Non-Calvinist Interpretation of Romans 9

[@tofryx]

Hi Mike! Thanks for this teaching, I have been thinkng about this passage for a long time. One thing I really liked was how you adressed Exodus 9. I never heard this from any other teacher, and it makes so much sense out of the "mercy towards the vessels of destruction" text. Thank you for your ministry, when you teach the Scripture it exalts God, and makes me long to worship Him even more.

[@dpcrn]

I agree. Pulling all of that together was excellent.

[@MrRoyLange]

Terrible teacher! Denies the word of God from the pulpit dogmatically

[@MrRoyLange]

Saving faith is not an active human will. It is a supernatural gift of God it is a component of Saving Grace given to God's elect.

[@dpcrn]

Roy Lange, Your first comment is not a helpful comment at all. Your other comment is better, but still not the most helpful for a discussion. There are many (I would think even most) who would say that the Calvinist approach is wrong. That is why these things have been debated for centuries. This doesn't make Mike a terrible teacher or say he is denying the Word of God. Please also consider the following from John 13:35 "Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples--if you have love for one another." NET

[@MrRoyLange]

Daniel P. Clark arminianism is another gospel. It is heresy. It is rank heresy. Those who teach heresy are not my brothers in Christ!

[@theresonly1kidd29]

What a beautiful example of a godly man demonstrating for us how to lovingly approach scriptural disagreements. As a Calvinist who disagrees with his interpretation, this was both convicting and encouraging. I have discussed these differences before, but with not even half the love and respect that this man demonstrates here for his brothers and sisters in Christ. Thank you for this, and God bless you and your family.

[@graftme3168]

You disagree, and yet you were convicted! How does that work? And, why would you thank someone for teaching something you disagree with? "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."

[@minmayhew]

@ Graft MeI believe the conviction was regarding the attitude with which he has shared what he believe in contrast to the way Mike presents his understanding. This is not a doctrine to divide over so there’s no need to communicate harshly or with strong emotion.

[@graftme3168]

@@minmayhew I confess I may have misunderstood. (Strong emotion? That's also presumptuous.)

[@JradKbad]

Thank you brother for this teaching. As one who holds to a reformed/Calvinist view of sovereignty, election, and salvation, i would have to disagree with you one a few points. One would be a point you had made several times concerning that God’s choice and election here is not concerning salvation but rather blessing and promise (which I see salvation being the ultimate fulfillment of). If it is merely speaking to blessing than why would Paul wish to be accursed and cut off? As you rightly pointed out, the language speaks of eternal matters. This sets the tone and context of the rest of the chapter. Thus, once we get to verses 6-12, external salvation should be at the forefront of discussion and this is confirmed even further by vs 14-18 and 19-24. And to further make my point the context just before Romans 9 is Romans 8! One of the most glorious chapters on eternal salvation. Thus chapter 9 should also be read in light of eternal matters. Again thank you for the video. I learned a lot. I pray you continue to pursue the Lord with all your heart brother!

[@demetriusmiddleton1246]

What were you convicted of or about?

[@superhoga]

"Trying to study these topics that should not divide us" Thank you brother.

[@DV77737]

Amen

[@nicholascarter6543]

Amen

[@freemind9721]

I don’t believe doctrine regarding salvation should be treated as a secondary issue. We should divide from people that have a wrong view of the doctrine of salvation. We can still be friendly, courteous, and even have organized debates, but we should be careful who we allow to influence us and potentially our children.

[@reynaldodavid2913Jo]

@superhoga, How can the teaching of Mike not divide when he contradict what the Calvinist believe in Romans 9... Mike said that choice is not elect and God chose Jacob only for the promise.. Can God promise you something and will not save you...

[@JesussavesJLL]

Thanks Mike for the sharing. I almost became a Calvinist. I was a Buddhist for 32 years. I was saved when after one of my Buddhist prayer sessions I recited the sinners prayer showing on the KZbin channel on my iPad. I thought what harm can it do to me. I just read and see what happens. I could not be reading it with much faith because I don’t believe that Jesus could be my saviour then. But I read it with focus. Seconds later I felt like a different person with tremendous love for Jesus. That was last December. Because I studied Reformation history in my college days so I thought Calvinism now really makes sense to me! Then my pastor told me that we shouldn’t boxed God into different theologies. So now I think God is love. I made a free choice to say the prayer. By that window, He saved me. Praise Jesus!

[@luccasouza5572]

What an amazing testimony! Oh how great and unexplainable is the power of Jesus! A simple sinner's prayer recited, and the Holy Spirit moves to convict your heart, amazing

[@boldforchrist9000]

Don't trust your feelings. Be sober minded. Walk by faith not by sight. Easy come easy go. Live by feelings die by feelings.

[@grace-forever]

Fantastic testimony! Praise the Lord! :)

[@brockgeorge777]

@@boldforchrist9000 but I would say “feelings alone”. If there is now, nor never has been some feeling of an internal change, there’s probably a reason for that. Rather, look for the facts that give rise to *true* feelings and experiences that those VERY facts promise as an inheritance to those who believe. (Rom. 8:12-17)

[@boldforchrist9000]

@@brockgeorge777 Great scripture!

[@warrenrobert5009]

I’m a Calvinist but I appreciate how you try to accurately represent both sides. You’re the only person on KZbin who will do that. Everyone else just creates a total straw man. But I’m encouraged by watching any of your videos. Keep it up Mike!

[@sweynforkbeardtraindude]

As do Calvinists.

[@t.g.9782]

what is a Calvinist?

[@sweynforkbeardtraindude]

@@t.g.9782 and just as valid, where is Calvin mentioned in Scripture?

[@sweynforkbeardtraindude]

@@t.g.9782 A Calvinist is a person who venerates a man, a Presbyterian pope.

[@t.g.9782]

@@sweynforkbeardtraindude Calvin is a human? I'm confused ..not really sure what pryestabern, Baptists , etc . Jews & Christian...whats makes all those except Jews DIFFERNT from Catholics

[@valerierueckert7859]

I love that you compare Scripture to Scripture! You don't quote other Bible commentators!!!

