Discussing Romans 9 from a Traditionalist's Perspective

alright welcome to sociology 101 where we are talking about Romans chapter 9 from a traditionalist perspective and when I say traditional is perspective just like Calvinists and Armenians have various perspectives within their own group there are also various perspectives within Calvinism as well as well as within traditionalism and so there's several different kinds of traditionalists just like there are different kinds of Calvinists or Arminians and so I'm not trying to say that I represent every kind of traditionalist or every you know reprobation of every traditionalist sometimes we vary on various verses and push back on each other just like any other group would but johnny is with us right now and he he was written some commentary over romans 9 and he has to leave us and so I thought if I could unmute Johnny here a muted you because you had some background noise there and now I'm trying to unmute you and for some reason I can't Johnny you might be able to unmute yourself I don't know I don't know why I won't let me anyway there you go okay Johnny jump in and give us some your feedback for what you've been learning over Romans 9 in your studies recently basically honestly the company's perspective of Romans is more the holistic understanding and I guess the election of salvation when it comes to Esau and Jacob but the way I read it is that we've no the man's free but God is sovereign now I think when people talk about sovereignty they tend to inflate that to mean divine determinism that you must determine everything determine the truth value of the cat faster the creative freedom in order for him to be sovereign I don't think that's the case but in saying that if we look at it we see the reason why God chose of remnants for the seed to come through so if I were to briefly go through initially we see Romans 9:5 where he says Christ is God you know I think none of us is disputed but then it's odd because before the in Romans 9 4 he gives all the promises and Covenants and that's not given to individuals it given to the to Israel so it's talked about a corporate thing now of course he does go to singularities of individuals Abraham Rebecca we have to see why he does that I see in a sense that in Isaac shall thy seed be called a phone to crisis through the line of Isaac now to the Jewish mind they thought he's going to us whites it's through Isaac in the sense that I in issue in it Abraham was married to Sarah he couldn't have a kid and God told him that will only give you a kid and you basically wait but Abraham took into their hands and went to her garden had a kid and in his own works the whole point is if God promises to do something you let him do it whenever he feels free to do so so I'm just trying to go through on so he wants a Jacob I love me so I hated it's not to let to sell salvific is he took an idiom Jewish idiom referring to a preference over a covenant to love but in saying that if he's not God is not unrighteous but it's not like he's hating someone now for my perspective is very briefly though God loves someone just cause he hates someone he can love and hate at the same time the opposite of P is not P so God does love everyone just cause he hates someone doesn't automatically mean he does not love them now when we go gives information regards to Moses I have no certain mummy let me interrupt you on that one Johnny because some people might think that just sounds like plain contradiction to say that that he can love and hate someone at the same time but even within the Calvinist worldview I think it should be pointed out that the elect of God according to Calvinist are born under his wrath or his hatred and therefore they would be both loved and hated in the same sense that we would say that one can both be loved and hated at the exact same time and so even within the Calvinistic worldview if he's being objective he has to recognize there is a sense in which you can be under the condemnation or the wrath of God his hatred his curse yet at the same time still be desired by God to come to salvation obviously for the Calvinist that would be an effectual desire that would be irresistible II applied at the point that he chose to apply it but for us it would be when someone freely responds in faith either way both sides have that both hated and loved at the same time kind of concept so I just wanted to throw that in there kind of back up what you're saying but go ahead sorry you know absolutely.i hansen agree and the issue is that opposite of love is not hate so it's there's no logical contradiction saying you hate someone but you love them at the same time the opposite of love is not love and god does not love individuals he loves them all although he does a hole it has hate he uses a strong terminology but nonetheless it is our love and we got to also remember that God is love 1 John 4:8 so if God were to love he'd have to perform an act of not loving that's inconsistent is nature and that's a logical contradiction you can't do that and if one wants to concede that he can then absurd he's come about that he can sin we know you cannot sin it can create a square so we can't do anything that's logically impossible now regards the Harding process oka thorough work before we do not before you jump to the next one I wanted to come in on that a little bit because I think it's a really valid point that you're talking about as how God cannot cannot not love I mean he can't he cannot be unloving he his nature is that he is love and even even within the human perspective we would even say that it would be monstrous for for parents to to conceive a child and then not to love that child it would be even monstrous even even lesser than that to to buy a puppy and to not at least care for and want the best for that puppy and that's just a dog in other words even from our vantage point and though I'm not be accused of being humanistic here putting a standard to God but I'm actually not using just a human standard I'm using a using a biblical standard of how we're to treat one another according to scripture and according to scripture God loves because he is love it's his nature so he cannot he cannot be unloving he cannot create something out he does have some people say well you're you're limiting God's ability by saying that he he can't do something well ultimately just like you said you can also say what God can't lie he can't go against his character he can't go against his nature and and if his nature is that of a loving God his choice to create now once choosing to create he can choose to create or not create but once chosen to create he cannot but love that which he is created according to our perspective and so I think that's a really valid point that can't be overlooked you can't just assume that God can go against his character by being unloving towards the mass of humanity go ahead I'm sorry yeah exactly now i perfectly agree and what's odd is that in Matthew 5:48 it says big you're perfect therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect now in the context as I'll talk about perfectly sinful sinlessness is talking about the love of course if God's me to be perfect yet if I ought to love an enemy let's say that enemy is an otter left or ever be if I have to love him but God is allowed not to love that person then that means I have a higher standard than God now of course that's preposterous God ought to have the high sense which he abides by he is the standard is no ascended above God there's no same thing that he looks to he is the standard so unless God can basically if he is the standard he's going against himself II I have two parties then it doesn't make any sense so that that's all quite odd with women she loves the perfect or loving God and he can choose not to for whatever reason right and I would even joke I would even add to that as far as Christ is concerned for him to be the fulfillment of the law he had to do what the law demands and the law demands that we love our enemies and therefore if Jesus did not love all of his enemies then he would not meet the demands of the law and he would not be qualified to be the sacrificial son of God and therefore he could not have stood in as our sacrifice if he did not love all people and therefore I really do think it's that's a really important point because you would ultimately have to have a separation of the nature of God in the nature of Christ if Christ is loving everyone and God isn't loving everyone or that somehow Jesus has to change is ISM his amount of love for people once he leaves his incarnate state state goes back to his right hand with the father that somehow he stops loving his enemies so I I just don't think you can make a sound case for the fact that Jesus Christ didn't self sacrificially love all of humanity even those who end up dying in perdition go ahead and on that point it says he 1 John 5 could be wrong but I see the greatest love you can show someone is laying your life down for your friends now if someone wants to look at that and say well it's only the friends in whom you die for then that's quite odd because that means love is only limited to the friendship factor and then we shouldn't love a enemies anyway but if Christ did die for only the elect unless there's only six ten people in the whole world he died for six and if I were to lay my diet lay my life for say the seventh person to whom he did not die I have just laid my diet life down for someone to him Christ did not therefore showing greater love theywill Christ it which makes no sense now going back to Romans not to love that which an epoch I'm just going to keep interrupting you on occasion just because I want to really emphasize a point that has to do with Romans nine because what you just summarized there I think is a real good introduction to Romans 1 through Romans 9 133 where Paul expressing at what Moses does later a is a self sacrificial love not just a not just a general common love as some people like to distinguish but a self sacrificial of in other words I'm willing to give up myself for those people and the five-point Calvinist would have to conclude that ultimately Paul is more self sacrificial loving than the one who's inspiring him to write those words and that somehow Paul's well willing to give up himself is is higher and better and more self sacrificial than even Jesus Christ which i think is a huge bar for them to try to reach in their interpretation of Romans nine once you set up the fact that Paul himself is willing to self sacrificial II give himself up for the hardened Jew whereas supposedly in the Calvinistic fight what Calvinistic world view christ was not lucky i adams did agree and I was gay that's a good point of regards to appalled offering yourself he'll make himself another mark basically to be cursed for those who have rejected Christ which makes no sense if Christ wouldn't even do it for himself but even if we go back to Pharaoh I know this is a big contention where they say well very hard in his own hardened is up to him but in a sense it makes no sense if you say if it was up to him according to compatible listing you know the viewpoint nas listen to podcasts we've got the Braxtons hunter even though we want to do something the reason why we want to do something could go ahead tell me that once and I make snow saying I can't want to want to do otherwise if God wants me to do to walk down the road my one will be in that direction for example I could not want to do otherwise anyway and I'll no clear actor too otherwise and we Furr there's ten plagues that happened now the first five times Pharaoh hardened his own heart or his heart hardens his own heart and it's gone on to the sixth time when the boy was coming Exodus nine eight to twelve that's when God steps in now it's quite odd if God hardening every single time in an active way not a passive way then why would the change even be made on the sixth time his God hardened but before there was Pharaoh's heart hardened or you know whatever it may be so that's the quite odd nature in our answer then what was the seventh time he hardened again yeah Kevin Kevin put a verse there over in the side Kevin why don't you why don't you comment on that make a make your point that you want to make with the first samuel passage because I think I know where you're going and I would like to hear that I'm just thought a comment out there that Pharaoh what like like we like he was just saying a second your favorite did heart in his own heart um I don't know about seven times I didn't count I got at least three times Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God hardens his heart and then in addition to that we don't know exactly what means God used to harden his heart it could be the very circumstances themselves that provoked the hardening of the heart but the text doesn't say which is a this is a hermeneutical standpoint observation the text doesn't say how God hardened his heart but we do know though Pharaoh did a hardening himself at least the first three times at least that I have counted it's more I must miss them but that's really what I'm getting at yeah and and I think it's really important to understand that when we're looking at certain passages where it says that God that God hardened somebody's heart that the word hardening means to strengthen in other words to to help someone seal them in their own resolve in other words what we will leave from a traditional perspective is that God is in a sense giving somebody / - they're already calloused and rebellious desires and allowing them to continue in that and strengthening them in their resolve to do that which is evil so that God will bring about his redemptive purpose through their rebellious actions and so the recent passages like that just jump off the page and people see them so distinctly is because they're so unique in the way that God uses even a rebellious heart like Pharaoh's or Israel Israel's heart is hardened in in order to bring about the second Passover in the same way that that Pharaoh was hardened in order to bring about the first Passover doesn't mean God hated those people from birth or created them to be a bad person it simply means that God is strengthening them or callosum them or hardening them or blinding them if you will in their already rebellious condition so as to bring about a redemptive purpose through their misbehavior and God has every right to do that and anybody who is objecting to God who does that needs to read Romans 9 because Romans 9 is actually answering that very objection and that's why we don't think the objector is the same person the Calvinist assumes he is which is you know an Arminian or a non Calvinist objecting to the Calvinistic form of God it within a kind of a deterministic worldview but Johnny go ahead and continue thanks for you say Kevin as you mentioned I but what's your YouTube videos and let's closer to thank you for the input arm up above you want to screenshot that that's fine but I have 10 times that is the template and I have the Hebrew words that I've been using it aside between strength and or the next one's heavy strength it just goes on and on the right is who a hardened and then dimensions who had and you look at the text itself and as you mentioned not explicitly but that's what I've come to know as well so this is just a few notes that I have on Romans 9 it's quite lengthy so I won't share it all so I stopped sharing for a sec all right perfect so back onto Romans 9 hey while you are looking at professor fillers um going back to your analogy that you do with Paul and how he would have a greater qualitative sacrificial love for his enemies in Christ if limited atonement is true well what couldn't a Calvinists respond along the lines as one here like how you would respond to a covenants would use such an objection it used to say the nature of both um sacrificial love for the enemies are actually different in terms of an epistemic level whereas for example Christ dies in place of his enemies for those whom he knows that that his death will be efficacious for assuming and granting that the sacra fish the sacrifice of Christ is Pino substitutionary in nature whereas PAH doesn't have such exhaustive knowledge of who given assuming that you know there is such a thing as the elect in an individual standpoint since he doesn't know who the elect are he cannot die for the sacrifice himself in the proclamation of the gospel and so forth arm in such a way where that sacrifice would be efficacious they could what if they made that distinction whereas the what if they'd say that the analogy seems to make a sort of qualitative category on error right well that's