve God apart from salvation. That doesn't make any sense to me, but it is what it is. Thanks
Believing God would create a soul that has no chance of mercy and is predestined for hell obviously has no understanding of God character. It’s unreasonable to believe God in one hand says it’s His Will that all men be saved and the other hand create a hell bound soul without hope. And, what about judgement? What purpose is the judgement seat of Christ of the saved and the purpose of the great white throne judgement of the lost? Pre created for hell and heaven without free will is pointless. There would be no reason for judgement. Lastly, this is the most important and may result in a heaven or hell issue. If souls were created for damnation without hope of salvation and souls are created for salvation without choice. What is the purpose of the cross? If you know and understand why Jesus died on the cross then you would know and understand that pre creating souls for salvation and damnation without free will is impossible. May God have mercy! Without free will even the statement I made “May God have mercy” is also pointless.
The problem you’ll find with this statement is your conception of free will comes from secular philosophy more than Biblical theology. It conceives God as a mere agent inside the created order, even if the most powerful one. Christian theology says that God is the most fundamental aspect of reality, more than space, time or anything else needed to make something like our free will function.
it says is there injustice with God not unfair two different meanings i would think
So you do see the teaching of single predestination in this, right? I don't really know another way of having the doctrine of election that still works with the text.
Yes.
@@DrJordanBCooper how is single predestination valid but not double? In the "hands off approach" doesn't choosing some for salvation automatically leave others to destruction? I haven't been able to harmonize what people mean by validating single predestination but not double.
32:41 bookmark
Was this Luther's view?
It's hard to know. He wrote his Romans commentary before the Reformation. Lutherans don't follow Luther in all things. Rather a man may not become a Lutheran pastor unless he fully confesses the Confessions of the Book of Concord.
@@Mygoalwogel
Luther wrote his Romans commentary when he was still a Roman Catholic?
@@billyr9162 He presented the lectures on Romans over two semesters from 1515-1516. The 95 Theses were 1517.
@@Mygoalwogel
Ok
No. Here´s what Luther wrote in the preface to Romans in 1545: "In chapters 9, 10 and 11, St. Paul teaches us about the eternal providence of God. It is the original source which determines who would believe and who wouldn't, who can be set free from sin and who cannot. Such matters have been taken out of our hands and are put into God's hands so that we might become virtuous. It is absolutely necessary that it be so, for we are so weak and unsure of ourselves that, if it depended on us, no human being would be saved. The devil would overpower all of us. But God is steadfast; his providence will not fail, and no one can prevent its realization. Therefore we have hope against sin."
Mercy on all - is not a reference to universal grace as in all without exception but mercy on both groups of people; Jew and Gentile
1 Tim. 4:10, "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."
1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world
God give poeple a chance to change. Ie cain. The will of God was for his conformity. But he refused and followed his own lower nature..
Paul’s argument. Romans 8 says all the elect are saved. Not all the jews are coming to faith. Paul explains that not all Israel is Israel. Gods choice of who is saved.
You left the text and you left Paul’s argument. Paul’s argument of choice but yet you left the argument and ran to OT. Paul’s a Ruben to is about Gods choice in these choice.
This is what the non-Reformed do. They rarely stick to the passage in front of them and find solace in other areas of the text.
As a FORMER Lutheran I recommend absolutely NOTHING from Luther. He and Calvin were STILL catholic at heart
Just wanted to point out that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart first (Ex. 4:21). The text indicates that this was something God did and as a result, Pharaoh would not let the people go. This fits more comfortably with the Romans 9:18 text in that God determines what he will do with his creation.
Nope. It says, "I will hardent his heart וְלֹ֖א (wə·lō) he will not let the people go." Even in this verse, a frequent translation is "...heart *and* he..." ( biblehub.com/exodus/4-21.htm )
"wə·lō" does not always nor even usually mean "so that." ( biblehub.com/hebrew/velo_3808.htm )
I'm quoting @K GB, who commented below as follows:
The sequence of the hardening of Pharaohs heart in Exodus. It’s the textbook example of judicial hardening:
Blood: Pharaoh’s heart “became hard” (7:22)
Frogs: Pharaoh “hardened his own heart” (8:15)
Gnats: Pharaoh’s heart “was hard” (8:19)
Flies: “Pharaoh hardened his own heart” (8:32)
Livestock die: Pharaoh’s heart “was hard” (9:7)
Boils: “The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (9:12)
Hail: Pharaoh “hardened his own heart” (9:34)
Locusts: God announces that he has “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (10:1,10:20)
Darkness: God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (10:27)
Death of the firstborn: God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (11:10)
My argument was that God told Moses what was going to happen to Pharaoh prior to any information given in the text about Pharaoh. In other words, this was something that Yahweh was going to do in order to accomplish his purposes. I believe this is confirmed in Romans 9:17-18, which is what I was initially pushing back on in the first place.