[@virginiem.pimentel4747]

Great point!...To many up and coming teachers of the 'Word' spend far to much time replaying what God had revealed to past members of Christ's body (all of which I do find to be legitimate). And not giving the people a fresh look at what God is doing even now at this present time- That of course we would be able to compare with what God has already done in and through our Brother's and Sisters of the past....Great point!

[@regularstan6212]

Unless those commentators are quoting scriptures.

[@Sirach144]

Like the reformers do

[@jeffreybomba]

I love when Theologians do what the Jews did from the time of Jesus and quote the Rabbis of the past instead of the scriptures.

[@drjonas77]

Common taters lol

[@jader838]

Thank you for giving a clear explanation of a non-Calvinist understanding of Rom. 9! I personally am a Calvinist and of course disagree with some of your early fundamental assertions, but I really did enjoy listening to you. I’ve talked to many Free Will people but none have explained their position as clearly as you have, so thank you! On a separate note, I really wish you would include the Q&A part in your videos, it would be very enjoyable. Love your videos! I guess one day we will find out who is correct on this doctrine. Until that glorious day, keep preaching the word, my dude!

[@an_nie_dyc1386]

Wonderful comment! Thank you

[@pdxnikki1]

jacdwis understanding Torah will helps in understand his position. What he states in the beginning is absolutely true: for Jews like me, the gospels don’t make sense at all as separate from Torah but as a continuation only, and this is precisely the way Paul understood the Messiah. He had to; the NT hadn’t yet been written! If Jesus isn’t the Messiah of the Jews He’s noone’s Messiah. Therefore if we study the gospels first without a very firm grasp of Torah we will miss much of it and make our theology based on incomplete knowledge and understanding. We should first study Torah as did the disciples of Yeshua and then approach the gospels with new eyes. Whether we do so or not doesn’t change our salvation; it simply corrects our theology.

[@jader838]

Abba's Daughter I don’t disagree with anything you are saying. I would say that you can read and understand the NT by itself, it is also written to Gentiles who did not know the OT. But, both the OT and NT are the word of God. There are a lot of allusions to the OT in the NT and it is helpful to know the OT. We should be preaching from the OT because it is the same God and gospel. Some of the presuppositions that he makes in this video I disagree with, namely, that this passage is not about salvation, that is all I meant to say.

[@toyosioyejobi309]

SCRIPTURES ADRESSING THE ERRORS OF CALVINISM John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" Mark 16:15-16 " And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that BELEIVETH and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Revelations 3:20" Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and OPENS the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." John 11:26" and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?" Acts 2:38" Peter replied, "Repent(one must repent, theres no preordained repentance one musy repent) and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And YOU WILL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (not you already have). Romans 8:28-29 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him(who loves him??... People who have repented and accepted the gospel), who have been called according to his purpose. For those God FOREKNEW(key word here foreknew not foremade) he also predestined(he predestines those he foreknew) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. Matthew 24:13 "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.( key word "he that endure" , this is on your own part) Matthew 24:31 "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.( This is the end of this scripture who are the elect here??... The ones who have endured not the ones God made before they were born as elect. He foreknew however he didn't foremake) Shalom!

[@jader838]

Toyosi Oyejobi in case you have never met a Calvinist, we still call sinners to repent and believe, but we also believe that it is under God’s sovereign plan that people respond in faith. Why did I believe and others did not? It’s not because I’m smarter, more humble, or more god-fearing, it’s because God in His grace chose to change my heart and save me. Not according to works that I have done, but according to His Grace we are saved.

[@samanthiafarthing8591]

Thank you so, so much for this video. I was really struggling with this chapter. I had been listening to some Reformed baptist preachers that I really liked and started looking into their doctrine more and came across unconditional election. I knew that I didn’t believe what they were saying, but I heard several of them speak on this chapter, and I couldn’t find anyone who was refuting their interpretation of this chapter specifically rather than the concept of unconditional election. It got to the point where I was on my knees crying and praying to God to show me the truth of who He was because unconditional election did not seem like the God who loved me while I was still a sinner and sent His son to die for the whole world, and yet, I could not see how else to read this chapter other than how the Calvinists were reading it. Right after praying that prayer, God led me to your video. Your analysis completely reaffirmed my trust in who God is. You are an answer to a very desperate prayer! May God bless you and your ministry.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

Hey sister just wanted to ask why don’t you believe in unconditional election? It’s not just in Romans that proves it. Ephesians 1:4-6 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

[@samanthiafarthing8591]

@@ShepherdMinistry Hi there. I have been walking with God my entire life, and everything I read and experienced in my relationship with him leads me away from believing unconditional selection. I have listened to Calvinist interpretations of the verses you listed, but also to others addressing that interpretation. There main point was that these verses refer to a predestination for those who are “in Christ” meaning those who believe in him rather than predestining those who will believe in Christ. As I said in my comment, everything I have experienced in my relationship with God tells me that His character is not that of a God who would select some and condemn some without giving them an opportunity to be saved. I fully acknowledge that God’s ways are far beyond me and that there could be something that He is doing with it that is beyond my understanding, but I have not been convinced that this is the way He chooses to do thinggs.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

@@samanthiafarthing8591 the Bible states were dead in our sins. We are unable to choose God. God has to call us. Total Depravity (man unable to choose God until God calls on man)- As a result of Adam’s fall, the entire human race is affected; all humanity is dead in trespasses and sins. Man is unable to save himself: Genesis 6:5 5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Jeremiah 17:9 9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? Romans 3:10-18 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” As you read the verses above we see that man is dead in his sin. His sinful nature prevents him from being able to Choose God. God must call man giving Him a new nature. Simply go read how God called and chose Saul/Paul. Paul never chose God first. ‘But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:’ Acts 9:15

[@samanthiafarthing8591]

I agree that God has to call first. The difference comes in that I believe that God has chosen to allow us to make the choice whether to heed the call and accept the salvation He is offering or to reject it. I believe that when the bible says we are dead in our sins it is referring to the fact that we are condemned and that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves. God had to provide the way and make the offer, then we make the choice to accept or reject it. I know this goes into more of the irresistible grace, but I think the whole TULIP concept is all tied together. One aspect can’t really stand without the others. I absolutely believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that every word is true, but I also know the Bible uses hyperbole at times. For example, I believe the verse you pulled from Genesis is speaking of the time just prior to the flood, and yet we know that not every human was evil continuously, otherwise god would not have chosen to spare Noah and his family. I think you have to look at the Bible as a whole and at the continuous narrative it shows. god’s character is revealed throughout the Bible, and I don’t think it is consistent with TULIP.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