why I qualified the the terminology of love to be that which is self sacrificial in other words one willing to give up themselves for the sake of another and based upon the view that many Calvinists hold to especially specifically the John Owen view of of atonement which is a more commercialism type of view of atonement Jesus was not willing to self sacrificial II glove or give himself up for the non elect whereas Paul was and so that's that that's the distinction I'm trying I mean that's the that's the parallel I'm trying to draw between those two however to answer your question there there's three different aspects of the atonement you've kind of got to talk about in order to get a clarity as to what you're actually discussing we you can talk about the extent of the atonement you can talk about the the intent of the intone meant like what was God's intent in atoning and then and then you can also talk about the application or the efficacy some would say of the atonement and so a lot of times those those three people just jump from one to the other while talking about those three distinct things and so we end up talking past each other a lot and I would recommend listening to my podcast with dr. David Allen and also getting dr. David Allen's book if you haven't already it's on Kindle for like ten dollars or you get by the big one it's a big fickle book and it's pretty expensive but either way it's worth having because it goes through historically all the different views of the atonement and it has so many quotes from former Calvinist older Calvinists who really do um take down in a lot of ways this John Owen commercialism that has become popular with John Piper and and heaven II came and sought her kind of a book that really promotes this commercialism type of view of the atonement it really does not in my estimation does not really support the concept of a true sufficiency of the atoning work of Christ it an actual sufficiency like the Lombardi informal originally explains and and even from a reformed perspective I'd also recommend Bruce where with regard to is a four-point Calvinist who does a really good job of I think completely undermining the the L of limited atonement from a another Calvinistic reform perspective and Dory's not even reference those guys is that sometimes the Calvinist is more likely to listen to another Calvinist than to someone like myself and I'm just saying that even from an objective standpoint from somebody who's willing to entertain the claims of Calvinists you can see I think a very clear indication of the differences of the different views of the atonement so without getting too much into all the different abuses that um because that can be a you know an our discussion in and of itself right that's why I'll refer you to some more work from dr. Allen and specific for sure accident and I don't want to Rob too much time so no worse if I was to say that in a Calvinist they ended up rebutting with that comment I could just say that he's missing the point in what I meant to say was that Paul would actually sacrifice himself for the non-elect whereas giving them to the torment Christ would not correct yes yeah and under under the claims of limited atonement Strickland minted atonement depending on if they affirm actual sufficiency versus hypothetical sufficiency again it gets into the weeds a little bit and you're not you know sometimes you're not really sure what kind of Calvinist you're talking to unless you ask some specific questions and so it can get a little bit hairy sometimes but like even John MacArthur well like that could take another hour just going into MacArthur's views versus like aw pink and some other Calvinist but there's there's various perspectives that they take and most of the time even the scholars even the premier scholars or mainstream guys do what I was talking about where they jump from talking about the efficiency to the application to the intent and they kind of enter in you know conflate the three as if they're one of the same or jump from one to the other and they end up confusing the issues and a lot of places we actually could agree upon if if you kept those categories very clear and distinct with each other but unfortunately it's not the case too often okay that's and I would get quickly it's a quick yeah notice Romans 990s is like a deterministic interpretation of most things uh where it says I that would save dance to me why don't you find fault where this is cities will now if we read in Luke 730 where is it but the Pharisees and experts and a law rejected God's purpose the same Greek word for will for themselves because they're not being baptized by John now we know that nothing can resist God's will and that's correct but God descriptive real that is everything that comes past that is not sinful will he does anything he might actualize he's intent were he never intends us to sin now whenever the Pharisees he they resisted his will as I mean it's outside of his own oh the faculty actor eyes this world everything that's in his policies permissive what he allowed it now if one wants to say he determined the ones who seem to come into existence a Adams for whatever might be been God he never to be the author simple he did not allow it he didn't allow them to choose X or not X he said no X is the only choice so yes people resist his prescriptive rules April salvation of what it may be but in saying that there non rejection the fact that he allowed them to be created into your life commit them and divinely concur with what they've done without him not even come to existence that is permitted by him and that is part of his world Romans 8:28 for all things come together for those who loves God and that's for good it's the same thing even though Pharaoh's heart hardened himself it's part of his will not to determine that for it to happen he allowed it by the fact that he made it actual he uses for his own glory just I would end off on that note Thank You Johnny and sorry you have to run I know when everybody has different schedules but I'm glad you're able to join us for the few minutes that you were here and some good insight good insights and I appreciate your work brother no thank you thanks a lot hey blessings something else I wanted to touch on that Johnny touched on at the very beginning was what I think Paul really introduces besides the verses 1 through 3 which I think he's introducing a very clear understanding of his self sacrificial love for the hardened Jew I think it needs to be noted that the hardened Jew who's cut off John Piper emphasizes the fact that he's clearly talking about salvation because he's he's anguished over the fact that Israel for the most part is not being saved and therefore it proves that this is a sociological text and I wouldn't contend with that the point that I would really contend with more more directly is is why are they cut off because it seems to be the presumption upon the Calvinists to say based upon the further reading of this text and others is that they're being cut off ultimately because well for no apparent reason really for before they've done anything good or bad ultimately God just chose arbitrarily to hate them now I know Calvinists don't like the word arbitrary but you look it up in Webster's it says to make a choice based upon one's own act without any outside influence that's what arbitrary means at its very root and so I'm not trying to be mean or misrepresented by saying that it's an arbitrary decision I understand when I say without any apparent reason I know that there's the holy secret reason that you'd like to talk about it means knowable these I mean when I say it's arbitrary and no apparent reason I'm not trying to misrepresent very very laying because it appears to be that God for no apparent reason has cut off people most of humanity in fact one might even argue before the world began and before they had done anything good or bad and therefore I think that you have you have a really hard situation to to prove biblically for for that worldview especially when in Romans chapter 11 I believe it's verse 20 or following there where it tells us the reason that they are cut off verse 20 granted but they were broken off or they were cut off because of unbelief that's verse 20 of chapter 11 so it's not for some unknown reason that these people have been cut off they're cut off because of their unbelief and that is vital to understanding the intention of Paul through the rest of this passage because if you talk about true Israel you're talking about believing Israel and this is the dichotomy that he begins to set up with Hagar and with Sarah because with Hagar he was acting in unbelief Abraham was he was saying God promised that he's going to give me a seed but Sarah is beyond barren you know her barren years and she she's not gonna be able to give me a child and therefore I have to work for it I have to make it happen and so he were it's being fulfilled and what he's trying to do it himself they got it as the child of the promise through whom Isaac comes and so he holds up these two as as the example one of them which is by words Hagar and one of them which is through the promise by faith trusting in God allowing him to fulfill the promise and so you got two covenants being allegorically or uh you know represented there as the dichotomy being set up that he concludes with in verses 30 and following he's clearly not talking about monitors and verses synergism or something like that that the the Calvinist will try to paint it as it's either all of God or of man or something of that nature it's it's about salvation it's about through works or through the promise it's about through faith or or through trying to work after your salvation that's the dichotomy that Paul setting up by introducing Hagar and Sarah or Isaac and Ishmael and the reason we know this is because Paul in other letters he writes more intently about these issues after I read this I want to get some of you guys your feedback I know Kevin and Eric and some of the other guys may have some some thoughts on this and I want to I want to hear from you in Galatians chapter 4 verse 22 and following it says for it is written that Abraham had two sons one by the slave woman in another by the free woman his son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh I notice notice the fleshed word Sark's there in the original Greek that's that's talking about according to works according to the flesh striving after working towards it laboring after desiring after it it took a lot of willpower to do the works of the law it took a lot of I mean just like him him going after Hagar he had to manipulate that he had to make that happen and so he was working towards doing doing something that God had promised to him and so he's not relying upon and trusting in God he's trying to do it himself and so that's according to the flesh but his son by the freewoman was born as a result of divine promise these things are being taken figuratively now that's not me saying that that's the Bible saying that Paul said these are figurative things in other words they're not literally saying that I loved one one of Abraham's children and I hated another one in the literal sense of saying salvific we have chosen this one to be affectionately saved and not that one it's not what he's talking about he's talking about figurative language of to divine covenants being represented by these two women and their children and so he's saying these things are being taken figuratively the woman represented the women represent two covenants one covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves this is hey I paid our stands for Mount Sinai and Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem because she is slavery with her children and so the reason I point that out is because it's clear that Paul is using figurative language to introduce these two women with their two children to introduce that which is by works as opposed to that which comes by faith in other words there's a pursuit on both sides the Gentiles generally speaking are pursuing through faith and they are attaining righteousness the gent on the other hand are pursuing through works ie Hagar trucks driving after and they're not attaining it and that's the summary Paul gives in verse 30 and following but he's introducing it when he's talking about Hagar and Sarah he's introducing the difference between the cheating the promise or cheating God's truth through works or through faith and so true Israel are those who come to God through faith ie waiting on Sarah waiting on the promise trusting in God versus those who are striving after it through their own works ie like the Jews of that day who are striving to earn or maintain their righteousness through works of the law and so that's the dichotomy you have to understand going through the rest of this chapter and understanding what Paul's laying out in his his diatribe with this interlocutor of who's the objector who's bringing all these questions to him as he's answering them going through Romans chapter 9 and once we understand that dichotomies being set up I think it's a lot easier to follow through from our perspective with that said you guys on podcast get to hear me ramble a lot and so that's not what I want to do here exclusively obviously I want to hear God I want to hear back from you guys either objections or questions or feedback from from your perspective so what say ye what do you think about the view that the elect give in Romans specific Romans nine to Grauman's eleven is referring to the nation of Israel do you think there's any any truth in that oh well yeah absolutely I hold to a lot of what is known as the corporate view of election but unfortunately what a lot of people have reduced the corporate view of election to is to true they think of it if you had mute your mic back again James getting some feedback noise thanks is is that people when they hear the corporate view of election I used to do it when I was a Calvinist I remember somebody trying to teach me the corporate view of election I vividly remember remember that who the guy was I've talked to him since then and I remember where I was sitting I remember him talking to me about the corporate view of election I remember rolling my eyes it's Calvinist and I was going hey listen nations are made up of individuals two corporations have individuals within them so you know and that's how that's how I dismissed the corporate view of election is that I just thought that well since Jesus I mean since Paul obviously talks about Esau and Jacob those are individuals is when he talks about Pharoah who's also an individual welcome Paul thanks for joining us man we're asking everybody to just put their mics on mute unless you're asking a question or contributing otherwise we have background noise that come through our mics so thanks man and so we totally and completely hold to a corporate view of election so yes it is about Israel but we don't believe it's exclusively about Israel in other words I genuinely believe that God chose Jacob over Esau I mean it those are two individuals i believe he chose to harden Pharaoh's heart that's an individual and so I don't I don't denounce the concept that God's talking about individuals here's if he's only talking about the nation that Esau represented or the nation that Jacob represented no he did choose Jacob over Esau there's no question of my man that he did but for what and that's the whole issue is the there's just the assumption in the mind of some people even non Calvinist at times when they're reading through these texts they hear the word election or they hear the word choice and we automatically start thinking individual salvation of you know of certain individuals ineffectual salvation nonetheless and that's not that's not what's full fully in context here he's talking about the promises of God the Word of God being fulfilled through Israel in other words God shows the nation of Israel through whom verse four and five the prophets the patriarchs the word the Christ would all come through this nation they were the nation chosen for the blessings of bringing the promise to the rest of the world and so that is a national thing that's why Paul in Romans chapter 3 says is it you know what profit is it to being a Jew and he says much in every way the very Oracles of God had been entrusted to the Jews but he goes on to explain that even though the Jews themselves are not accepting the word they're in a hole as a whole as a nation especially the the big dogs within the nation the Pharisees were the nation just because they're rejecting it doesn't mean that God's promised in his word has failed and that's why he's