@@yohanmcglashan7592 What you said was, "The text indicates that this was something God did and as a result." Wə·lō doesn't need to mean "so that." What evidence have you for your assertion?
"God told Moses what was going to happen" - This indicates foreknowledge which even Calvinists distinguish from predestination.
In the video, Dr. Cooper already explained Romans 9:17-18. How do you think you've refuted what he said?
What, syntactically, leads you to believe that “so that” doesn’t mean what it is saying? It seems like your just providing the semantical range for what the phrase could mean. But that has to be done contextually. My point was that the reason Pharaoh would not let the people go is because God hardened his heart. Dr. Cooper paints the picture as though Pharaoh hardened his heart and then God somehow used that to his advantage. However, the text does not seem to indicate this.
@@yohanmcglashan7592 If God caused pharaoh to sin as you suggest you are saying that God causes sin.
You're a Disney Star Wars fan????? Don't make me unsubscribe!! :(
No. I'm an Expanded Universe fan.
@@DrJordanBCooper rofl, that is really good to hear. The EU is awesome.
Pr. Cooper I think that vessels of wrath or mercy doesn't refer to the whole humanity being divided into one or the other category, but that some individuals are vessels of wrath like pharaoh was and not all of Egyptians together with him
Why on earth is this called "A Non-Calvinistic Interpretation"? It's identical to an infralapsarian interpretation. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Calvinists would agree with everything here!
Infralapsarianism is the Lutheran view, as far as I know. Supralapsarianism is the Reformed Calvinist view. The logic for me is that, yes, the unsaved are prepared for destruction by their own depravity, but God is sovereign over all things and therefore it is God's decision that their depravity would direct them that way. The Lutheran view, though, would seem to say that God makes no such decision against the non-elect. They leave it up to mystery.
@@ethanhocking8229None of the Reformed confessions explicitly affirm Supralapsarianism to my knowledge. Most are quite comfortably infra and at best allow for a supra view.
When Paul says not all who descend from Israel are Israel it shatters all the false ideas of the prophets testimonies in OT scripture concerning Israel. The idea that the restoration of Israel is a physical one in reference to the nation Israel is false and here is where Paul destroys that concept. Even in OT prophesy the mention of Israel is a mention of God rescuing both believing Jew and believing gentiles who put their hope in Christ.
Romans 11:33---- unsearchable, beyond searching out.
The Martas Reformers love to quote Romans 11:33 when they can’t answer their illogical fallacies based on the word of God.
ROMANS 11:33
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
The judgements and ways of God that are past finding out are the ones He chooses to keep secret.
That which is REVEALED to us however is revealed specifically so we CAN know.
God has clearly revealed His WORD to us that we MAY DO IT.
We can’t claim mystery in God’s word where it’s been clearly revealed.
We can’t quote that verse as some sort of cop-out every time we face a scripture that disproves our doctrine and we can’t explain why so we claim mystery instead.
Some things remain a secret but His Word is not one of them because HE’S GIVEN IT TO US.
WE HAVE IT.
I can pick it up in my hands it’s not hidden from me it’s been REVEALED to me that I can study it.
************************************
... According to Deuteronomy 29:29 the things that have been revealed belong to us as God has given them to us and NOT kept them secret or hidden:
DEUTERONOMY 29:29
29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: BUT THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REVEALED BELONG UNTO US and to our children for ever, THAT WE MAY DO ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW.
@@apilkey yes I agree with you. But Paul in this section of scripture does not and neither do I as Romans 11:33 reveals. Paul understands to an extent what God has done in time but doesn’t as neither can we from back in eternity.
@@villarrealmarta6103 Romans 11:33 is not talking about Romans 9.
@@apilkey actually yes it is taking about Roman’s 9-11 and going into 12
@@villarrealmarta6103 Romans 11:33 is not saying Romans 9 is unsearchable and past finding out.
Very disappointing. I had hoped to hear a cogent argument for Arminianism, not the same tedious arguments for why scripture doesn’t mean what it says. But, congratulations. You get the gold medal for eisegetic gymnastics.