@@samanthiafarthing8591 thank you for your response. The Holy Spirit will work in the lives of the elect so that they inevitably will come to faith in Christ. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those sinners whom He personally calls to Christ (John 6:37-40 “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that”). At the heart of this doctrine is the answer to the question: Why does one person believe the gospel and another does not? Is it because one is smarter, has better reasoning capabilities, or possesses some other characteristic that allows him to realize the importance of the gospel message? Or is it because God does something unique in the lives of those whom He saves? If it is because of what the person who believes does or is, then in a sense he is responsible for his salvation and has a reason to boast. However, if the difference is solely that God does something unique in the hearts and lives of those who believe in Him and are saved, then there is no ground for boasting and salvation is truly a gift of grace. Of course, the biblical answer to these questions is that the Holy Spirit does do something unique in the hearts of those who are saved. The Bible tells us that God saves people “according to His mercy…through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). In other words, those who believe the gospel and are saved do so because they have been transformed by the Holy Spirit.

[@KathyBGood]

I have to listen to these more than once, and I'm amazed at how each video is helping me understand Romans. I am so so grateful to God for using your videos to help me.

[@lewisdoyle]

I thought this was really helpful, thanks. I’m not a Calvinist, but I have to say that I find their teaching compelling, though not entirely convincing. This sort of material is great. My understanding of this is that the major flaw with the Calvinist view of this passage, is that they believe the passage is about salvation, when its actually about the lineage of the promise. It’s a good starting point fo rme, so thanks and God bless.

[@flyflyaway1371]

@HillDueceua I read it, and I think it destroys the view that Calvinist try to use romans 9 for.

[@bobtaylor170]

@HillDueceua , your avatar is wonderful. I needed a good, venting laugh. I wish I could find a way to get it to my PCA pastor without his knowing it was from me. Actually, he has a fine sense of humor, but I'm a surreptitious non - Calvinist in my church and don't wish to be burned at the stake.

[@jimmenken7779]

@@bobtaylor170 thats funny. Same here

[@ShepherdMinistry]

What’s interesting is when you see Esau and Ishmael were both not saved. So it must be about salvation as well. Or just a big coincidence?

[@chaddonal4331]

@@ShepherdMinistryWhy would you conclude that Esau was not saved? Heb 11:20 confirms a blessing for Esau and the Genesis narrative ends with a reunion, presupposing repentance and transformed heart.

[@ClarkRiggins]

Hey Mike, I have been a pastor for over twenty years and haven’t heard Romans 9 explained so eloquently. Well done brother. Thanks Clark

[@dand4485]

Would ask is it Biblical. I've never heard anyone explain away Rom 9:15-16. It fits with the rest of scripture that on one would ever choose God on their own. Being a pastor would love to see what passages you would have to refute what i'd assert God has made clear.... i.e. "No on seek for God... NO! Not one..." We are at war or enmity with God. That is the first problem, next is we are slaves to and controlled, blinded and ruled by sin? The natural man can't understand/accept the things of the spirit. The clear passage and illustration of Christ of birth, and i'd challange you do really dissect John 3 what being born from above really means. Would assert the point Christ was making is no one may effect their own birth and for a spiritual birth would assert God is say one must be born from God, or chosen by Him as we read in Ephesions. Look at the first four chapters and consider who did what to who, when and causes buy their choice, i don't see man's input. One might eloquently explain Rom 9 but is it truthful and consistent with the rest of scripture. Bottom line of the issue is how is ultimately sovereign God or man. Then i love 1 Cor 4:7 Never have seen scripture to support man choosing God. Sure many may say or quote Joshua 24, but when did Joshua say it, or would be be uncommon to hear any born again believer to say "As for me and my house we shall server the Lord. But remember Joshua proclaimed it on or before the day he was gong to die. God told him just like Moses, get your house in order for I am taking you home... Joshua's proclamation after a life of faithful service, one of the good spies...

[@mipock1950]

Galatians 3:29 King James Version (KJV) 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

[@heatherwoods5703]

I'm revisiting Calvinism after studying it 15 years ago. This was such a great talk. I listened a second time, this time taking notes and following along in my Bible. Thank you for great clarity and walking through this challenging text and through the rest of the Scriptures to give more context and understanding! 📖

[@richardwalters9249]

I think I’m in this same boat - re-evaluating my views.

[@matiasdsalerno]

Great video mate! I’m a calvinist, but I always want to dig deeper into this issues and have different point of views. It’s an interesting take on Romans 9. What I enjoy the most about your videos is your high view of Scripture and how you don’t avoid difficult passages. I haven’t seen many non-calvinists approach this text. God bless you!

[@djvgallery4304]

Why when faced with the truth, do you not doubt your “Calvinism” ? And leave it?

[@IconoclastX]

better hope you're one of the elect buddy

[@hankhooper1637]

​@@IconoclastX why?

[@reynaldodavid2913Jo]

@MScorpion90, I don't believe you are a Calvinist , Mike contradict what the Calvinist believe that Romans 9 teaches also election for salvation.. I agree with the Calvinist although I am not a Calvinist..

[@reynaldodavid2913Jo]

​@@djvgallery4304, because he is fickle minded.. but Mike is wrong about Romans 9... Mike is not half the wisdom and adherence to Jesus than RC Spoul whom I listened to some of his videos when he was already dead for several years...

[@Emper0rH0rde]

In order to understand Romans chapter 9, you have to read the whole epistle, as well has have at least a basic understanding of the historical context, what Paul is really talking about, and to *whom* he is speaking.

[@nevarezomar]

That is correct and it is the first step. Once that is clear, the text will speak by itself what is the topic, how it is defined, what is the extension and range of that topic and what responses are given to address misunderstanding. The last one is what Paul does in Romans 9 through 11 before he closes his letter as he usually does, with apostolical exhortations about how to conduct ourselves.

