Radio Free Geneva: Responding to Flame on Romans 9

The Difference Between Calvinists and Arminians

The Context of Romans 9 🤯

Michael Brown on Calvinsim

I really respect Dr Michael Brown. He is a scholar of the first rank and consistently witnesses for Jesus to Jews, Atheists, and to our culture regarding homosexuality and sex ethics. The only thing I have ever heard from him that I can agree with him 100% on is his views of Calvinism and Free will. Below is his video of Dr Brown's explanation of what Romans 9 says.



Here is video where Michael Brown  appeared on Dr Leighton Flowers' podcast. They discussed how they both disagree with Calvinism. They both seem to reject that the scriptures teach that all humans are so utterly captivated by sin that we are unable to choose to give Jesus our lives on our own by our free will. They also said that we need to be free to choose or reject Jesus or it really isn't about God's love. While they did talk about scriptures and tried to explain why they support their views and do not support Calvinism, they did not convince me. Jesus said that no one is able to come to him unless the father draws (the Greek word actually mean "dragged") him or her. See John 6:44. Check out their discussion below.




I see the underlying issue comes from trying to answer the question about what why some people reject Christ after they hear the Gospel while some people accept it. All Christians are fine with agreeing that when a person gives their lives to Christ, their sins are propitiated and they are going to heaven and they have true peace and relationship with God. We receive eternal life in the future and a full life and relationship with God in the here and now. Although we all who are born in sin and shaped in iniquity, some turn to Jesus and some say no. Why? Is there something different in the man or woman who understands and accepts what Jesus did from the people who don't. Calvinists and Anti-Calvinists answer these questions differently. Given what Jesus said when Peter wanted to know what would happen to John after Jesus told Peter what he was supposed to do. Maybe we should follow that.

²⁰ Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) ²¹ When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
²² Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” ²³ Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” - John 21:20-23

Dr Brown did debate his friend and well-known Calvinist, Dr James White.

THEOparadox - The Biblical Paradox Blog: Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser

On  THEOparadox blog there is a two part article on the recent attempt of Randal Rauser to attack Calvinism using Romans 9:13.

¹³ Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

You can read the articles at the following link.

THEOparadox - The Biblical Paradox Blog: Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 1

THEOparadox - The Biblical Paradox Blog: Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 2

Dave Hunt on Romans 9: Tradition-Driven Eisegesis Once Again

Romans 9 exegesis has shown up on my blog before. IT confounds me how so many people can agree with how I read most of scripture except in this case! I'm also amazed by the attacks on James White's person and scholarship because I don't see how he is wrong in how he exegetes this text and most of scripture that I have followed him as he read and expounded on them. I'd be interested in hearing why the following text that White posted on his blog is incorrect.

The Berean Call put out their monthly newsletter a few days ago, and I could not help but noticing the following paragraph. If you are not intimately familiar with the argument of Romans 9, and especially its insistence that the choice of Jacob and the rejection of Esau was not in any way, shape, or form, based upon the actions of Jacob or Esau, foreseen or otherwise, but was instead based solely upon God's "purpose in election," you might wish to review the text before reading this tradition-laden means of getting around the text:

Regarding Romans 9:19, we know that it is not wise to single out one verse apart from full context. The issue of Jacob and Esau and their being loved or hated by God before their birth has occupied more than one discussion throughout history. If one confines the argument to portions of Romans 9, it does sound like God arbitrarily selects some for salvation and others for damnation, but Romans 9 does not occur in a vacuum, and the rest of Scripture furnishes the balance. God's foreknowledge enters into the equation at this point. Some theologians have stated that it would be accurate to translate the passage, "Jacob have I chosen, but Esau have I rejected." Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.


1) How many times people have rebelled against this truth over the course of church history is, of course, irrelevant to the biblical teaching itself.
2) Whenever you find someone (and Dave Hunt has made a living off of this) going to the "rest of Scripture" argument before exegeting the text in context, you know you have found someone's tradition.
3) Notice that in essence this paragraph admits that, contextually speaking, if you just let Romans 9 speak for Romans 9, it teaches God's sovereignty (misidentified as "arbitrary" when, in fact, it is based upon the good pleasure of God's will, His eternal purpose, which is anything but arbitrary).
4) Whenever you find anyone from the Berean Call citing un-named "scholars," beware. Remember, these are the same folks who drew from a Yahwist cult to try to get around Acts 13:48, suggesting that the first fifteen chapters of Acts were written in Hebrew!
5) There is no doubt that "chosen/rejected" is part of the meaning of the text, but there are plain, easily chosen words that have those meanings, and Paul did not use them. Loved and hated are words with meanings. People may not like what they mean, but that does not change their meaning.
So compare, then, the words of Scripture with the words of the Berean Call and remember, once again, the grave error enunciated by Dave Hunt nearly a decade ago now, "James, I have no traditions."

Scripture states: though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls---(Romans 9:11)


But the Berean Call says,

Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.


The result? Paul's entire argument is turned on its head. How much more plainly can the Apostle state "and had not yet done anything good or bad"? But, when wedded to a tradition that you refuse to see, even the plain words on the page cannot dissuade you from pursuing your goals. Another great example provided by the folks up at the Berean Call.

Dave Hunt on Romans 9: Tradition-Driven Eisegesis Once Again

Brennon's Thoughts: William Lane Craig on Romans 9

Image via Wikipedia

Brennon has posted the following quote from William Lane Craig summing up the meaning of Romans 9.

Paul's burden, then, in Romans 9 is not to narrow the scope of God's election but to broaden it. He wants to take in all who have faith in Christ Jesus regardless of their ethnicity. Election, then, is first and foremost a corporate notion: God has chosen for Himself a people, a corporate entity, and it is up to us by our response of faith whether or not we choose to be members of that corporate group destined to salvation

.

Read the entire article this comes from here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6675

I admire William Lane Craig a great deal. I believe he loves Jesus and that he is saved. i do have to differ on how he is reading corporate election into Romans 9. I mean is it possible to choose a group of people without also designation who is in that chosen group? Is it really like two empty rooms with an open doors, and God says, I'm saving all those who choose to go in to that door and all those in the other room are going to hell? That is what I understand Dr. Craig to be saying. There are two problems. One: no one has the ability to go into that room for salvation, nor wants to go into that room, unless God enables him/her. (John 6:44). Two: The truth is that hell is the default destination for each and every human being. Often times we make it sound like a person's eternal destiny is up in the air until they make a choice for or against God. The Bible teaches that each one of us chooses to reject God from the get go. How we change unless God "takes out that heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh"? We don't. A better picture is an empty room that God fills with those selected - predestined - from outside the room who are on their way to hell - us.

11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:11-14

1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Ephesians 2:1-10

Okay, given what Paul wrote to the Ephesians, I can't see how he intended to give us the idea that the elect was something you joined of your own free-will in Romans 9. It is true that God is telling us that it has nothing to do with who your daddy is but His choice in choosing you. He's not rejecting those who are no chosen, they are doomed before there is any choice is made.

Brennon's Thoughts: William Lane Craig on Romans 9