Thanks for this.
I learned something.
Romans 9 needs to be understood in relation to the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13.
The elect are chosen by God, whereas the tares are planted by Satan.
The entire crop is weeds until God makes us wheat.
So, the question the harvest needs to ask ourselves is this: How shall we grow?
btw, Dr. Peterson,
It is inappropriate for you to introduce yourself as a "pastor". Dr. is fine. Professor is fine. But you're not the called shepherd of a congregation. So, it is improper for you to call yourself "Pastor," as you did at the 14 second mark.
www.faithlutheranwatseka.com/our-pastor.html Hard to believe anyone could work so hard and so smart at the same time.
I can't agree with your interpretation of Romans 9. I agree with Luther's interpretation in The Bondage of the Will. In that book he argues, and backs it up with Scripture including Romans 9, that God predestines all things. He writes in the conclusion of his book:
“I will here bring this little book to an end, though I am prepared if need be to carry the debate farther. However, I think quite enough has been done here to satisfy the godly and anyone who is willing to admit the truth without being obstinate. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature.” page 293, The Bondage of the Will, Luther's Works, Vol 33.
It's amazing that Lutherans either can't see that Luther taught double predestination or alternatively aren't willing to admit it.
Amen brother.
@@davidcastro253 Perhaps I should mention that I'm not a Calvinist. I don't agree with limited atonement for instance. I agree with nearly all the Lutheran confessions in the Book of Concord. It's only the Formula of Concord I have a problem with, which was composed after Luther's death. If you're acquainted with the Formula you'll be aware that it specifically rules out double predestination and opts for only predestination to heaven. I can't agree however that this is truly Scriptural, so whilst I'm not a Calvinist, despite agreeing with double predestination, I'm not a Lutheran either according to confessional Lutherans.
@@Edward-ng8oo Have you done a non bias study of Calvinism?
@@davidcastro253 Yes I've read Calvinist authors but can't agree for instance with OSAS. I think Calvinism tries to interpret Scripture to fit into a logical system which isn't actually there in Scripture. Whilst I accept that the Bible doesn't teach contradictory things as found in the Lutheran teaching on predestination, I don't agree with the strictly rationalistic approach found in Calvinism.
@@Edward-ng8oo that is interesting, it seems to me that if in fact Romans 9 teaches double predestination, which I believe it does, then logically those who are predestined to eternal life will believe and undoubtedly persevere to the end, don't you think?
Also how do you interpret Rom 8:30 where Paul says that all those who are justified will be glorified?
Or how do you interpret John 10:27-28 where Jesus himself says that He gives his own eternal life and that they will never perish.
Key words "never perish".
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."
John 10:27-28
I know that there are other text that are ambiguous and that seem to imply that a person can lose their salvation but we must interpret those text in light of the clear statements of Jesus and Paul.
True Israel are those natural Jews who have true faith, not just anyone who has true faith. IMHO
Very interesting. I lean towards Lutheran soteriology but am not committed to it.
It seems that Romans 9 naturally leans towards the Calvinist position (consider Jacob and Esau being their mothers womb), and I'm suspicious of the national interpretation.
But, it cuts both ways!
The Calvinist interpretation of 1 John 2:1 to get limited atonment does the same thing, except with less context that would excuse a national reading.
Which leaves me leaning towards pleading mystery and trust in the simple reading of scripture, which I guess points me towards Lutheranism or maybe 4 point Calvinism.
Luther Kramer Calvin helldevioud and a hundred more, I would rather listen to Jesus Christ and his first Christian church.. protestantism has had 75,000 different denominations since the beginning who you going to believe, who are you going to follow, which Protestant man in his private interpretation of the holy book..
What you are saying is that Pharaoh was hardened by God because he was wicked. Newsflash, we're all wicked. You just read this from Romans 3. Hope you don't think you are any better than Pharaoh! Also, God does not need to "bring in sin" or whatever you said. It's already there.
Assuming you believe in total depravity, which the vast majority of Christians don't.
That's right, our flesh really likes the idea that we have a heart of gold somewhere in there.
Pharaoh consciously rejected God several times.
@@kjb1547 Yes, God says he hardened his heart.
Martin Kantola The narrative directly in the Bible shows Pharaoh consistently hardening his heart in rebellion to the point where God finally did it Himself once and for all. It wasn’t an arbitrary hardening.