[@arnolddonaldson7129]

You are right. Romans 8 and Romans 10 teach free will pretty straight forward. I think the whole epistle teaching would show that Romans 9 is more about Israel being the chosen people but they are suffering----and of course they aren't happy that the Jewish Messiah is granting salvation to Gentiles.

[@nazinas21]

@@arnolddonaldson7129 Bingo!! It took me awhile to figure this out, I just learned about it today. I've been trying to understand Calvinism and I just couldn't wrap my head around it. Now I get it and what Romans 9 was talking about.

[@ramonlopez5557]

What about ephesians 1???

[@clwhite1127]

@@ramonlopez5557 chosen “IN HIM” x9 or 10 mentions. Not “to be in Him”

[@moriahw3947]

I don't even have to get past the 12 minute mark...once I realized this passage is about Israel it all clicked into place. I'm seeing Romans 9 with new eyes! Thanks brother Mike.

[@DonVanzant]

Loving these videos on Romans. I have several dear Calvinistic friends, but I have struggled with their theology. These videos have been quite helpful in sorting through some of their claims

[@MrMarkovka11]

You should also check out "soteriology 101" on KZbin. There's a good brother there who deals with the issue in a way that is soundly biblical.

[@thomaskanke7922]

@@MrMarkovka11 leighton flowers Isn't as exegetical as i hoped he would be as a I was looking for something to challenge my view on predestination. Anyway seams like he preaches out of love!

[@m.donahue6085]

"...For whom He foreknew, (* *who would accept salvation**) , he predestined them to be conformed to the image of Christ."

[@lindaglover5931]

@@MrMarkovka11 )[ I

[@Ben6Strings]

2 Peter 3:9 and 1 John 2:2 completely destroy Calvinism.

[@SamC_182]

This was awesome brother Mike. I was reading Romans 9-11 and had so many questions that you definitely answered and it made so much sense. God bless you brother

[@reynaldodavid2913Jo]

@SamC_182, Mike indeed explained Romans 9, but wrongly... He said that choice is different than elect, and Jacob was chosen only for the promise.. How can God promise you something good and don't save you? Indeed God chose Jacob to become a nation of Israel but also to be saved.. Can God promise you something good and not save you?

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

@@reynaldodavid2913Jo Yes, God can promise you something good and not save you. I don't know why a Calvinist could agree with that. Clearly, God has used people for good purposes who weren't in the elect. Most Calvinists I know wouldn't think that is a good objection, anyway.

[@reynaldodavid2913Jo]

@@wesleycolemanmusic , I don't understand what you mean, do you really believe that God can promise you something good and not save you?

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

@@reynaldodavid2913Jo My comment was accidentally ambiguous because of a typo. Sorry.

[@reynaldodavid2913Jo]

@@wesleycolemanmusic, Okay, I understand..

[@vinbelmonte5951]

I was raised in a non religious catholic family. Went to church once a year on Christmas until I was 6 or 7 and couldn't care less about what was said. I knew very little about God. I had a very frightening physical experience at 36 years old that I did not fully understand. Before this experience I did cry out to God because of something that I did not understand at the time. Today I follow the God of the bible and fully believe that my heart was changed because of that experience. I pieced things together over many months and realized that everything that was happening to me was explained in the Bible. I do believe that we can not receive God unless He pulls us forward. It just so happens that Calvinism seems to recognize my situation better than other theologies, but I do understand why people don't accept it, as before my life changing experience I would have thought it was insane. God Bless

[@janetcadieux6427]

Yes but Calvinism teaches He only draws the elect. Jesus said...when I be lifted up..Will draw all men to Myself. Calvinism is error. The drawing is giving every individual the opportunity to choose to accept salvation. Not everyone chooses to but all men get the choice. Freewill.

[@vinbelmonte5951]

@@janetcadieux6427 it’s your opinion that Calvinism is in error. I do not believe that mans will trumps Gods will. God has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction

[@janetcadieux6427]

@@vinbelmonte5951 Paul is explaining how God chose Israel of the FLESH in the old covenant. It is not application OF HOW HE chooses now....as pertaining to salvation. He was working with a nation then. He is working with the WORLD now. Rightly dividing the word of God is about knowing the difference between the old and new covenants. The text you mentioned isn't even about salvation. It was was about God accomplishing the workings of Israel during old covenant. National Israel. A remnant among them chose to believe the gospel preached to Abraham and for that reason God calls them elect. So...dont try to sell me the god of Calvin. He did not know the real God who demands now that all men repent...because now...the day of salvation is available via the new covenant that the remnant that believed looked forward to by faith. Why? Because they believed. As for who God draws to Himself in this day...John 12:32. Are you going to call Jesus or Calvin the liar, choose.

[@vinbelmonte5951]

@@janetcadieux6427 I can see how much you disagree with Calvin but your understanding of Paul’s letter to the Romans as an application only for ancient Israel does not make sense. Gods power is revealed through Paul’s writings as well as the gospels and Old Testament. All is for our learning. You lean towards Arminianism and I lean towards Calvinism. Let’s just leave it at that. I didn’t make my first comment to get into a debate about salvation. It was simply my personal experience and how I relate to Calvinism. God bless Janet And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified

[@janetcadieux6427]

@@vinbelmonte5951 it is not my misunderstanding. It is the fact that the bible itself interprets itself. Paul was demonstrating the state of carnal Israel. The bible itself says some of his writings are hard to be understood. It also says the unlearned twist it...to their own destruction. Context is important. Here is the answer to the question concerning whether he was referencing the old covenant...even though the very chapter in question makes it clear. Hebrews 9 makes it clear that God always had in mind the promise if a new covenant. That new covenant has replaced the old one. God predestinated all who walked by this new covenant. The question that He predestinated some to reject it without even having a chance to believe is the issue...I am speaking about. Calvinism us a lie. God did not ever say that. His plan was to draw all men to Himself via a new and living way..as He Himself stated. John 12:32. If I be lifted up...Will draw all men unto myself. It doesn't mean all will accept. It does mean all will be able to accept. Calvin taught opposite if Jesus. Leave it at that? Nah...I'm going to call out these false teachers who lead people astray. I am not Armenian. Theology is of the devil. God's people hear HIS voice.