giving the history lesson to go on and show that God has always fulfilled his promise even throughout history when Israel has been unfaithful and so to answer your question it's just to say yes I do believe there's national components throughout Romans 9 through 11 you can't ignore that that's just obvious even the Calvinists admit there's a national component but don't don't think that because we hold to a corporate view of election that we're dismissing the fact that God is talking about individuals too we just understand that there's several elective purposes from God's perspective in other words God has elected a nation he's elected them unconditionally in the sense that he didn't choose the nation of Israel because they were worthy of being chosen he's chosen servants from that nation like prophets like Paul himself was a chosen apostle he didn't choose Paul because he was more deserving that some other Jew he chose Paul to carry the purpose of the reason he elected Israel the first place to make sure the promise was delivered to make sure the word was brought to the world and therefore you've got choices right there that I'll have to do with individual salvation but it has to do with God's elective purpose and choosing Israel God's elective purpose and choosing profits and and apostles and and also God's elective purpose to send the message first to the Jew and then to the Gentile those are three choices of God right there elections of God if you will that have nothing to do with the individual salvation and then the fourth choice you could talk about is those chosen to allowed to be enter into the banquet which are those who are clothed in the righteousness of Christ that whosoever believes in him shall be granted entrance into the wedding banquet because they're clothed in the righteousness of Christ and that is also an elective purpose of God and so I just think it's really important not to dismiss the corporate view of election which is interesting when you really begin to look at some of the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 11 they use a more corporate interpretation when they get to Roman's 11 and somewhere between Romans 9 into bromans nine into eleven they have to shift from an individualized interpretation to a corporate interpretation otherwise they can't explain how it is that the same people who are hardened in Chapter nine could be grafted back in in chapter 11 the same people who were stumbling in chapter nine of the very same people he says have not stumbled beyond recovery in Chapter eleven if you talk about individuals for the Calvinists in Romans chapter eleven that's when they had a lot of trouble whereas we use the same hermeneutic and application throughout all of Romans eight through eleven when talking about both the nation's and the individuals whereas the Calvinist has to shift their hermeneutic whenever they get into chapter eleven especially okay so Sylvia just joined us thanks for coming in if you'll go ahead and mute your mic Sylvia until you want to ask a question that will help us not to have feedback in our ears when you join in so appreciate you coming on matter of fact I'll help you out there I'll find your mute button for you there you go um regarding uh Romans nine thirteen where it says taken by loved Esau a and the point was made regarding that love and hate aren't contradictory to each other couldn't a Calvinist respond by saying although they may not be contradictory to each other semantically they are being judged opposed in this verse from each other so that if God loves Jacob then he doesn't hate him and if he hates Esau then who doesn't love it right here was fun yeah and that's one of the reasons that I the way that I take that interpretation is much in the same way as you see in John 14 where he says if you don't hate your mother and father you're not worthy to be my disciple or you know he goes on to say much more than that obviously love hatred mother father brother sister all these other people that he says you have to hate the the concept of the idiom of the concept of hatred within the first century was an idiom is a figure of speech like if somebody were reading our writings you know 2,000 years from now in a different language and they came across the idiom you know the mother of four was being driven up the wall okay they would go okay driven up the wall what what were they do how were they driving her up a law that I have a car inside the house were they driving on a law what did that look like well obviously you would have to interpret that and understand what the idiom was within our day to understand what driving somebody up the wall meant well in the same way there's a Jewish idiom of hating someone was not to literally reject them and to hate them otherwise the Bible would be contradictory to say that you're supposed to love and honor your parents and then to say you're supposed to hate them it means to to choose one over another for the more noble purpose in other words I choose Christ over my parents for the more noble cause in other words they're the more noble purpose that I'm choosing him over them and in the idiom is that I would hate them as in comparison to what I'm choosing Christ and so God rejected Esau our hated Esau in the sense that he chose Jacob for the noble purpose he chose Jacob to be the means by which his promise would be fulfilled and it also is important under stand is that one verse is separated from the other verse by about 1500 years so when he says the two the two in their mother's womb and that one would serve the other that's in Genesis that he's quoting from where Rebecca had either two to two nations in her womb that's from Genesis and then Jacob I loved Esau hated is from Malachi the last book of our Old Testament and Malachi is actually in reference when you look at it to the whose represents represented as the national head Esau and which is which was another common thing for them to do is they would refer to the nation as the national head so you oftentimes call them by their first name that's why Jacob when his name was changed his name was changed to Israel so his that's Jacob is actually his name is becomes Israel and so every time it's referring to Israel it's actually referring to his name Jacob's name is Israel same same thing when you refer to Esau you're referring to the because he was the representative of that nation so when he said Esau hated it's not hating them for no apparent reason he's hating them according to Malachi because they attacked Israel in other words they turned against their brother before that would be have several passages where Paul says don't hate the for they or your brother he actually protects the he blesses the just like he does the the descendants of Ishmael and lot and others just just because he declares this curse over the doesn't mean that he personally rejected Esau before he was ever born that otherwise she had a doctrine where God hates unborn babies I mean how do we stand for and against those who abort babies and do these horrible things to the unborn if we believe as a theological worldview that God hates most unborn babies because ultimately that's what you have to conclude theologically if you're interpreting that passage to mean that God literally had a hatred for Esau before he was ever born and done anything good or bad versus the kind of idiom interpretation that I'm bringing that he chose Jacob for the noble cause over his brother Esau that makes sense yes I think that's an excellent point and I think another verse that could support that thesis similarly to how there's a command to not love the world but yet he also commands us to love our enemies so there is that type of difference between a actual heat versus a rejection of something correct I think that's what you're getting at right it's more social rejection yeah I mean it's kind of like the old cliche state saying that you know he loves loves the sinner hate the sin and in the same way you could say you love your enemies but you hate the world because in a sense you hate the ways of the world you hate the sin of the world you hate the worldly fleshly ways at the same time doesn't mean you hate everybody who's in the world or that you hate people with flesh it's saying that I hate the ways of the world or I hate the ways of the flesh and but I still have a genuine love for the soul of that person and that love for individuals so that there's a separation as to who's the target there that's another that's another fault line we oftentimes fall into is to kind of categorize things from the individual perspective versus the more corporate or collective is this kind of perspective Jonathan dr. Johnson Pritchett and I are going to do a podcast on this and a couple of weeks probably where we'll talk about how the Jewish culture was a lot more collective a disc collected collectiveness I don't know why that words like am i right now but it's a collectivist society in the sense that it thinks of things in a more familial or a family tribal kind of way so when we hear things as westernized individuals we usually think individualized you I me where's that when the the first century drew they often thought in groups like either you're a Jew you're an Israelite or you're some other you know you're Samaritan you're this group you're this from this tribe this tribe this from this family of this tribe and so they they thought in groups versus from individualized standpoint and so I think sometimes we as Westerners tend to hyper individualize certain things and it makes it harder for us understand so whenever you know we make statements like you know loving loving people versus hating the world there's a there's a tendency to start thinking about our love and hate for individuals versus the concepts and understanding of loving or hating not not individual people but the ways of the world in general others with comments or questions very late mrs. Bevan I got a I got a couple comments I want to make real quick plays day out you mentioned a few minutes ago because of unbelief out of chapter 11 I think everybody sees chapters 9 through 11 as together I think that because of unbelief is very important but it goes more it comes more from just been from just chapter 11 back in the Old Testament in Leviticus 26 there's there's what I call the the five cycles of discipline we're starting in verse 14 through 39 it's basically five times if you don't listen to me I'm gonna do this to you they don't listen to me I'm a Buddhist you still don't listen we have to do this to you and really what we're at when they rejected the Messiah it's the fifth and worst one and it's actually fulfillment of prophecy right smack dab in the middle of 9 through 11 is chapter 10 in verse 19 and you have this quotation in chapter 10 verse 19 let me go there real quick just so I don't misquote it and he says did not Israel no first Moses sayeth I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people and by a foolish nation while I anger you well that's it that's a fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32 21 so not not only is it because of unbelief but it's also they were told they were warned hey if you don't listen to me and do what I say here's some consequences and what we see playing out you know I've seen Calvinists throw out things like mark 4 11 through 13 11 through 12 where I've spoken in parables so that you won't hear and get converted that kind of thing well these are these are consequences that that same name shows up about four times in the New Testament last time in acts 28 it's always two Jews every single time I'm painting the picture further I think that even we not in Calvinist fall prey to a Calvinist mindset when we approach Romans chapter 9 because we start with a cup we start with a conversation first usually it's something about limited atonement and then we come to Romans chapter 9 to prove that point rather than seeing the text I think if we look at the broader context what's happening in Romans chapter 9 Paul is probably writing the book probably somewhere around X 22 23 ish right around there and if you look at what's happening in the first few chapters of the book of Acts up through chapter 7 only Jews got saved no Gentiles are getting saved and only the Gentiles got saved were Jewish proselytes and as we move forward they find out in Chapter 11 hey Gentiles can get saved and then they have this big controversy I think we all know about chapter 15 that Gentiles don't have to keep the law or be circumcised when they get saved but there's this little verse verse 24 in Acts chapter 15 where ever since acts 11 18 when they found out Gentiles could get saved between with between that and 15 24 which is about 5 to 6 years people were going out from Jerusalem teaching people they had to be circumcised and people off and then they'd settle this thing in Jerusalem you don't have to be circumcised and keep the law and even in Acts chapter 21 verse 25 you find that the Jews and Jerusalem are still keeping the law not telling the Gentiles keeps a lot and it imagined being God's chosen people then all of a sudden these people who are nobodies they don't even have to become cross lights anymore they can just get saved just like Cornelia Cornelius is actually using as the doctrinal reference for how people get saved in chapter 15 it's reference for that so you have all these Jews wondering you know I thought we were God's chosen people but it was God think he is saving all these other people so really what I see is kind of the opposite point of what Calvinist colonists are going to take us in Romans chapter 9 around 2 verse 18 or so and with with a conversational limited atonement they're going to praying they're going to bring up 18 9 18 in that context yet mercy on him long mercy and he we really hard that's supposed to prove that it's fair or just or whatever for God to not save some people or to choose to never even offer salvation to them but if you look at the point that's being made hollows halls main point isn't that he's limiting salvation but that God can open it to ever whoever he wants and the Jews are nobody to tell him he can't that's really the point and then he came he bolsters at chapter 10 whoever he whosoever shall call upon any Lord shall be saved go out and tell him and chapter 10 you know 14 through 17 real strong on that and then he wraps it up in chapter 11 verse 32 by saying I will have mercy on all so 18 doesn't even it presents a question without an answer and Calvinists are real quick to fill in that answer for us I will have mercy on you oh ha mercy and whom I will of course have to the elected not elect well that doesn't answer he doesn't tell you who is going to have mercy on it doesn't tell you who he's been a hardened until chapter 11 verse 32 and at the very end of the three chapters he tells you who am I going to have mercy on all and you you can't do anything about it because I'm sovereign and I choose to save anybody if I want to except I really think I really think the opposite point is being made and Calvinists use the passage for and I think if you look at the context of what's happening in the book of Acts and what the Jews were told in the Old Testament Romans chapter 9 is is really a strong point for the traditionalist view for the non Calvinist view rather than for the Calvinist perspective that's yeah well yeah good I think those are oh that's all good feedback I you know I think about too you know this is the the point I try to really hone in on when I was debating James white was who is the objector in Romans chapter 9 because you know when you ask yourself that question it leads to the finding of the interpretation and the right interpretation if if the objector is an Arminian for lack of a better word somebody who's ejecting against a God who determines the decisions of man ultimately who you know as a somebody objecting against God hating people before they're ever born or have done anything good or bad rejecting them from the possibility of ever being saved if that's what what the objector is and who the objector is then Calvinist er right and we should concede and and shut the book and be done with it but if the objector however is the Israelite who has thought that like Abraham going after Hagar that he can work his salvation not by waiting on the promise not by trusting in the promise but by working his own salvation instead of waiting on the promise which is the Messiah working their own salvation to the mission on the Talmud and the keeping of the law by going through a slave woman but making themselves a slave to the law if you understand that's the objector someone who has been striving after