Nice one. But according to exodus 4:21 God who harden pharaoh's heart first. And roman 9:17 God even said to pharaoh for this purpose i raised you up, that i may show my power in you. Its clear to me that he is prepared beforehand. Not as you said. What u said was pharaoh harden first. Not really. GOD who raised him to be like that.
An extremely superficial view of the gospel, is to assume God predestined Pharoah to eternal damnation. Is it possible that God loved pharaoh also? Is it possible that if Pharoah repented God would also have accepted him!?
The reality is that God moves in and through the fee will choice that makes each man human. God gave Pharoah up to his own stubborn hard heartedness
@@SheepDog1974 where it’s says God gave up his own stubborn hard heartedness? Show me please.
Where in the Bible it’s say God loved Pharaoh?
According to scriptures pharaoh not able to repent because he was prepared for destruction beforehand.
I don’t believe man will is free from God. Man will is under God authority that’s how God accomplishes His purpose through Man wills. Man will not that superior, It’s under God. God is still in control over all creatures. Otherwise God is not Almighty.
@@suganemmenaul I have posed hypothetical questions, right!
Pharoah has his own mind and his own will, it's for this reason that he slayed every first born male, enslaved the Israelites and refused them freedom.
The apostle Paul speaks of this type of person in Romans 1:24-25.
If we rationalize your way of thinking, then God predestined Pharoah for eternal damnation along with all the Israelites who disobeyed and went their own way.
Does this sound like a merciful God, patient and abounding in love? Or your idea of God make him out to be an arbitrator of evil ?
@@SheepDog1974 I’m not here to refuting human logic. You’re coming up with your own logic.
We should see what scripture says about pharaoh and God’s will towards Him.
What promise God gave to Abraham in Genesis 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
Genesis 15:14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
Genesis 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
God already said in Genesis He will judge Egypt for what they will do to His people. Then how can they including pharaoh repent and turn to God?
If God knew already what He is going to do to pharaoh and Egypt why do you think God have to be patient, and in love,?
@@suganemmenaul You are now distinguishing between God's foreknowledge (omniscience) and his predestined decretive will.
You make the assumption that God predetermined the events of Egypt/Pharoah - instead of understanding that in God's foreknowledge he spoke those promises to Abraham.
You see God as an evil task master, predetermining evil.
I see God as a loving father that disciplines according to his people's affection, faithfulness and obedience to Him. No logic required. Just a biblical perspective.
Romans 9:18-23 ESV
[18] So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. [19] You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [20] But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" [21] Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? [22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-
The Lutheran interpretation that verse 22 is to be understood as meaning that the vessels of wrath prepare themselves for destruction doesn't fit with the rest of Paul's narrative. There's a continuity between the pots made for dishonourable purposes, which are molded and fashioned by the potter who represents God, and the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. They both refer to the same thing, namely those who will be damned, so it's untenable to claim that the vessels of wrath are that way because they've made themselves fit for destruction when in the previous verse it is clearly stated that the potter himself has made these pots for dishonourable purposes. It is therefore proven that God prepares these vessels of wrath for destruction.
It's undeniable that Paul is teaching double predestination in verses 9:18-23.
Thanks be to God, that after many works based religions I can enjoy the awesome power of a sovereign God.
Hey Edward, I like your thinking here and I'm struggling through these things as well. Two things - I think Luther would admit that God's sovereign will is controlling salvation, but he would say that these things belong to the 'hiddenness of God' and should not be dug too deeply into. Rather, we should flee to the 'revealed God' which is Christ on the cross, revealed in the Word and the Sacrament for our benefit.
In other words, we should not make sure and fast doctrinal statements about the mysterious will of God. Rather, we should make sure and fast doctrinal statements based on what Christ as said and done. And where salvation may surely be found - through preaching and faith (romans 10).