[@milo_thatch_incarnate]

Thank you so much for this educational video! I’m only 20 and this is the first time I’ve had to seriously figure out what I believe about Romans 9 for myself. I decided to look it up on KZbin, but nearly every video is Calvinist, and I know little enough that I don’t even know what the difference is between a Calvinist and non-Calvinist interpretation, or what that means!

[@bobtaylor170]

Leighton Flowers' videos on KZbin are excellent. His recent two part streaming, in which he machine guns an R.C Sproul video on Romans 9, is brilliant and hilarious in its mastery. I recommend it to you.

[@sharondoan1447]

I think that some mistakenly believe that there is a clear line, drawn in the sand. On one side stands purely Calvinist thinking and one the other side stands purely non-Calvinist thinking. The divergence of interpretation is much more complicated than that. While disagreeing on some points of Martin Luther’s theology and agreeing on some points of John Calvin’s theology , I seem to fall so,where in the middle. Neither of them is 100% right or 100% misguided.

[@PeterLaman]

Amen! Thank you, Mike! As a pastor I've been teaching along these lines as well many times. In particular I believe it's crucial to see the epistle to the Romans in its entirety. It's all about the Jew/gentile issue, which was a hot issue for debate among the Christians of the first century. Rom. 9-11 also need to be view in the light of the chapters 1-8, while the whole epistle rests on a firm OT foundation. Election in the bible is always with a purpose: 'elected in order to...'. Election doesn't mean exclusion of the others. Abraham was elected to bring forth a nation of people, and to be a blessing to all nations. Jesus is the elected saviour, not to exclude people, but rather to include people. God's choice presented in Rom. 9 is that salvation is by faith and not by works or descent. Being in the covenant is not a matter of descent, or works of the law, but of faith in Jesus Christ. Even in the OT this was so. The Israelites had to spent another 40 years in the desert, only because of unbelief. God's election means He chose to save those who belief in the redemptive sacrifce of His Son at the cross. That is the will of God made clear in the bible. Jesus Himself said, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18). Could it be plainer?

[@toddcote4904]

Man, you've certainly twisted a whole bunch there.... For starters.... You said: "Election doesn't mean the exclusion of others" Really!? When Biden was elected wasn't everyone else excluded from being president? When Jacob was elected wasn't Esau excluded from bringing forth the promise? When Jesus was elected, wasn't everyone other Savior excluded? Hence "I am the way, the truth, and life, no one comes to the Father EXCEPT through Me." Further, you have God's election defined as a REaction, which is not Election. No where can you support God's election as reactionary. God's election stands on His will, not man's will. Man cannot thwart the promises of God. Proof? How about the fact that His promise to Abraham was brought through an entirely sinful people who were written about PRIOR that they would reject Him. See Isaiah 6:9-10 and John 12:37-41.

[@blindvision4703]

@@toddcote4904 I don’t think he was implying that election is by man’s well, whatever that means. Although I will say that first part was worded rather clumsily, to put it mildly. For the record, I am not a Calvinist, and I don’t think it’s a safe or wise idea to be in Armenian, even if I Cleve that way perhaps in my head. I don’t think it’s a good idea to be at the extreme end of that spectrum in either respect. Of course, I don’t believe that about everything. You’re either Christian or you’re not. And morally speaking IM firmly in the conservative camp, so that’s not to say you can’t lean toward or be on one end of a spectrum about everything. But when it comes to Calvinism versus Arminianism, I think both of them have some decent points and pretty horrible points. Ultimately, the word of God has the final say. Doug bless you and yours. Happy belated Thanksgiving.

[@toddcote4904]

@@blindvision4703 "Calvinism" or the "doctrines of grace" do not have any "horrible points". Arminianism doesn't have any truth to it, only an appearance of truth through the MISunderstanding of several proof texts and completely ignoring or altering entire chapters of text.

[@nikkowood4476]

@@toddcote4904 Limited atonement is an awful, unbiblical doctrine. And the arguments given for it are always from philosophy, rather than scripture. 1 John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." And yes, the "whole world" means the "whole world": (ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου)...contains the definite article John 1:29 "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (Also contains the definite article) Hebrews 2:9 "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (Contains the definite article) 2 Peter 2:1 :"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (The word translated as "bought them" is ἀγοράζω, which literally means "to buy in the marketplace, purchase" is also used in 1 Corinthians 6:;19-20 "19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

[@toddcote4904]

@@nikkowood4476 Huh, never read those passages...... 🤦 Jk Please define "world". Does it include all those who have been under the judgment of God throughout the scriptures ie, the pre flood people, Cain, the tribes that had to be killed in the promise land, or Nadab and Abiu? How about King Saul or Ahab, or the Amorites? What about Judas, Annanias or Saphira who were killed by the Holy Spirit? What about all those in Rom 1 who are storing up wrath for the day of wrath and end up in the firey lake? What about all those who don't repent and REMAIN in their sin? You really think Jesus died for all those millions and billions? The perfect blood of Christ was wasted and didn't actually save everyone? Do you really want to include all these people in John's use of "the world"???? Or is it possible "world" is just a generic term to include everyone, as in, not just Jews, but the Gentiles too. Surely you don't believe John meant to include "all mankind of all time" in the word "world" do you? Otherwise you have a double jeopardy situation that makes The Father unjust whereby He punished His Son for everyone that's in Hell. So the Son pays and the unbeliever pays.... I think it's much more biblically consistent to say Jesus died and she'd His blood to actually cover the sins of those who believe. Everyone else remains in their sins (John 8:24) and pays for their sins in eternal darkness. Not one drop is shed for them. It's not philosophical, it's just what the text says. Further, the messiah was to bare the sins of "many" not "all". So there's that. Good luck twisting "many" to mean "all mankind of all time". See Is 53:11-12

[@jeffbush9537]

Hey Mike I’m just commenting randomly on one of your videos about all of them. Just so much appreciate the time and effort that you put into your content and how meaningful it is for help in my ministry to others. Your work is being multiplied and I just wanted to say thank you.