the law and who has now been given over to their own desires to their own pursuits to their own willpower their striving after the law and they're being blinded sent a spirit of stupor as Romans chapter 11 verse seven goes on to say these are people who are now being cut off not because not for no apparent reason or arbitrarily they are being cut off because of their own unbelief because of their own callousness as Acts chapter seven 28 verse 27 says that had they not grown calloused otherwise they might have seen her turn and understood and been forgiven therefore I take the message to the Gentiles and they will listen the obvious dichotomy there between the Jew and the Gentile is not that one of them center and one of them is not they're both equally sinful matter of fact you could make a case for the Gentiles being more immoral than the Jews were the dichotomy Paul setting up is that one has become calloused and hardened and therefore has been cut off in their unbelief and therefore he's not taking the revelation to them anymore he's taking it to the Gentiles and they will listen why because they're more moral no because they're sick and they know they need a physician because they're not self-righteous and because they're not striving after the Hagar the law but instead they're willing to trust in Christ because they know they can't earn their own righteousness as the the the Jews of that day had had just felled another and so the the objector is that hardened Jew who thinks he's owed salvation because he's a Jew who thinks he's deserving of salvation because of who he is whose granddaddy is Abraham and who thinks that it's owed to him and because of his lineage and because of his hard work and his his willing after the law striving is pursued after the law he deserves it as all the sudden being told know you've been cut off in your unbelief and through your unbelief through your unfaithfulness God accomplished redemption on Calvary through you and he's engrafted in all the other nations of the world he's blessed all the other families of the world as Genesis 12:3 promised he would through your unbelief through your disobedience and that's the objector in Romans 9 that's the one who's crying out why are you to blame me if my unrighteousness as a Jew being cut off and hardened my unbelief is bringing about your glory then why are you to blame me which is the exact same diatribe he brought up first in Romans chapter 3 verses 1 through 8 in T right does a great job showing that the the parallel between Romans 3 1 through 8 in Romans 9 and that in the same objector that was brought up in Romans 3 is the exact same diatribe objector that robot wrought up and Roma shut or not that's undeniable I do not see how anybody can objectively read omens chapter 3 verses 1 through 8 and not see that that's the exact same objections being raised again in Romans shaft or not there are perfect parallels there for proving I think without much reasonable doubt the that Paul is answering the hardened Jew has been cut off in his unbelief who has been hardened like Pharaoh was in order to accomplish the first Passover that the hardened Jew is being cut off in order to ensure the second Passover and to engraft the Gentile people and once she'd come there once you understand that that's what led me out of Calvinism I mean that's that's the main issue that made me go oh well Romans none can't is not a line of defense anymore because my objector is not an Arminian my objector as a hardened Jew has been cut off in his unbelief and is being used in his unbelief to bring about the the crucifixion the redemption the world and the engrafting in the gentiles and paul holds out hope that his ministry to the gentiles will actually win them back over and that they may grafted back in because their be provoked to envy once they see that these people have come to christ these Gentiles barbarians had come to Christ and their lives have been changed maybe they will be provoked to also want to come therefore proving that the hardened Jew of Romans chapter 9 is not the reprobate within the Calvinistic worldview because why in the world would Paul hold out hope for those who are cut off in reprobation for them to be grafted back in I think it's clear and that's one of the reasons again they have to change their hermanita to speak corporately in Romans 11 verses individualistically because the very same people who stumbled in romans 9 are the same ones he holds out hope for is not stumbling beyond recovery in chapter 11 verse 11 and so all good feedback but again I'm starting to preach instead allow discussion and feedback so other questions or comments there's nothing wrong with preaching keep on going mm-hmm well there's a lot of podcasts out there with me doing just that so I'm trying to use this as more of a time for you guys to give questions and feedback and comments because I assume that those who do tune in for the most part not all have have at least access if nothing else to that the commentary that's already provided Steven Myers has some comments on the side there I think Steven hopefully my last diatribe there helped answer your question about what the context clues to determine who the objector is if I need to be more clear on that then let me know you say also I think Romans 3 and Romans 9 are different objections okay well I would love to hear a case made for that because it seems to me the the objector in Romans chapter 3 is really really clear I don't think we can we can debate the fact that the objector in Romans chapter 3 is a Jew because he says what advantage then is there and being a Jew or what value is there in circumcision much in every way first of all they have been entrusted with the very words of God which is exactly the point that he makes in Roman chapter 9 verses 4 & 5 that these are the ones who've been entrusted with the law the prophets the Apostles the the the prophets of the law the special revelation the Christ the Messiah had all come through Israel and so that's the same point he makes in 9 chapter 9 verse 4 and 5 and then he goes on to ask he says what if some would have in other words what if Jews do not have faith whether lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness that seems to be the same question as verse 6 is well if the Israelites aren't believing that as God's promised failed because these are the very people that are entrusted with the words of God and they're not believing the words of God so has God's Word failed that seems to be the natural question and it's exact same question the answers right yes if they don't have faith well that nullify God's faithfulness and he says well of course not let God be true and every man a liar and I'm still in chapter 3 here but I'm paralleling it obviously it says but in verse 5 but if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteous just more clearly what shall we say that God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us so once again he's asking the question is it unjust for God to in other words is it unjust forgot to blame me who are you to blame me same question that he asked in Romans chapter 9 that what shall we say God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us and he says I'm even using a human argument well seems like the same question of who are you oh man who are you Oh human to talk back to God both of those are human arguments both of them parallel perfectly I think and so I think the onus is on you Stephen another Calvinist if you're a Calvinist I'm just assuming by asking that question how in the world can you support the concept our understanding that the objector of Romans chapter 3 is not at least parallel in some way to the objector brought up in in Romans chapter 9 but Stephen may I'm suing Stephen that I'm you can unmute your mic and talk if you'd like to he's there but he may just be wanting to type instead of talk and that's fine I understand that okay well Stephen made the type in an answer if he if he wishes there in the side or unmute his mic and defend that but I honestly I mean Kevin you tell me or maybe Eric or one of you guys if you have some feedback am I mistaken is it it is a clear parallel between Romans 3 and Romans nine as far as who the objector is I just want to say real quick and I got kicked out for a second Stephen might be having the same issue yeah that's possible you actually he showed there for a while you were showing there for a while Kevin to to monikers so he maybe he's not hearing at right now either and so no worrys but I would like to hear some of y'all's feedback as far as the the objector in Romans chapter 9 do you feel like it's much of a stretch if not completely obvious that the objector he's addressing in Romans 3 is also the objector in Romans 9 I think you're right uh when in Romans 9 it's I think it's obviously a Jew wondering why he's not especially gets her yeah that's a good way to put it God has opened up to these Gentiles and they don't even have to become Christ lights what's up with that in chapter really the leaning into chapter 3 is chapter 2 where it kind of tells them there's it I think it's around verse 25 or so where he tells them it's if if the uncircumcision keeps a righteousness of the law shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision and if there is right there 25 the circumcision very profit of all but if thou be a breaker the law like circumcision has made uncircumcision and if to me that the parallel passes like James says if you keep the whole law but offend in one point the ball and he's using he's using this fact to level out Jews and Gentiles to tell them you're in the sight of God you're basically the same you're just as wicked you're just as sinful as any reprobate Gentile you ever saw in your life and of course the Jews gonna object to that they're going to be objecting chapter 2 oh I don't think so buddy where the Jew so do you think you'll and so yeah they're objecting to that that there is bad as as the which which is which would lead right into the diatribe question of what benefit is it to be a Jew then you're saying all anybody everybody's just as bad everybody's just as sinful and and anybody can be saved through by this grace through faith thing so what would what advantages it should be a Jew it's a natural flow from that exact that is that exact diet Ron there he goes right into it so yeah I think it's definitely the same objective they're two different lines of reasoning but the same objective yeah well I know I thought that for a long time and I'd not read it from a reputable um you know commentator and so you know how that is sometimes you think you're kind of by yourself in a particular view for a while and you're like reading it you're gone you know this really seems obvious here but I've never I've never remember I recall reading that ever and I remember I remember what I was sitting was sitting in my bed and I was reading in tea right and and I don't regret anything into right says by any means but I like a lot of his writings he's very very scholarly and very good at what he said a lot of lot of what he says I agree with a lot of what he says I should say and he makes that parallel and and I can't remember the name of the book but it's it's a I'm Abed but and I just got oh yes there's somebody else and then since then I've seen it like it's like after you buy a certain car you see that car all the time wherever you go now I pick up commentaries and I see that parallel drawn out by scholars even even some reformed guys even notice there's some parallel they they take a different reading of how they apply it with in Romans man obviously but they still notice the parallel and even and even comment on it within their commentaries and so I see it quite often now but okay other other questions or comments that eric says is his microphones not working so that's to tell us aside no question uh-oh there of everybody participating how many are shall we say Calvinists defenders I see yeah I think the only ones Steven Myers is the only one who has commented in the side that that seems to be maybe defending a little bit of the Calvinistic perspective on this particular broadcast thank you there may there may be others here now Paul is a like myself as a former Calvinist and Paul actually debated dr. Braxton hunter back I don't know how many years ago was it Paul that you debated that she debated Braxton as a Calvinist and that your that was in like I think 2013 whenever the convention was in Baltimore yeah and and Paul doesn't I don't know if he's a full fledged traditionalist or anything but I know that he's been questioning Calvinism quite extensively every the recent days yeah I'm not ready for a label yeah and there's there's nothing wrong with that I don't like my labels either I wear them reluctantly all right other others with questions or comments I'm poor Eric I know I saw him kind of yelling at the screen you see what I could tell you is what they time in but for whatever reason his microphones not up and running but others do you find any difference between various Calvinists to where they think the switch is between individual election and corporate election in Romans 9 in Romans 11 sorry I was talking while I was muted I'm Laurie if you could mute your microphone I try to do it for you but for whatever reason it's not letting me and so yeah Laurie if you can mute your mic Dylan can you ask that question again among various Calvinist commentators do you find there's any difference between where they think the shift is between individual election and corporate election between Romans 9 and Romans 11 because when they get to Roman's 11 they start saying it's corporate but Romans 9 is individual yeah no there is a distinction between some of the different Calvinistic views there are some who who interpret Romans chapter 9 a lot very similar to the way that I've argued in fact I quote several of them in my in my dissertation as it's kind of validation for my perspective because like for example I know John Stott is Calvinistic I think it was Morris or move I always get those two confused but for some reason dim names but there but this Calvinists both of them are actually quoted in Romans 9 as saying that God never hardens anybody who has already harden himself and Piper quotes them in his commentary and disagrees with them vehemently about that view and the reason I point that out is because a matter of fact even in my Hangouts with the bible-thumping wingnut guys there are different Calvinists debating within the group because some of them will actually agree that Paul is not directly talking about Esau being hated for you know like a reprobate would be hated but that he's instead talking about how he's a agree with me that he he not chosen for noble purpose like the other guy was but that Paul according to them is using that as proof or representation canna paralleling his choice of Israel as a nation to his choice of the individuals for salvation and so there the way in which they and bring up their translation is not as kind of cut and dry as the Jacob I loved ie I chose him irresistibly to be saved before the world began he saw I hated ie irresistible you know effectually chose him for damnation that's a more superlap Syria and very high Calvinistic interpretation of those passages the lower more moderate guys take a little bit more subtle approach that sounds a lot more like our approach matter of fact when you read Morris mu again I can't remember which one I had it open earlier most of them going through going yep yep I agree I agree I agree yep yep yep and then all of a sudden you'll get to one line where it says and you know in the same way that he did this nationally he also sovereignly is over our individual salvation gives certain people faith and it's just like what that wouldn't that come from it's almost like it's just like they have to they interpret all the set things in the same way that I would but then draw Calvinist a conclusion out of it and it really it's almost more frustrating than it is dealing with that kind of Calvinist than the higher end Calvinists because it's so their views are so nuanced and sounds so similar to ours that it's really hard to draw the the distinction between our perspectives in such a way as to to to really point out the points of contention that we actually have between our views it's not that said it's not worth it I mean obviously it's it's only fair to represent the Calvinist that you're talking to fairly and to try to tackle their view but um it's it can get pretty hairy when you're looking at the individual ways in which certain exegetes take the text but you you testing you hey I don't know how long