The other challenge I have to a double - predestination reading of Romans 9 is that Paul is speaking hypothetically: "Wouldn't God be able to do this if he wanted to?" and "Who would say anything against him if he did?" In order to undermine the idea of righteousness through the Law. This is much like the way that God speaks to Job in the climax of that book. It's not saying that God is necessarily doing these things, but it would be within His authority to do so if He wished. But is He? Well, he did this to Pharaoh after Pharaoh refused His warning. Was this his plan? yep. Does God always do this? Who knows. What we do know? God desires all to be saved.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
@@TimeoTheos Hi Tim, I don't know whether you've read Luther's book The Bondage of the Will but if you haven't I can recommend it. It's a difficult read in places but it's inescapable that Luther taught predestination to both heaven and hell in it. Unfortunately however the Formula of Concord didn't follow Luther in agreeing to this and introduced the unscriptural idea that predestination is only a one-sided affair with God only having predestined people to heaven. So those who are influenced by this understand Luther, when he cautioned about not delving into the subject of predestination, as meaning that one shouldn't conclude from the fact that God predestines only some people to be saved that He also predestines the rest to be damned. However this wasn't Luther's meaning at all. What he meant was that since it's impossible to know who God has predestined to be saved and damned other than through our faith in Christ or the lack of it, we shouldn't try to approach God in his Majesty, or the hidden God, to try and discover this there as it will only cause us to be overwhelmed.
Luther had this to say in The Bondage of the Will about the necessity of faith in accepting that God is merciful and just despite the fact that He has predestined some to be damned: "This is the highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love. If, then, I could by any means comprehend how God can be merciful and just who displays so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith. As it is, since that can't be comprehended, there is room for the exercise of faith when such things are preached and published….." (pages 62,63 Luther's Works Vol. 33)
Now contrast what Luther says here with the teaching of predestination and grace in the Formula of Concord. In the latter God doesn't predestine anyone to be damned or deny them grace but tries to save everyone, so therefore he appears merciful and just without the need for faith to believe this. The Formula's teaching is simply human teaching which, when affronted by the apparent injustice of God in predestining people to hell, runs in the opposite direction and concludes that God hasn't predestined anyone to be damned.
@@TimeoTheos If I may copy and paste a reply I gave to another video: The difficulty that Scripture presents is that there's a conflict between on the one hand God electing to save only some people and not everyone, and on the other hand His desire to save all through Christ. The way that Luther approached this was to make a distinction between God's revealed will which desires to remove sin from everyone through the Gospel, and His hidden will through which He ordains that only some will believe the Gospel and so be saved. This I believe is correct because it allows for the fact that God both determines everyone's fate through double predestination as in Romans 9, and yet seeks to save everyone through Christ as found in for instance John 3:16,17.
The way that the Formula of Concord approached this was to say that although God elected and predestined only some to be saved, those who aren't chosen to be saved, aren't predestined to be damned, but are alone responsible for their damnation because God tries to convert everyone equally. It doesn't need saying of course that this is illogical. However unfortunately those who believe this don't think that the logical contradictions involved rule it out as untrue.
So I'm convinced that the Formula's doctrine of universal grace and no predestination to hell is incorrect and unscriptural. I’ve been convinced that grace is particular in that the Holy Spirit doesn't try to convert everyone but rather irresistibly converts mainly the elect, and that God predestines people to both heaven and hell.
@@TimeoTheos It occurred to me that I might be misusing the terms universal and particular grace. Since I believe in universal atonement in that everyone's sins have been atoned for through Christ's death and no-one is excluded from the offer of forgiveness through the Gospel, then in that sense I believe in universal grace. Where I differ from Lutherans who follow the Formula is that I don't accept that the Holy Spirit is always active in the Word so that everyone is capable of being converted as long as they don’t resist. It's also plain to me that Luther didn't believe this either. What I believe is that the Spirit is only sent to those who are recipients of God's mercy (Romans 9:18) and since we are through original sin God's enemies it takes an irresistible regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit for anyone to be capable of believing the Gospel in order to be saved. So in that sense I believe grace is particular. But since I don't believe in limited atonement like Calvinists who think that Christ's death was only applicable to the elect perhaps I shouldn't describe my position as believing in particular grace. I'm unsure.
Esau was not saved, Hebrews 12:14-17.
It says he couldn't get the inheritance blessing back. It doesn't say he was unsaved.
@@Mygoalwogel Specifically it says he found no place of repentance even though he sought it with tears. But whose repentance? Isaac's - the blessing had gone to Jacob. Isaac was not going to repent of this. The author of Hebrews is instructing the Christian Jews not to be bitter, like Esau, that the gospel had now gone to the gentiles.
Alert!!!! Good exegesis, he starts by Romans 1. Ty pastor!