[@timbaines3562]

I continue to be amazed at comments from those who take an opposing view. My experience (which is obviously limited) has been that most of those who hold to the teachings of John Calvin have shown themselves to be angry Calvinists. When a teacher/preacher comes to a different conclusion, more often than not they will say he has done "poor exegesis". To them, the only sound exegesis is one that comes to their conclusions. I have pointed out that some Calvinists have done very good exegesis with a passage but still came to a different conclusion. And when a Calvinist does "his/her thing" in teaching, I really don't get uptight about it even though I strongly disagree. I roll my eyes and move on. But man! Calvinist responses to this have been for the most part filled with anger. Some were very respectful. The majority though remind me of what I have said about modern day atheists or agnostics - bitter and angry. What I really don't get is this: Why, if everything is predetermined, do they get so angry toward someone giving a different interpretation when even that different interpretation is predetermined?

[@nicolaslosito5735]

Tim Baines you made a straw man fallacy in your statement. Secondly, it’s on both sides, the disrespect that is.

[@patrickoneill7636]

God saves everybody he loves freewill gospel a satanic lie

[@foreverinchrist1]

I found your statement not true. We don't follow Calvin sir, we follow the Holy Spirit. I recommend you study The book "What is Reformed Theology" by Dr. Sproul. There you learn the truth of what we really believe.

[@adamduarte895]

@@foreverinchrist1 Lol then why call it calvinism. It's literally in the name haha

[@oracleoftroy]

@@adamduarte895 Because a Lutheran coined the term for people he disagreed with and the name stuck. But you'll find that "Calvinism" as a term is still far more popular among anti-Calvinists than among Calvinists. Calvinists call themselves "Reformed" after the historical events or "Presbyterian" after their system of Church governance. It's rather unfair to all the other theologians that shaped Reformed theology to single out Calvin as if he is the only one involved.

[@lauraallen7755]

Hey Mike, we have a wonderful church and pastors but I feel like you are also my pastor, I listen to all your messages and learn and grow so much in faith and wisdom. Really appreciate all your work! Bless you!

[@BenjaminTrillington]

Faith is not a choice, it is a gift from God. I'm not a Calvinist and have problems with their core beliefs, but God gives us the gift of faith and then we are born again, made a new creature, and saved. Otherwise if we ministered to people and they chose to believe in Christ, we could boast and say "I brought that person to God." With God giving us faith we have nothing to boast in. John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. We are given to Jesus by the father, and when we go to Jesus, then we are saved. Whomever God wants, He will have. And if our free will has the power to choose God or not, then our free will is more powerful than God. He allows things to happen, but is ultimately sovereign over all.

[@Jesus_Saves_66]

Very good teaching so far - I’m at the 18th minute mark and I just had a thought on the heaviness and the continual sorrow that Paul was experiencing... and my question was this: Why would Paul feel continual grief and sorrow and even wish himself accursed for the unsaved, if he knew that God has already predestined those people to damnation and they have no chance of salvation? If he knew that it wasn’t God’s will or heart towards them to see them come to believe in Jesus and be set free from sin? From a Calvinist’s perspective, Paul should actually be rejoicing over this because according to their view, God gets glory from what He has already predestined, whether it be salvation or damnation... and secondly, to wish himself accursed to see these people saved - While already knowing that God from the foundation of the world, did not choose these people to election, also makes absolutely no sense. Your teaching is helping me see this passage from a new perspective and also, I was never a Calvinist because it’s such a horrible doctrine. But I’ve seen these verses clearer than before...

[@isaiahardoin9574]

I too use to believe in this passage in this way. But as i read the Bible for what it says and begin to understand the depravity of man i cannot escape the glorious truth of calvinism. As Charles Spurgeon said, "Calvinism is just a nickname for Biblical Christianity." I understand your confusion, however, the reason why Paul was upset is bc of his people whom he loved (that were jews) that were given the promise as the people of God (as a nation), but did inherit the promise of Abraham because ,"for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." (romans 9:6b) From a calvinist perspective, we are deeply saddened by our brothers, sisters, friends and family that are not born again and we understand that only those who are chosen will live by faith and be made righteous. But we understand that God is under no obligation to save anybody and we understand that he chooses people out of love according to His own will.(Ephesians 1:4-5) I do however believe that, "whosoever will" will be saved but I also believe, just as much that, "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14) and I believe that they never contradict. As man we cannot understand how that never contradicts, but I have faith that God is good and infinitely wiser than I am. 1 Corinthians 1:25 says "for the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man." I do not wish to stir up anger or start arguments but to inform you of the calvinistic understanding and maybe a little better of why I can believe such a thing that is difficult to grasp the understanding of how God could be good and predestine as He wishes.

[@ronlehman5734]

good point !!!!

[@ronlehman5734]

good point !

[@pierreduranleau2514]

@@isaiahardoin9574 I also think Paul was distraught by his people's situation, he mentions as much. But he also points to a puzzle, a conundrum if you will, It's that they should be saved but they are not! I mean if you have all the parts to make a car, the instructions to assemble it, and the instructors to guide you, yet you come-up with a drill press, there must be a problem! So, yes Paul is deeply grieved for Israel, yet the question remains why are they not saved? Is it God's fault ? A question he answered without even formulating it: "Now it is not as though the word of God has failed." Rom 9.6a. From here he proceeds to explain God's choices in Israel's history to bring about His Salvation plan and concluding in verse 29 "It is just as Isaiah predicted: "If the Lord of the Heavenly Armies had not left us some descendants, we would have become like Sodom and would have been compared to Gomorrah." " In other words if it was not for God's love they would have been destroyed. Concerning salvation, God supplied every thing Israel needed to be saved yet they resist him, what more can God do? And at the end of Rom 9 Paul says the major difference between the gentiles who believed and the Israelite who didn't is faith. "What can we say, then? Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, have attained righteousness, a righteousness that comes through faith. But Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the Law, did not achieve the Law. Why not? Because they did not pursue it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on achievements. They stumbled over the stone that causes people to stumble. As it is written, "Look! I am placing a stone in Zion over which people will stumble-a large rock that will make them fall-and the one who believes in him will never be ashamed." " (Rom 9:30-33) But this is not the end, Paul did see Israel's salvation, but only in it's time. "For I want to let you know about this secret, brothers, so that you will not claim to be wiser than you are: Stubbornness has come to part of Israel until the full number of the gentiles comes to faith. In this way, all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." " (Rom 11:25-27) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones to death those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling! Look! Your house is left abandoned! I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'How blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!'" (Mat 23:37-39) Yes the depravity of man is complete yet after he sinned Adam was still able to hear God. But without God's intervention the latent depravity of man makes itself complete as described in the flood account. God then intervened in mans affairs by exacting his vengeance upon those that did evil. "Whoever sheds human blood, by a human his own blood is to be shed; because God made human beings in his own image. " (Gen 9:6) This is echoed in Rom 13: "For they are God's servants, working for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for it is not without reason that they bear the sword. Indeed, they are God's servants to administer punishment to anyone who does wrong." (Rom 13:4) If it was not for this intervention, there would be no reason for God to enact another flood, and an another... So you are wright in acknowledging man's depravity, but one must also consider God's plan in preserving man so that he would be ready for the first coming of Christ. For without free will, it's impossible to love. P.S. The abolition of capital punishment is hastening the second coming of Christ, but this is another subject, or is it? I think, maybe it is, for we know that at the time of His second coming He will find the earth as in the time of the flood, Luke adds the time of Lot. : " "No one knows when that day or hour will come-not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father, because just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be when the Son of Man comes. In those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage right up to the day when Noah went into the ark. They were unaware of what was happening until the flood came and swept all of them away. That's how it will be when the Son of Man comes. At that time two people will be in the field. One will be taken, and one will be left behind. Two women will be grinding grain at the mill. One will be taken, and one will be left behind." (Mat 24:36-41). Thanks for taking the time to read.