I was talking to myself but I lost y'all somewhere along the way you know what I'm still like yeah yeah sorry about that I apparently just went off the grid so I don't know what have Lewis Terman spin and the back so I see we lost quite a few people hopefully now I'm not sure how the broadcast work it says it still shows it's broadcasting I don't know if it'll just show and as people watch it or it still shows us 18 people watching so yeah who knows I was talking myself but oh wait oh there goes okay let's hear my hearing me come back on the screen there from the other we hang out okay what what is the last thing what Paul or Louis somebody want to what is the last thing you guys heard before I get cut off there that's an interesting question I don't remember let me pull up the YouTube feed there a lot she just get a bad connection or something and just goes dead like that and I hate that what I was doing was I was I was looking at the live chat feed that I was looking at the live chat feed over here on the other page let me get mute that so doesn't come through but I'm going to play it and I was answering some the questions from the live chat feed because some of those people were asking questions or commenting it's broadcasting but your dial-up connections complete failure yeah it's not working okay I'm scrolling back because what I was saying okay and then put it back back on um was commenting because someone was talking about the purpose of election and ver in Romans nine eleven that occurred that according the God's purpose according to election might stand with a question that you can't beg the question by assuming that God's purpose and election is to save certain individuals effectually that's that's begging the question it's assuming the very point up for debate it's assuming true your your perspective if you assume that God's purpose and election is God's purpose to effectually save certain preachers and individuals who were chosen before they did anything good or bad for no apparent reason arbitrarily as we've already defined earlier and therefore you can't you can't just make that assumption and so what I would I'd like to point people back to is that the point the purpose of election is God's purpose in choosing the nation of Israel what was God's purpose and choosing the nation of Israel to bring the blessing to all the families of the earth in Genesis 12:3 it's a promise he made Abraham is through you I will bless all the nations of the earth I will bless those who bless you I will curse those who curse you so if your big brother Esau blesses you and the the descendants of Esau bless you they too will be blessed in other words they can be saved through trusting in Christ trusting in the promise trusting in God just like we could we can today but they can also be cursed for that the same type of reason welcome back Johnny and so I really think it's important to ask the question what is God's purpose and election what does that mean it means what is God's purpose in choosing the nation of Israel and his purpose in choosing certain individuals from that nation but what is his purpose in doing that his purpose was to bring the Messiah through Israel to bring the message of God his salvation through Israelites that is this purpose that election the analogy I like to use and that I used in my book and by the way I'm the shameless plug here if you have not bought the Potters promise it's available on Amazon and get the Kindle version for like six dollars and the print versions not much more than that twelve thirteen fourteen dollars I don't remember some like that but um I go through line by line next to Jesus Romans nine Romans 8:28 and following all the way through chapter nine those are interested in that perspective but one of the things I argue in the book that I think's really really important to understand is when you're talking about the purpose of God an election is the parallel that I often make with with God's choice of Jonah and I think there's a parallel here maybe it's not intentional I don't know I'm not trying to say it is intentional I'm just trying to say it's a way for us to explain something to make it more understandable in the same way that God shows Jonah to take the message of redemption to Nineveh a non-jewish nation so he's taking the was been known kind of as a Jewish message so to speak a Redemption to a non-jewish people to a barbarian people and so Joan didn't want to go do that because Jonah thought that they weren't deserving he hated the Ninevites and he didn't want the Ninevites because to be redeemed because he knew God was the kind of guy that would redeem them if they did repent and therefore he didn't want them to repent and therefore he didn't want to take them the message of repentance Jonah sounds a lot like Israel generally speaking doesn't he just in the same way that Jonah was chosen to take the message to Nineveh so to Israel was chosen the purpose of God in lectin Israel was chosen to take the message to the rest of the nations to the rest of the world but just in the same way that Jonah wasn't a very faithful servant so to Israel was not a very faithful nation but yet in both cases God still accomplishes his purpose of election despite the unfaithfulness of Jonah the messenger despite the unfaithfulness of Israel the messenger God accomplishes his purpose of redemption so what happens when Jonah besides I'm not going to go to nineveh I'm gonna go and run I'm gonna go the opposite direction God uses normative external means to convince the will of his own messenger uses a big fish buying a lot of storm he uses convincing means signs and wonders to change the will the free will by the way doesn't make any sense to think that God compatible istic aliy made Jonah want to run so as to use the fish to make him to stop wanting to run that doesn't listen even follow it makes sense for Jonah to have a free will autonomous free will and desire to run when God calls him to go and then God you use normative external means to make sure Jonah takes the message to he wants to take it but here's the question I have for you does proof that God uses external persuasive means like a big fish or a blinding light in Paul's case or signs and wonders showing your nail-scarred hands like in Thomas's case does proof that God uses normative external means to convince his messengers to take the message where he wants it to go does that prove that guy just chosen who will and won't believe that message by some inward irresistible effectual means do you see that you see the point I'm making another - in other words you can't take passages about God's elective purpose in bringing the message like through Jonah making sure the message is delivered like through Jonah and make that as a proof text to prove that God somehow irresistible ear effectually chooses who will and won't respond positively to the message of that chosen messenger and that's exactly what I think Calvinists have done when it comes to um the understanding of the New Testament because they have taken passages that are distinctly about God's choice of the nation of Israel his messengers and certain individuals from that nation and how he has persuaded them how he has called them through external signs and wonders how he has convinced them to go even when they're unfaithful as he's endured with much patience through this their their rebellion and their all for the cause of bringing that message to the the barbarian nations outside of Israel and therefore proof those proof texts that Calvin is so oftentimes go to John 15:16 have chosen you you did not choose me which is talking to his servants his his setting apart of Paul or setting a part of some of the other apostles in the way that he has in such a way that the Calvinists will often quote those verses and say see that proves it proves that God effectually saves individuals that's just like saying because God chose Jonah and uses external means to convince Jonah to go that somehow proves God uses inward irresistible means to make certain invites believe that message and it's simply a non sequitur it doesn't follow it doesn't it proof that God uses means to ensure that his message is delivered does not prove that God uses inward irresistible effectual means to make certain people believe that message it is never established biblically and I think once we understand that then passages like Romans none other controversial passages come to light a lot more clearly because you recognize oh well this passage is obviously in the context of his purpose and electing Israel the messengers to make sure that the message is delivered because God's promise never fails and if he promised to bring the message I saw the new Israel and he's going to do it by golly regardless of how unfaithful those servants are and when you understand that then I think the clarity comes to light real clearly through those passages with that welcome that Johnny you want to pick up anywhere where you left off or feel free to make comment there um no I left before I think all you're saying is correct God uses the free will of man to bring about his redemptive purposes or purposes in general and they made me think of Mary where in Luke 1:31 when angel Gabriel came to Mary and she said and behold thou shalt conceive not women bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus now a Calvinist I look at that think ass eternity regardless would marry once or does not want to do a pregnant Christ now my argument is you know obviously I'm more modernist moralistically inclined is a God news marry with the circumstances she would freely accept acknowledged she will bear Christ as the Sun rather than if she God knew that she would reject it or did not want to he would not use that force that upon him and never appeared on her will if you will so he knew that she would freely accept even he didn't ask her why would you like to bear Christ he goes there you will it's an imperative you will some time in the future whether then or in a few seconds time we're not too sure he knew that she would freely accept the command given by crop my god yeah I would even say you know you could almost parallel that to what Jesus said you will deny me three times before the rooster crows does that mean that Jesus determined that Peter would deny in other words that Jesus somehow causally through secondary means made sure that Peter would deny in three times or is this simple foreknowledge that God has the ability to know what people freely will do within the given circumstances of their life and that there is a need to be a causal link between that which is for known and that which comes to pass certainly it's the modal fallacy of what we talked about before I know Johnny between necessity and certainty that God can certainly know something without determining it and there's no causal links between knowledge and determination exactly now you don't clearly right and we got Ximena you know I know there's some side shet going on [Music] and so I wanted to come in on some of those but still free Johnny to continue where you left off I know you had to jump out and come back so if you want to pick up on any of the comments that you had earlier that's fine as well but contemplate in the the side chat and the the live broadcast he says free will is true but it's fine for God to have predestined events surrounding the cross and I think that brings up a really good point to understand from our perspective is that some some people seem to think that we as traditionalist or non Calvinists don't believe that God has anything that he's predetermined to come to pass or that he never overrides the free will of man and that that's simply untrue it seems to me that some Calvinists think of our view of libertarian free will as being all-encompassing and more powerful than God or something I'm and giving giving libertarian freedom much more power than we've ever claimed it has in the in any way shape or form and so the example I've used before is if you came over their house and we don't have this with our children but if one of our children had diabetes but he was deathly afraid of shots and so you had you happen to witnesses witness on the night that you were here us holding down one of our children physically my wife and I holding him down physically to give him his insulin shot and you going home and writing an article and saying well latent flowers and Laura flowers always at every instance main handle their children to make every single movement they ever make you go oh that's absolutely ridiculous of course we haven't undermined the personhood of our children in that way we don't main handle them in every single instance there's times in which we have to use physical force in a in a very rare situation so as to redeem or to help a bad situation when we when we know that we need to do it but we don't always act that way with our with with in respect to our child we can choose to act that way when we want to we have the power or the physical strength over my child to use that power when I want to but that's what true sovereignty is true sovereignty is my ability to act with my child the way I want to whether by force or not and therefore to say God's sovereign doesn't mean that he has to control the the creatures that he is created but that he can at any moment any time override and to do what he wills to do and so true sovereignty is not meticulously determining all things that come to pass true sovereignty is the ability to do whatever one wills to do whether that means to permit and or to allow and or to determine that which he wants to to bring to pass through you know other causes that may sound very similar - what the compatibilist likes to explain but the content the concept or idea that some people seem to think that those who hold to a libertarian form of freedom have this view that God's just up their Rania's hands going oh gosh this the all-powerful free will of man I can't do anything about it that's just a straw man beyond all straw man and it's not a true reflection of what we we actually teach or believe about the sovereignty of God you just say that in some way and Calvinists tend to have a problem with understanding or accepting in practical ways God's foreknowledge in the sense that what for people like us I would guess we can easily see that anything that happens God knew it would happen and when somebody makes the possibility also you couldn't have done option B my answer is yes but if I had done all option B that's what God would have known it would happen and often a Calvinist don't seem to although they confess it they don't seem to accept the possibility that whatever happens got new it will happen and he acted according to to that without ordaining that to happen I think it was I don't it was dr. Pritchard who made a point about God using his wisdom more than he uses his force in dealing with us in dealing with the world I remember exactly which podcast or what was the contest but I feel it was something like as God he could force us to do an everything and anything but he tends to use more his wisdom and that proves even more that he has power and he chooses not to use it always and I think that goes along with what you were just saying that that God is a powerful body that even without forcing people to do one exact way he still gets his way out of things and often when you when quoting the passages about God getting doing everything he wants and all of these passages that he his will is done I haven't seen a passage that says everything that happens he ordained I've seen passage that says that happen it will happen he will make it happen but that doesn't say that everything that happens happens because he made it happen and I think that's a difference that explains in a way what I believed to be your understanding and certainly this mind Brad God gave us free will and if he's sovereignty he chooses to later give us some space to work on and decisions to make but he still got and if he wants to and sometimes he does he puts his foot down and say okay these Authority would come and he's certain any events in history in the Bible he decides to per say force things why does he do that because he's God he can do whatever he wants and and although he does that sometimes that doesn't mean he always does right that in the same way yeah yeah and the pritchett the conversation the dr. Jonathan Pritchard made the point that and I totally agree and he he did he did it well very well probably better than what I'm about to try to reiterate but he talks about how you know when we talk about God his maximum qualities that is maximum goodness he's maximally he's maximally loving he's