Virtually no one knows exactly why Paul quoted Malachi
This guy doesn't have a clue, it appears.
what did Abraham believe in Genesis chapter 9v6, now look and at Romans chapter 4v17-24-25, does this not teach, justification is by Christ's resurrection, in contrast to Romans chapter 5v9, justification by blood, ie Christ death, now in Genesis 12v1-3, then in Acts chapter 7v2 the God of Glory appeared unto our father Abraham, the in Hebrews chapter 11v8, By faith, Abraham, when he was called to go out to the place that He would afterwards receive for an inheritance, obeyed, so the bible teaches that Abraham believed God and obeyed God, before Genesis chapter 15v6.
So was Abraham going to hell as a depraved sinner before he was justified in Genesis chapter 15v6 , read your bible and rethink your theology
I can't believe that there are people who actually read scripture and believe in predestination.
Yes there are a couple of scriptures that indicates some form of predestination, but almost everything else in there is an admonition to make the right choices in life. If your destiny was chosen for you before you were even born, there is no Christian struggle
Repentance is meaningless.
You should show the evidences of your interpretations else those were your personnal views. You are making paul crazy for writting rom 9 to the gentile romans when has nothing to do in entering heaven.
3:58
Romans 9 is misinterpreted by Lutherans. Paul argues that people's eternal destinies are decided by God before they're born and that God's mercy and hardening in unbelief occurs not in response to anything they've done but solely due to God's will. Paul's introduction of those who question God's right to hold people responsible for their unbelief (You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 9:19 ESV) shows this is what Paul is teaching. If, as Lutherans assert, God hardens in unbelief those who have deserved it through resisting the Holy Spirit's regeneration, there would be no reason for anyone to object to God finding fault for their unbelief on the grounds that God’s will can't be resisted. This objection only makes sense in the context of God having hardened people simply because he willed to do so, not because they deserved to be hardened in unbelief because of something they'd done.
Also Paul argues that God is like a potter who makes both sorts of pots from the same lump of clay. He makes both attractive vases for posterity and chamber pots for destruction from the same lump. So just as the vases didn't deserve to be made as if they were formed from superior clay (i.e. those saved don't deserve to be saved by anything they've previously done) so the chamber pots didn't deserve to be made because they were formed from inferior clay (i.e. those hardened in unbelief don't deserve to be hardened because they've resisted regeneration)
The point is just as clay is molded into shape according to the will of the potter so people are saved and damned simply according to what God wills from eternity before they are born. The Lutheran teaching that people are damned because they've deserved it through resisting the Spirit's regeneration doesn't fit Paul's analogy of the potter and the pots. It's the potter that alone decides what he's going to make. The pots have no say in the matter.
The Lutheran interpretation of Romans 9:22: (i.e. What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, ESV) doesn't follow from Paul's analogy of the potter. Lutherans argue that if God had predestined people to be damned he wouldn't need to endure them with a lot of patience. But this interpretation doesn't follow from what Paul has previously said. Paul has just made the analogy that God is like a potter who from the same lump makes not only the vessels of honour but also the vessels of dishonour, which proves that God has hardened them in unbelief simply because he willed to do so, not because they deserved it. So God willed their damnation before they were born, and now in time he endures them because of their unbelief, which God elects not to change but to harden them in.
So Paul is definitely teaching predestination to both heaven and hell in Romans 9. The Lutheran interpretation that Paul is teaching only predestination to heaven doesn’t fit into what he says and therefore is a misinterpretation.
Edward
The objectors who say “why does he yet find fault” are the Jews who were hardened. Compare Rom 11 with Rom 9 and look at the introduction to Rom 9 in the first few passages of the chapter. Paul is speaking about who Israel is. It’s not about who your daddy was or how well you’ve kept the law. God is having mercy on those who have faith and the rest of Israel was hardened so that His mercy would be shown to the rest of the world.
It seems like you’ve completely missed chapter 10. If you’re right about chapter 9 then Paul is contradicting himself in the next couple of chapters.
God bless.
@@evanu6579 I don't agree with your interpretation. The point that Paul was making in Romans 9 is that God's mercy isn't based on foreseen faith, as if he's looked down the corridors of time and seen who would choose to believe in him through their own free will, but rather is based on God's choice of those whom he wishes to show mercy to, or contrariwise to harden, before they're born i.e. in eternity. So election to salvation or damnation is unconditional and not based on anything that people do in time, as if they were autonomous creatures who can act independently from God's purposes and predestination.