[@cazdl]

Spurgeon made similar comments to Paul and he was a calvinist. In the end, we do not know who will be saved, who were elected before the foundations of the earth. The doctrines of grace are beautiful, ask the ones who believe it how it humbles them and fills their heart with gratitude.

[@StevenWayneJones]

Let me encourage you and say you did an amazing job on this video. I think you prefaced this topic very well and presented the Bible in Romans very well. Romans 9 is not an island of a theological system.

[@MikeWinger]

+StevenWayneJones thank you!

[@annebronn4592]

StevenWayneJones I couldn't agree more.

[@MrRoyLange]

StevenWayneJones it's a bad sign that you complimented him on this sermon...

[@allybueh5838]

This is Good News. I honestly have been pondering with the Lord about Calvinism and faith for about a year. He’s really patient and kind to help me and give understanding. He had me in Romans 9 this morning and that’s why I clicked on this video. Thank you for sharing what the Lord has put on your heart. It brings some clarity as I keep asking Him questions.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

can you explain to me why in Ephesians he also talks about predestination? Ephesians 1:4-6 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

[@dr.mofongo9001]

@@ShepherdMinistry I admittedly have much to still learn, as I have just started learning and exploring Calvinism in the last two weeks. I had never even heard the term before then, and the “elect” and “predestination” are completely new to me. It threw me for a loop, as I am still wrapping my head around it. That said, in my opinion, I think when we hear language speaking to predestination, I think while it’s obviously speaking to the body of believers, I don’t look at it as the door to salvation only being open to a preselected few, and shut to the rest of humanity. In other words, I don’t think it refers to a preset list of names, but rather the future body of believers. God always knew only a select group would choose to follow Christ, hence him referring to the path to salvation as being a narrow one. Those future believers make up the “elect” if you will, but I think they choose to be part of that group of their own free will. They are then reborn, and guided by The Holy Spirit. It also pains me to think Christ’s sacrifice was only for a certain number of people. I think Christ died for all, and the choice to follow and be saved is available to everyone. That’s how I always interpreted the words “world” and “whosoever” in John 3:16. Once you choose to follow, you are now part of the “elect”, or that future body of believers God always knew would manifest itself. Just my opinion. I am enjoying learning more about the subject though. Always a good thing to dive more into Scripture. God bless.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

@@dr.mofongo9001 Good afternoon brother, The Bible says it is not up to human will to choose God. Romans 9:15-16 [15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. If Christ died for every single person then every person would be going to heaven, that is universalism. Christ died for those who believe, the children of God. God bless, SM

[@dr.mofongo9001]

@@ShepherdMinistry I appreciate your input. I’m just not sure I agree or interpret it the same way. I’ve heard that same argument from many, “If Christ died for every single person, then all would be saved”. In my view, Christ dying on the cross makes the gift of salvation AVAILABLE to all. It does not mean all are automatically saved. Even if you believe in the “elect”, to be included in that group one must still believe in Christ for salvation. Otherwise why bother believing, you’re already in. I just do not see it that way. All in all, we are believers, and part of one family. I will keep studying Scripture though. One never stops learning. God bless.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

@@dr.mofongo9001 If Christ died for everyone and all their sins then everyone would be saved (universalism). Why? Because even unbelief is a sin and if Christ paid for all sins then all would be saved even for their unbelief. Christ died for those who believe. Christs atonement is capable for more than everyone, but is only given to those who have faith. To be the elect you must have faith. Calvinism believes once you make the choice to believe in Christ, it must have been from God changing the heart. It’s glorifying God for every gift, even the gift of faith. Ephesians 2:8-10 [8] For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. God bless, SM

[@walker_estes]

Mr. Winger's point at (35:08-35:19) is a distinction without a difference. The Calvinist understanding of "love/hate" is not that God wants to ruin the lives of the non-elect and mess them up in every possible way. That is the non-Calvinist's caricature of the Calvinist understanding. Folks like Mr. Winger and Leighton Flowers need to come to grips with this.

[@seanchaney3086]

John Calvin is the author of the idea of "double predestination." The most extreme minded Calvinists are the most consistent to his teachings. You have to borrow sanity outside of Calvinism to function. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

[@Tigerex966]

they have and Leighton was a calvinist for 9 years, himself.

[@BRNRDNCK]

@@seanchaney3086 You’re delusional

[@BRNRDNCK]

These guys can’t hold a candle to reformed theology. Constant misrepresentations throughout this presentation.

[@gitaromar]

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!" Why would Paul anticipate a response of God's injustice or unfairness? If God chose us based on prior knowledge of us choosing Him, that would be fair. But Paul's doctrine of election is without the condition of our choosing. This means God chose us because it was His sovereign will, and BECAUSE He chose us we WILL choose Him.