maximally good he's maximally you know what all the maximums of God meaning he's the ultimate of whatever thing it is that you may be thinking about and what he was he was making argument of which I thought was really good was that there's nothing about God and his character that that forces him to be maximally controlling in other words he doesn't have to be maximally controlling to be God he but he does you would one would think or no one would argue that he's not maximum ly wise or maximally good or maximally holy in other words there are certain character ristic swear you must maintain absolutely that he is the maximum of that thing but there's nothing within scripture or even logic that that would dictate us to believe or to think that God has to be maximum ly controlling in order to be God there's there's just nothing about that in fact that makes him that actually makes him lesser in my perspective because it's almost like I said before it's almost like in order for me to be a maximum ly good parent that I have to maximum ly physically control my children of course not and that's that's not the wisest thing to do for a parent or it's not that it's not the way to you know protect their personhood and the independence is its children for me to be maximally using my strength over them though I could I mean I have the strength to well let's say that my two oldest boys are now taller than I am and I'm not going to admit it in front of them but I think they could probably take me if they did ganged up on me now but but used to be maximally I was physically able to take all of them and to control them physically however I wanted to do but just because I didn't choose to do so doesn't mean I wasn't stronger than them doesn't mean that I didn't have the power that's why I always point to okay what is your definition of sovereignty psalm 115 3 is my definition God sits in the heavens and does as he pleases whom that what God's please to do is to maximum ly control every single aspect of his creation I think as verse 16 goes on to say that the earth that the the heavenlies belong to God but the earth he has given over the man there's the sense of rulers or dominion that he has given to man and that that's what he's pleased to do that God's pleased to have creatures who have a sense of autonomy and freedom by which they can have love and real relationship and that's what pleases God that's what he's chosen to do and that's that's a true definition in my estimation of sovereignty and so yeah thanks for reflecting on that that conversation because I think it's it really speaks to these issues as well I think also time and one more thing later okay good no no I was just going to say that that the way that God has chosen to illustrate to us who he is is Cyndi's analogy of father and I find very interesting that as a father dealing with my kids I understand many of these concepts in an easier way I can see okay how as a father if I force my kids to do things I'm not going to raise them the way I want them to be because there would be only fear in my power but the best way to raise them is to teach them to make the right decisions and to give them the Liberty that freedom to make the right choices although I'm always making sure that I have those big boundaries just in case those things fail and although in one sense some people might say oh we're making God as a man or trying to explain God from our human standpoint I think it works backwards God chose to reveal to us his father hood if you will because that's a better way for us to understand how he deals with humans yeah I can't agree more with you on that because that that's if God chooses to reveal himself using anthropomorphic language as you're speaking of fatherhood the shepherd all of these analogies which are supposed to help you know weak-minded people like myself to understand him then there can't be anything wrong theologically with me understanding him by the terms that he has chosen to reveal himself and therefore yeah you know somebody can blame you for bringing God down to the level of man but really have to say whoa K is that what the scripture authors did then because they're using those biblical analogies I mean they're using those human analogies to help us to relate to God so why is it theologically wrong for me to understand God in the way that he has chosen to relate to us and reveal himself to us the Bible wasn't inspired or there wasn't a book of the Bible inspired by Jonathan Edwards who gets into the deep philosophical you know you know paintings of this concept of wealth God knew something prior to creating it that he must have meticulously determined it to come to pass exactly the way that he knew that it would and those kind of philosophical things that we can't even begin to understand within the eternal nature of God and that's that's what it ends up getting to most of these discussions end up going to that point right there which which gets into the speculations over the eternal nature of God's knowledge is omniscience and thus they equate omniscience ultimately with Omni determinism that because God knows all things and he created all things knowing it therefore he must have meticulously determined it in such a way that we don't have libertarian freedom which i think is just philosophical nonsense and and it puts dynamite to most of the scriptures that speak of our responsibility and choice within the world that guys created Johnny go ahead basically agree with you in your saying guy God is a mastema great being a good book on alienation assist you by having planting I really hope in that regards furthermore so those who are aware of there is our stallion philosophy of accidents and substance God's substance is what he has eternally said god is love God substance cannot be lacked there is an eternal tribute now if someone wants to debate whether sovereignty is a substance of God that is God must be for sovereign and then to create sovereignty with divine determinism other means he has to control everything they can have an issue reason being unless they're going to say that the father the son the spirit were controlling each other in a determined manner before creation there's nothing to determine so sovereignty means one must be able to determine whatever happens that cannot be an eternal tribute because creation or nothing will be able to be the subject or determinism up until creation occurred so then that's when sovereignty if by that means determinism actually occurred therefore sovereignty that is define determination was a temporal aspect of God not an eternal one likewise the serenigy used for love against those who believe you're not a monotheistic God that has one person and it says all love that's impossible God cannot be all loving if is one person because in order to love has to be a subject of love therefore if there's one person that autonomous the globe can be loving is when another subject comes to being namely creation so I use that against Islam as well therefore as justifies whether it must be moved one person in the Trinity because if God's eternal loving there must be a subject of that eternal love therefore one person must exist yeah and I don't know if you've read the section of this section of my book actually gets into that exact point and this is what I wanted to read because I mean it kind of summarizes what you just now said Johnny it says one must understand that the attribute of God's sovereignty if it's defined as his Providence over creation which usually when Calvinists speak of sovereignty they are speaking of God's power over creation typically that's that's the context in which is talking about his sovereignty over us is sovereignty over the world the sovereignty over the universe and so if you're defining and using the word within that context of his Providence over creation then it's not an internal attribute a divine sovereignty is complete power and authority over all that has been created for him to be in control over others there have to be others to control he cannot display his power over creatures unless the creatures exist so before creation the concept of sovereignty has defined his providential control over creation was not an attribute even within the Calvinistic worldview that could be used to describe God an eternal attribute is something God possesses that is not contingent upon something else existing the actual eternal attribute catch this the actual eternal attribute of God in question or should be the point in question should be his omnipotence is all is is maximally maximally powerful this that's what omnipotence is so this refers to is eternally limitless power which we affirm as libertarian freewill theists we believe in God's maximal power over all things in other words he is omnipotent in other words he has the ability to do all things has all power sovereignty though is the temporal characteristic not the eternal one thus we say God is all-powerful not because he's sovereign but he's sovereign because he is all-powerful in other words his maximum power is what gives weight to his sovereignty and so he's a sovereign because he's all-powerful or at least he's a sovereign here's the catch as he chooses to be in other words he is as controlling as he chooses to be in relation to his temporal world so put differently God is as controlling as he chooses to be over creation sovereignty therefore should be described as the expression of God's power not the source of it let me said it again sovereignty should be an expression of God's power not the source of it in the concept of his Providence of creation it's just like what I was talking about as a kid I have my power or my strength is separate for my creation but man my power is not depending upon them it's like digit upon them it's separate from them but I can as the sovereign of my house I can choose to use my muscles my strength over my weaker child as I choose to but the fact that I don't choose to always use my physical strength in relation to my child doesn't make me less strong in the same way it doesn't make God less sovereign or less powerful simply because he doesn't choose to use control or any kind of secondary causes or casual determination of any sort in order to bring about his plan or purpose through the world and so I just think it needs to be I think you're right on johnny is how you describe and understand sovereignty as relation to his maximal power to understand we are affirming absolutely affirming his eternal attribute of omnipotence we just don't assume that omnipotence necessitates um Omni determinism of all all creation that God has to create an omni deterministic world just simply but based upon the fact that it could exactly our song - I'm Pilar Villa one time regarding compatibilism and God's determination and I there was a post player bible-thumping women are a much if you read a guy a free will and now it's logically incoherent and basically saying our desires determine what we do or a desire determines our will and therefore we must necessarily follow the will so our wills is instead to the desire as I press it that's true are the two things occurred the sinful nature and the servant circumstances chooses to lust to steal to loyal to do nothing if there's a broad range of possibilities of the simplement you can choose from by definition the sinful nature in and of itself contains contra called your freedom why because he can choose between X Y and Zed though the will might not have contra cause of freedom this sinful nature does and that's an issue they're basically saying that ok well as contra push for it is illusory it has the same financial hustle what determines super nature to choose between those desires and then the step forward is well it's either a contra clausal freedom exists for a simple nature choosable to do in the circumstances therefore our will must concede or what our desires are or God controls the desires of our sinful nature and then I further press if and then he can see the yes God does control the desires of a sinful nature and then I've press well if the sinful nature can only do what's sinful it can also do what's nutty otherwise we'll be seeing 24/7 on a neutral basis prior salvation hour so God if you wanted to could shoot a sinful nation to choose to do nothing to lie still us those three so although the only positive actions the sinful nature can choose from is sin God still has one motivation to choose nothing for the simple desire so we essentially saying is God is determining our desire to sin however James 1:13 says God does not tempt us how can he even determine us member temptation isn't if you attempted us you will it's known as necessarily your sin it's a probabilistic that you will see so if God won't even give us a probability of sinning heaven forbid if he determines us to follow desire which we cannot do one will to do otherwise to sin and we have one quintillion think 10 30 to 40 or one goodness do name where says there's no situation that is above what we are able but if a simple devour desire so strong doubt will cannot go against that then there's no door I remember in that same passage it tells the reason why God is faith God is greater because he provides us away therefore on the energy if there is no way to get out of it therefore God is not faithful so if there is how am I seen it's been determined and therefore there's no way that I not be not determined therefore God is not faith because no other way up have done otherwise yeah I don't know if you were I don't know if you were able to hear my discussion with Jason mullet the the Bible something wingnut but we we got into kind of towards the end of like a two-hour discussion so a lot of people didn't hear it because who wants to sit through that long of course this is probably getting close to that now budgets and some the the theology geeks will stick through it but but in my discussion we we come to first Corinthians 10:13 and I kind of just pressed him I say okay well you denied libertarian free will altogether in other words not even Adam before the fall had libertarian freedom and not even the regenerate man has libertarian freedom which I think creates a huge problem for the Calvinistic worldview because you've ultimately got people who are compatible listicle II still just as determined by God as are those who are still in their unregenerate state in other words if you've got a regenerate man and an unregenerate man and they both cheat on their taxes ultimately they did so because God causally determined that they would through secondary causes and all the things that you want to say through that but still they're equally being determined by God's decree God has ultimately decided what both of those people will do so what is the purpose that the Calvinist has in emphasizing so much the nature of the the two individuals when the nature the two individuals is not ultimately what ends up determining their choices but God's decree and his desire and his determination is ultimately what determines what both of those individuals will do in any given situation that's why I push back and just say okay so when you and I send yesterday with we both send yesterday at noon let's say we both like yesterday at noon could we have done otherwise and of course the Calvinist has a lot of problem with that because if they say that well yeah you could have resisted that temptation as 1st Corinthians 10:13 says you could have resisted from lying then then they affirmed libertarian freedom because they're ultimately saying you could have resisted that temptation you could have willingly chose to do other than you did but most Calvinist says Jason mullet in that conversation he wasn't willing to admit that because he did want a firm libertarian freedom so they ended up offering all kinds of other nuances well God withheld the way Jason mullet ended up goin is God for whatever reason withheld the sufficient grace needed for the Christian to resist that temptation at that moment in time which flies in the face of first Corinthians 10:13 because it says you won't be tempted beyond what you can bear and yet the Calvinist has to say well that for some reason God withheld the necessary grace for you to resist that temptation when you sinned last which creates all kinds of problems and is a horrible horrible horrible way to counsel somebody who's dealing with addiction by the way because if you've got somebody who's dealing with addiction and you're ultimately telling them ok the last time you you did that addiction whatever it was smoke drink you're looking for nog raphy whatever addiction you it is that you have ultimately which you've got to be able to say to that that