I don't see chapter 10 as contradicting this. Paul explains that those who are chosen by God to be saved aren't justified through the Law but rather through faith in Christ, but that the Jews on the whole haven't believed in Christ. Then in chapter 11 Paul asserts that those whom God had elected to be saved, but haven't yet come to faith, haven't been rejected by God ("God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." Romans 11:2 ESV). When Paul says "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:25-26) he's referring only to those Jews who have been elected by God to be saved. (i.e. Romans 9:6 “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”). Consequently when he says: "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all." (Romans 11:32), he's referring only to those, whether Jew or Gentile, who are members of God's elect.
To reach the conclusion that God has mercy on everyone in the world would contradict God's eternal election of those he wills to have mercy upon, and those he wills to harden, as Paul outlined in chapter 9.
Edward
God wills to have mercy on those who exercise faith. That’s what Paul is saying in Rom 9. God can have mercy according to whatever means He chooses. God chose not to be merciful to those who sought favour through keeping the law.
Rom 9: 30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
When Paul mentions that not all Israel is of Israel, he concludes who Israel is and his conclusion is all about faith.....
Rom 9: 6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 11: 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
If they were chosen to be saved from the beginning of time, it wouldn’t make much sense for people to be cut off from the Holy tree. No one would be grafted in at the point of believing either. It would all have been decided long ago.
Rom 11: 30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
God is playing upon their emotions to get them to believe. He’s using jealousy to stir up belief in them. If man is incapable of believing and must be given irresistible grace to do so, then what good would jealousy do? What role does man’s emotions have to do with whether or not God decides to give them irresistible grace and how is the election unconditional if they must first become jealous if becoming jealous is the condition for God to give them grace?
@@evanu6579 As someone who agrees with Luther that the Scriptures teach absolute predestination because God is omnipotent and omniscient, and everything must happen according to how he has willed and foreknown from eternity, I don't agree with your arguments in favour of free will. Romans 11:4-6 states
But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. (ESV)
If people had the capacity to choose to believe in Christ by exercising their own free will they would be saving themselves by a human work. Faith would be an accomplishment of man. Faith however is a gift from God created in us by the Holy Spirit who regenerates those who have been elected in eternity to be saved. That's what Paul is teaching in Romans 9 and 11
The idea that people have the ability to believe in Christ if they want to, isn't taught in Scripture. It's merely an inference attached to those Scripture verses which call for faith in order to be saved. Ephesians 2:1-5 makes it clear that we're spiritually dead and unable to come to faith by ourselves, and that we need God to give us faith if we're going to be saved:
"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved -"
Edward
Eph 2 doesn’t say that spiritual death means incapable of believing.
Why don’t you explain to me what you believe regeneration and how it is accomplished by God (an outward work of the Spirit or the indwelling or some other means)
Thanks and God bless
I love you Jordan as@brother. But you got this one wrong.
You definitely don't love someone you watch on the internet as a brother. Or maybe you actually have a biological brother who you only see on his RUclips channel. Regardless, your first sentence is at best suspicious. Why should Dr. Cooper or anyone believe your second sentence?
Mygoalwogel because election is a true and valid doctrine in the Bible. Your right about the brother comment, the more videos I watch of this man, the more I doubt wether he is a brother or not. I hope he is!
The exchange between Gods little man and mygoalwogel is one of the funniest things I’ve seen on RUclips. Can’t make this stuff up
The seeds of woman and serpent would teach two separate bodies
One for salvation and one for damnation
Jn8v44 jesus recognised the serpents brood and john baptist
O brood of vipers!
it is about the election of Israel.
He's so far off, it really isn't funny!
Calvinism accidentally turns the faith into a science
How about you stop interpreting the Bible and actually define your words in old testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek please stop your ignorance!
this guy proves the spiritual blindness and deadness of all who seek to APPORVE THEMSELVES by "STUDY" and deny the clear WORD of the ONLY HOLY KJB.
"For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth."
"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.""And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."
and those with sight, by far the minority, no surprise...
God's longsuffering is NOT for the wicked but so that His Children may be tried and proven by the wicked. the WICKED are prepared for destruction is clear and plain, he does try and TWIST IT.""For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the SONS OF GOD!!! For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, ... Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation GROANETH and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves GROAN within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
-- Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with GRAONINGS which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did (FOREKNOW)!!! HE also did (PREDESTINATE)!!! to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?"
If you say Romans 9:11 Predestination is inaccurate, where humans DO have free will, then you're saying your god infact doesn't know all things before they happen, correct ? Is your god all knowing or not ? If he is, then surely he knew your predestination, correct or not ?