that person is well yeah the last time you did it you really couldn't have done otherwise because God didn't give you the sufficient grace to resist that temptation last time you were tempted so the last time you looked at pornography you did so because for whatever reason for God's glory he decreed for you not to have the sufficient grace to resist looking at pornography therefore you looked at pornography ultimately because God decreed for you look at pornography and he did not give you the sufficient grace to resist that temptation to look at pornography what is that thing that's a horrible horrible way to counsel people now no Calvinists never gonna say that but of course they're just not being consistent with their systematic if they don't because that's what they're ultimately arguing that's what they believe and if there's really we're compatible and on the if God does give them the grace they inevitably will not sin likewise when I speak to our Calvinists yes if we will have a set playing field and no one has the ability to repent because God isn't given in the grace if hypothetic God does give a person the ability to repent is it necessary that they will repent the answer is always yes right always not going to give you ability repent if you were not necessarily act upon I think was one Thessalonians where he was speaking of they rejected a true they received not the love of the truth and they've got Brian Folsom as you said stopped putting a blindfold on the corpse and I questioned them on mcallen why do you need to do that if they could have never accepted or received it she loved the truth right and I've ever did gave the ability to they'll go or no I'll go but if they did where would I come from or God or if God did give them ability then will they necessarily receive it yes I go so God knew that they wouldn't and I think on your point about doing otherwise I speaking to Erick Fernandez or Hernandez sorry about the ability that is the hack to do otherwise I think it's more so about the will to do otherwise as well so the cabinet's by say although you would not in the physical world I do won't be able to do otherwise you wouldn't want to anyway even if you could so the willies bouncers I think the issue is not whether we can't get a disabled person we were Beauford me still has libertarian free will but we wouldn't say he doesn't because he can't possess the ability to turn his left head he said left or right but his willingness is not bound says likewise temptation is that sinter actions for the wheel they will say yeah actions we can't do otherwise we wouldn't want to anyway the request for the Rogers was all of fact that's why we try to if I when I say that to get past that objection this is a willingly do otherwise or could you other words could you will otherwise could you want to do otherwise or could you could you choose among a different want because that's what that's the the Calvinist confirmed a compatible standpoint say men always act in accordance with their greatest preset desire based upon their nature within the given circumstances all of which of course determined by God and so which is animal instinct as far as I'm concerned but I I always argue no we have the ability as moral agents to choose to act upon one of those competing desires that that that we deliberate upon so I can choose act to fulfill this desire or I can choose to act to fulfill this desire I'm not determined by my desire ie animal instinct to act in a particular way that's been predetermined I am instead a countable moral creature that's able to choose to act among one of the competing desires that I have and I think that's a distinction that the Calvinists need need to be willing to bring to the discussion as well to be able to say okay how can you how can you justify with a Christian a regenerate man now you have a new nature so you can't blame it on the nature stuff because you always talk about people to choose according to nature okay we're talking about a regenerate nature now somebody's been born again when they choose to sin could they have done otherwise could they have willingly done otherwise and that's where the Calvinist ultimately has to say not unless God gave him more grace because God for whatever reason held that you know held back the sufficient grace they needed to resist that temptation otherwise they fall in lose a quandary that they try to put us in by saying oh well then you're better than the other guy because you resisted the sin but they didn't resist this and so you must be better than the person who did resist the sin and therefore they get into the whole merit thing and all that kind of nonsense that they try to put unto us because we affirm libertarian freedom yeah so is my mic your critic wander yeah go ahead man isn't it have you ever dealt with Calvinists who will differentiate between the act of an individual sin that they commit versus a situation where a person has continued and sin they'll they'll sort of redefined and play sort of a semantics game where where the you know the ability to choose not to sin in one individual instance is not necessarily the same as someone who it becomes almost a circular reasoning thing to her basically if you find out if there's an individual who continually chooses to sin then he he's not regenerate whereas you would have someone who has regenerated and they may sin once and then a Calvinist will say well in that situation at singular event perhaps this is someone who for whatever reason like you said that God determined for that person to commit that sin for some reason according to his own will the person first John chapter three that he put in the comment there do you run into that or deal with that much would they make that distinction there no I mean not on top ahead you know I I'm trying to think of in particular different cabinets are going to answer those things differently some are real consistent like I think Jason mullet in my conversation with him it's because I was really pressing him on that particular point that he kind of I kind of backed him into that corner to where he had to ultimately come out to say well a person who does resistant ation is is one who's given the sufficient grace to do so so I don't know how if I would have pressed him to go into the direction of you know continual sin versus a stumble you know and I think that's the distinction you're making is between somebody who you know might accidentally stumble into you know you know what like one day you happen to open a page to pornography and you look at it for a while versus someone who's you know on it every day and it's just a continual addiction that they're you know that they're feeding all the time and unrepentant for it something like that there's a difference between the stumbling into you know falling one time and messing up and then immediately wanting to repent and clean your stuff off versus the guy who's just living in the in the midst of the sin happily and I would have to think that from the Calvinistic world view that the person who's living in continual sin I'm just like the guy who stumbles is doing so by God's decree ultimately and that God hasn't granted him the sufficient grace to to truly repent for whatever that sin is that he's he's fallen into whereas from our perspective he does have the sufficient grace and the only reason that he's not been redeemed or he's that he's not under the forgiveness and reconciliation with God is because of his own rebellion and his own choice to reject that which God has provided for him I don't see any logical way around that that simple distinction between the two so I don't know if that answers your question or not but yeah yeah I I didn't I've never run into Calvinists really to bring that distinction out I was just thinking that in my own mind just now one other question if you don't mind earlier on the topic of I know this is running a little long here from the topic of God's sovereignty in connection with his omnipotence uh how about God's sovereignty in connection with his his omniscience what he knows and I we did you two talk on it a little bit but someone had posted earlier link to a topic I have not read much about but uh I don't know if I'm saying it right Mahlon ism or milene ism with the idea of middle knowledge or is it am i understanding that right because it for my own beliefs for instance um God is all-knowing God could know anything that he wanted to know but at any time could God throttle that power back of us creation and something he's given will like you talked about God's sovereignty at any time he can override the will of man I know in regards to his omnipotence but in regards to his omniscience and what he knows is there something going on there as well where he he chooses to throttle back his knowledge that sort of thing and take like that Mall and ISM stuff I didn't read about but I too much but I didn't see the topic of middle knowledge you know him no Avenue every outcome that could be does he in your and your perspective does he a throttle back note is there a difference between him and knowing every outcome and knowing specifically what the outcomes will be good questions Johnny who happens to be on this broadcast is a mole inist and so Erick Hernandez one of my heroes of the faith William Lane Craig is a modernist as well I have not signed on to Mullen ISM fully and the only reason really I mean I affirm middle-middle Balaji I don't know how you can't affirm the concept of middle knowledge even even from a Calvinistic worldview I mean Johnny explained to him what what middle knowledge is and and help him to see that I think any reasonable person can affirm middle knowledge without necessarily affirming all that Molina slackening on but I didn't know that's I didn't know that's what it was called it's just something I've been teaching my own church for a long time and that was a position I thought was a biblical position but I had just never even stumbled across that term or that that fella in that subject so anyways yeah Johnny I'll go ahead and just give a brief explanation let's not go too long here but give a brief explanation of what middle of knowledge is and and I think you'll see it's a pretty reasonable basic thing to understand that God has has knowledge of all contingent possibilities it actually said it seems to me to be a higher view of God's omniscience than than even determinism allows personally that go ahead Johnny that's the reason why it's called middle knowledge because it occurs in the middle of his natural knowledge and free knowledge so first logically there code it was a lot logical moments that is on a Facebook event as fun um so we think of monism as not a sociological perspectives more of his his omniscience and how we understand Gaia's knowledge these occur logically prior they're not chronological so it's all like step one step two step three so God doesn't know this by looking down a corridor at a time we're gonna split these three sections up just so we as humans can fathom so even though them steps one two and three God knew them in instant practically there's no time that he didn't know these are truth values of true propositions so natural knowledge is all the everything that God knows by nature he doesn't determine these a proposition they just he just knows them by being necessary few years mineral knowledge is what you would what you would do in any freedom permitting circumstances so God knew that if I was placed at Pizza Hut what I would choose and let's say I choose our chicken although I could choose beef I have the ability to he knows I would not do that so there's no instance where if I chosen beef which I do have the ability to do that he would have for known that anyway so it's not fatalism it's not if God knows you would do it it's necessarily you have to do it then there comes our the third logical moment which is free knowledge in this free knowledge he looks at all the possible worlds or what everyone would do and selects the world that he wants to actualize thereby ordaining everything's he uses if you're going to sin because you know what Natan is going to sin I'm not going to determine that you know what here's a half-two seen on these circumstances I know that he would do it use his middle knowledge I'm going to use it to bring about a greater good Romans 8:28 if that makes sense is that going to clear anything up yeah that does now is that a position that that God takes upon himself in order to not to contradict or counteract the free will of man or is that it is that a position is that God by nature globe by nature has this ability if he doesn't have the ability and he's a match schema great being if we can conceive of another being if you were that possesses middle knowledge flagmen sake then because that being through possesses new knowledge is maximally greater than God or the God the weakness evil therefore the other one by definition by be maximally greater than God without me knowledge must be gone because it has a characteristic size Maxima greater than the one that we can conceive of okay and and dr. flowers what would you say from your point of view you say you're not fully signed on to Mullen ISM are there any particular things you'd like to bring up concerning that not - obviously not to introduce any sort of debate or that sort of thing but just for my own knowledge there well I'll refer you to listen to a couple of broadcasts I did with on the podcast called young minds big questions both of my broadcast those guys are Mullen istic leaning and and they were asking about open theism of the things and I kind of go through some of that with them and my explanations and it's not that I really have a disagreement with what Mullen has claimed it's just that I see it in much of the same light as I see some of compatibilism and some of open theism I think Mullen ISM is more correct than open theism or compatible istic determinism in other words I think Mullen ISM is a better of the three philosophical positions if I had to choose between those three the product the point is though from my perspective is I don't have to I don't have to choose one of those three because I think that Deuteronomy 29:29 and passages like that to say that the hidden things belong to God the revealed things belong to man that there's certain aspects about God's nature and the way in which an infinite God works within time and space as a real reactionary God that there's a real relationship there that some of the philosophical speculations that are thrown out there are just that there's speculate there speculations about an infinite matter in eternal matter and I I think Johnny would disagree with me I know we mine Craig doesn't because we talked about this but but it there's nothing wrong with speculating again I have no problem with people guessing as to how these things might work as long as they're honest about the fact that they're doing that and not trying to speak exceed reform the trailer saying thus saith the Lord and that's one of the problems I have with some of my Calvinistic friends who really try to hold up this compatible istic determinism as if it's from the Bible when I just see no evidence of this this philosophical worldview in Scripture and in the same way I don't think that Jonathan Edwards was canonized I don't think Luis Molina was canalized Kent canonized I don't think these philosophers were canonized but instead who was canonized were people who said I'm a father I'm a shepherd I'm like this this is how I act in time and space this is how I react to people and sometimes I think our philosophical ramblings can turn more people away from understanding God as a real person who interacts with in time and space because some of us tend to be a little bit more high-minded and philosophical thinking in our in our approaches and again I say that with all respect to my philosophical brothers that are very intellectual and very in-depth and their thinking is just to say and I have respect as a matter of fact I appoint people to boethius his his book the consolation of philosophy was was expounded is probably the most widely held philosophical position of divine omniscience throughout from the sixth century all the way through to the Reformation time and and it was the kind of the eternal now view of God is Thomas Aquinas held to it will see us Lewis held to it and it was more of a it's again it's a philosophical way of saying that God is in the eternal now is that things are to God present and eternal because he's in the now in the present now now that how does that even compete with us it's philosophical it's beyond our comprehension or understanding of how God works with an eternal nature of God but at the same time it's it's maintaining philosophically and logically how God can be both within time incarnation aliy with us and also outside of time in his eternal nature and transcendent understanding of how we can't even begin to comprehend him and one shouldn't contradict the other though it's just like you know when we had the Trinity or God is both I mean Jesus is both God and man how do we fully reconcile all those things there's certain aspects that we have to appeal to the mystery of who God is and have faith and and things that the Bible just chooses not to give us a full understanding of but what I think hopefully that's four along with what you're saying not that not that we even could understand it in time and space I think that maybe that the knowledge I use the things that we're speaking of they're not relatable to us in our current frame is that sort of what you're saying yeah I mean we're we're it's like the dimension are you maybe we have certain we have certain senses within the time dimension of being confined by matter and in time and very linear ways of thinking and there are certain ways about God outside of even our dimension that are just beyond our comprehension and and kind of it you know that again I I understand the frustration that some specially philosophically minded folks have to appeal into mystery because it's it's unanswerable questions and so what if let's philosophers want to do by nature answer all the questions right and so some people don't like questions unanswered but it's inevitable even within those philosophical will views it they all come to a point of mystery of inch on some question so I just point people to say appeal to mystery before you undermine something that the scripture clearly teaches us being true in other words there's one presupposition you can bring to the Bible that God is good he's good he's good God and and by every definition of what we understand is good is God God is holy he doesn't he doesn't doesn't take pleasure in that which is evil certainly doesn't causally determine evil tempts men to evil and so the defense of libertarian freedom from our perspective is the defense of the holiness of God that is his kiss character is good and it's right he's not the one who is ultimately bringing to pass all heinous evil for his own glory as if God needs to somehow demonstrate his glory by making us do bad things in some causally determinate of way it's just unnecessary and sometimes I think our philosophical wanderings lead us to that kind of explanation about God which end up undermining his character now that being said I don't think mulling us go too far in most of those speculations and that's one of the reasons I don't I don't have a problem with mullin ISM I just I just continually to point out that it is a philosophical speculation not a theological or necessarily biblical perspective because I don't think there's enough said in the Bible that fully brings out in and unpacks a mullah mystic worldview that's not to say that you can't have passages that support a monastic perspective there are passages which would support just like there are passages which a determinist a theistic compatibilist would use to support their position there are there are proof texts for the different philosophical worldviews I just don't think there's enough for any of us to speak with dogmatism about such things so hopefully that's helpful can ask a question or Romans 9 sure and this is more more about what you might have heard if I understand correctly Calvinists believe that Esau based on Romans 9 was lost was unregenerate or most of them you know that's the basic root of it but not all of them so if ESL for those who believed he was unregenerate in Genesis 33 he so forgives Jacob at least that's what the passage seems to imply so if Esau being and regenerate was able to forgive Jacob whatever that meant in the context how would they apply Romans 8 to that passage and how is that forgiveness different as a good thing that an unregenerate person can do how is it different from uh repentance and either either that shows that some good things can come from unregenerate people and if forgiveness can come from an unregenerate people repentance may also come from a good person or he saw was not unregenerate and therefore the whole is how I hated Jacob I loved is not talking about salvation have you heard or know what no I think I've seen your argument your argument is if if if Esau was unregenerate than how did he do a good thing like forgive his brother because according to Roman's 8 in Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 8 that no unregenerate man can do something that's good I think from if I were to put on my Calvinistic hat for a second and argue for the sake of a Calvinist I think what they would say is well we don't mean that people can't do externally good things like help a woman across the street or say hey bro I forgive you first for doing something bad to me that's not that's not what they're trying to say what they're with what they would say that that Paul is meaning is that they can't do anything that would would merit them being saved which of course we would agree with and and I would point out to my Calvinistic brothers that we don't believe faith in Christ merits your salvation so no problem there for us but regardless to say what I'm trying to get to is that all things done outside of faith in God or ultimately sin or ultimately not pleasing to God from the Calvinistic worldview and therefore even though Esau would have you know just like any other unregenerate person when he forgives somebody because a lot of unregenerate people forgive people for different things when they're acting that way according to the Calvinist they're not doing so in faith and for the this of the right motivations and therefore it wouldn't qualify as a truly good thing in the side of God will be a filthy rag in God's sight thank you sure Johnny I have a question for you or dr. flowers and Jeremiah 30 to 35 the Lord makes a statement about something not coming into mind that is that a passage that is used for a topic like middle knowledge ever or is that is that a an oversimplification of the verse just to say it didn't come into his mind in the sense that he did not consider that or think of it or is it simply just him saying that was an idea that he would not himself entertain ever that's Jeremiah 32 verse 35 I think it was something like a intent for that to occur he didn't intend for that not he didn't know because God knows all true propositions anything that's true he knows them by being omniscient that's the definition of initially has more than being omniscient God Nations by definition is to know all true propositions God knows all true propositions and he also knows self propositions that is I am God he knows that he is God so there's a little bit more than omniscient to be quite honest yeah I'm out also the comment that the back and forth that I was talking about with the big mind young minds big questions we go over that passage too so that may be a good one to look back up over it three or four weeks ago I posted it on our broadcast as well so you can find it on my iTunes page but really what just briefly is is this is Jeremiah's comment there and what records actually God's comment was it reflecting upon God's ability was that what he's trying to exigent Lee trying to talk about how God got his ability or was it a reflection of God's character and I think it's God's character that's being reflected there not his ability it's not about his ability in other words the expression of that not entering his mind wasn't about his ability to know future events it was about his character of saying that's not something that I intend or want as Johnny was saying it's not something that that fits within what is truly of God and in that that's a really hard thing for Calvinists I think to defend because ultimately what they have to say is that God not only he not only he intended it in other words he brought it to pass for his own glory he so the the burning of the children to Molech which is the context of that passage is God actually decreed he's the one who brought that thing to pass for his own glory and yet was still saying to them I did not intend that it did not enter my mind that to me is indefensible from a Calvinist ik worldview in any way shape or form I can understand how the open theists can use it for their position I can I could have that debate with them and I can understand how the mole illness can use it for their position but I do not understand how the determinant can maintain that that that passage within their worldview well that and just all the other verses to his own children about not committing that that particular act which is a basic problem in confidence and period God saying don't do this and then determining it for it to happen in someone's life yeah exactly something Christ said to Peter you would turn on me three times and yet he says those who tada me in front of my friends as you know one of my father yet to think that God to turn to deny Christ to others it's like how does that make any sense whatsoever and I was told my Calvin is he brought them that you know even though like dr. flowers when he was a Calvinist he was saved prior becoming a Calvinist and God showed him the truth the Calvinist was true they said he got his own child who died for to believe the truth and then to determine him to preach away from his glory someone is glorified when they're speaking the truth of God and a coward ISM is true it or not God determined all of his children to believe in Calvinism chimeric we didn't believe I'm not a modernist according to Calvinism because of what I know who I've known what circumstances on Reims all up to God and likewise all about views of anything so God you think as for his glory that this is a vision then all right you can set on surfaced over by free go deeper that means he's God is using his own children to believe a lie in order to glorify himself that's quite sadistic that's like a many wars throughout the history where the president Prime Minister will kill his own people secretly and then to put on someone else and get all I'm gonna attack these guys for killing us and in killing them to glorify himself say look I'll protect you guys I'm the one who bombed my own people it makes no sense it's self-glorification which I think dr. flowers mentioned many times in 1 Corinthians I think whose thirteen reflects God loves six not his signal to his own many times it does exactly of God's doing if he's determining he's unloved ones who believe something out in Calvinism if calcium's is true and glorifies immersed it yeah it's almost as if Calvinism paints a picture for the Christian life but it's completely inconsistent with his own nature a way in which he would have us to act and behave but it's not how he himself acts and behaves all he tells it although he tells us to follow him yeah exactly yeah exactly yeah it's just honey yeah I just happen in the chat there that if if traditionalists non Calvinists like myself are wrong excuse me if if we're right and for correct if non Calvinists are correct then we are defending God's glory against those who are claiming ultimately theistic determinism compatibilism but if we're wrong then the only right conclusion is that we are wrong because God is determined by his own sovereign decree for us to be wrong for the praise of his glory so either way I can look at of us and say I'm glorifying God and I know that I'm glorifying God because I'm either glorifying God because I'm right in defending God against the claims of Calvinists or God is determined for me to be wrong and to fight against Calvinism for the praise of his own glory so go explain that I feel feel like I'm at a pretty secure position when it comes to that now now some Calvinists to get a little angry with me when I bring that up but I think if they're refutable logic because ultimately if all things are brought to pass by God's sovereign decree then he's brought to pass people like Leighton flowers and CS Lewis and aw Tozer and the host of other non Calvinists throughout human history who have stood against the claims of Calvinists and he has done so for the sake of his own glorification I think that's a very hard point for Calvinists to ultimately contend with the the more consistent way of contending with that is to say well we're not regenerate in a very few mainstream Calvinists at least to go that far to say that non Calvinists aren't aren't brothers in Christ but logically speaking it's a more consistent position because otherwise you've got regenerate people who for whatever reason have been withheld the sufficient grace to understand the truth of God's sociological way of saving the world and he's granted to two others and there's a nickel on a sense either I know I know it's getting late there I just came into this webcast kind of late here or webcast or whatever this thing is called Google Hangouts you're a pastor as well dr. flowers of the church Sharon in Texas is that right well I I preached at a church regularly I my full-time job is as the director of apologetics and youth evangelism for Texas Baptist which is the denomination here in Texas and then I also serve at my church local church at first bench Richardson and I preached here occasionally okay how are they service is there today oh very well thank you we know back where the baccalaureate service is for the graduating seniors and Ellis Orozco my pastor there are senior pastors one of the finest men you'll ever meet so I love my church what was his name again Ellis all roofs Co okay well thank you for letting me join in I might I might have to watch my notifications a little closer and and do this more often it was a blessing well thanks for thanks for the feedback Nathan I appreciate it Thank You Johnny for a couple of those links and thank you dr. flowers for those links sure eyes and time he's done okay we are getting to the point we need to close down but I wanted to make sure that there wasn't somebody pausing and waiting for our conversation in there so last call and then we'll we'll call it a night [Music] Lyons and when Google and YouTube write any comments that have it open yeah I see the comments Jason Eden says that seems that there's a mystery on both sides of calvinism non casbahs and absolutely anybody who denies that there's mysteries from both perspectives is it's not being honest there's mysteries within Mullen ISM there's mysteries within compatibles and which mysteries within open theism there's mysteries within the sociological world views of traditionalism of Calvinists of high Calvinist low Calvin a super lab Syria and sub web serie and infra Maps Arian you name it all of them eventually have a point where they say we don't know the answer to that question it's just the question is which mystery does the Bible afford because that's the mystery you want to appeal to and I think appealing to the mystery of before claiming that God brings about sin and evil is a better mystery to say I don't know exactly how within God's infinite nature he creates free moral creatures but I believe that he does and I believe the Bible teaches that he does and therefore when when Satan sinned it wasn't by the decree of God that he sinned but by his own libertarian free volition in other words he could have done otherwise and he should have otherwise as well as Adam and Eve when they sinned they could have done otherwise and should have done otherwise willingly they could have willingly to use that qualification for Johnny is what we're talking about for it they could have willingly done otherwise and therefore I don't put the blame ultimately back upon this supposed eternal decree determinative decree of God before the foundation of the world I don't think that's a river a biblically established perspective okay well we will call it a night it's 11 o'clock here so blessings to all of you feel free to to leave comments in the comment section afterwards and maybe we can pick up in another time but I appreciate Johnny and all the others who joined in for our discussion apologize for the technical difficulties about midway through where we lost several of you but hopefully this has been helpful to you guys blessings to you I will see you next time bye-bye see us thank you

Channel: Soteriology101

Views: 2,070

Rating: 4.5555553 out of 5

Keywords: Romans 9, Leighton Flowers, Calvinism, Traditionalism, Arminianism, Determinism, Predestination, Election, #hangoutsonair, Hangouts On Air, #hoa

Id: 50AmSWgOjpY

Length: 152min 56sec (9176 seconds)

Published: Sun May 28 2017