[@danielkepler1023]

But thats not true tho lol. Gods foreknowledge comes first, then He predestines. Romans 8:29-30

[@gitaromar]

Go back one verse to 28. "Those who love God" is clarified by the phrase "those who are the called according to His purpose." When 29 begins "For whom He foreknew," Paul is referring to "the called" in v 28. He knew who He would call before their times, and His effectual calling guaranteed their glorification at the end of the Golden Chain.

[@danielkepler1023]

Omar Guajardo He foreknew who would choose faith. Faith isnt a work, yet its a choice

[@oseiaschiquellajunior8356]

@@danielkepler1023 Foreknew does NOT mean going into the future and looking at who is going to choose Him, that means God learned something he didn't previously know. It means to have intimacy with.

[@danielkepler1023]

Oseias Chiquella Junior Thats ur problem. U think God “looks into the future” God is in eternity. He has always known and He has always predestined.

[@inTruthbyGrace]

This a GREAT teaching, praise God for your insight on this and that we, the church, can share it ....Your assertions about the context for "hate" are consistent across the Greek OT and NT as well, in all your examples (Luke 14:26 , Gen 29:31, Mal 1:3) *_it is the same Greek verb_* too!! μισέω you'll also find this construction in John 12:25... I have never heard a Calvinist address the Greek of Exodus 7:22-23 and the use of νοῦν (mind) and the value of the "noia" part of metanoia_ the repeated emphasis on the νοῦν, νοε and our _responsibility_ to determine our _treasure_ so that our _heart_ will follow... these are mental recognitions of God's authority from the basic observation of the evidence of creation, for which we are held accountable to respond with gratitude and in worship of that CREATOR which is truth manifest in His works... (something we reject in our self-proclaimed wisdom and for which we are judged)... No. Calvinists never address Is 55 or the whole of the dynamic outlines in Rom 1, 2 cor 4 or 2 thes2:9-11 and those things for which we are _given over_ or by which we are _taken captive_ .. if we are born determined to damnation then God is inconsistent for giving _all_ men a love of the truth and complaining about them not being able to receive it. That would be like throwing a man with no arms a ball and damning them for not catching it. .... you can't dress up that perversion in "sovereignty" and call it mercy or grace. That verse, whereby all me are _given_ a love of the truth so that their crime is in not _receiving_ it only makes sense if the judgment of the delusion that follows is just, if the individual refused to receive what they were already given. Thank you.

[@Phill0old]

If you heave never heard a Calvinst talk about our responsibility to act in accordance with God's revealed will then you haven't heard much Calvinism. Sorry to burst your bubble but the pursuit of holiness its the subject of numerous sermons, books and teachings that to miss it must be a deliberate effort. I'm sorry you don't believe that Jesus always told the truth, or that Paul was right about how the salvation we receive is an unmerited gift but you really should believe it because it is the truth. If you think God loves everyone, the same, unconditionally, then you haven't read the bible at all.

[@yeoberry]

That God hated Esau means that He did not love Him like He did Jacob. He chose Jacob to be saved but not Esau. "God's purpose in election."

[@rainbomikie]

​@@yeoberry No. God chose to love a sinner like Jacob and chose to hate a sinner like Esau. Romans 9 is very clear both are from the same lump of sin.

[@yeoberry]

@@rainbomikie : Romans 9 says God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau before either had done good or bad, because of "God's purpose in election", to show that salvation "does not depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy" (Rom. 9:16).

[@rainbomikie]

@@yeoberry That is EXACTLY the same thing that I stated.

[@theologian1456]

Calvin's interpretation of sovereign grace and predestination was the same as the apostle Paul's and the whole church until recently. Twist it how you will but predestination is very clearly taught in scripture. Yes, the doctrine of predestination is hard to swallow for all believers, but that doesn't mean that it isn't accurate. That's exactly why Paul asks the rhetorical question in Romans 9:14. God doesn't need an attorney. He can and will do as He pleases and doesn't need any man to protect His reputation.

[@michaelsayad5085]

The god of Calvinism is not God. If the god of Calvinism exists then God doesn’t exist similar to how if Allah existed I would not call him God. Your god has the moral character of Satan, just arbitrarily picking and choosing. God is good. Your god is evil and I really question whether or not Calvinists can be saved. They reject the very heart of the Gospel, “for God so loved the World”. If Calvinism is true, then God would save all people. He doesn’t, therefore it’s not true. The entirety of Scriptures teaches God’s hatred of sin, to think that he hates what he caused as the puppet master is a perversion of scripture.

[@nojustno1216]

So how do YOU know with absolute certainty that YOU are one of the elect?

[@nojustno1216]

@@michaelsayad5085 Spot on

[@phillipcrockett4530]

Predestination means a Christian their destiny is heaven it has nothing to do with God picking and choosing

[@pdxnikki1]

Theo Logian God’s sovereignty isn’t in question, but where predestination gets it wrong is that both God and man have free will. Just as those who live in any Kingdom who break its laws have free will. The King is sovereign and free will exists. What mystifies the theology is the element of linear and eternal time. When combines with sovereignty and free will, it can get down right confusing. That and translations does word meanings and usages. We’ll all know when we get up there, but for now, we need to read the NT through the lens of the Hebrew Bible. As a Jew I can say that he has it absolutely right. Don’t approach the Hebrew Bible from the lens of the NT approach it the other way round and you’ll see what he means.

[@AFreshmanPerspective]

I love your explanation Mike and you bring up a really solid argument. I can see your passion and knowledge for the Gospel and for truth. I love you as a brother in Christ for it. Keep up your awesome work and spread the word of Christ. I do not come to the same conclusions. Even if we delete the entire book of Romans from the gospel I would still come to a Calvinistic understanding. Each system of understanding (Calvinism and Arminianism particularly) have a lot of support and they bring with them their own questions and tripping places. I think it just comes down to which questions you would rather leave a mystery.

[@nkrumahedwards1411]

What was clarified here is only the Tip of the Ice Berge!!!

[@nkrumahedwards1411]

The absurdity and incoherence of Calvinism is much more massive!!!

[@jesseharper7172]

"what do you do with Romans 9?" It's easy! I read the rest of the Bible too!

[@Rbl7132]

You are right! And the rest of the Bible affirms what Romans 9 teaches. That God chooses in salvation, not man.

[@justlooking6434]

R L no he allows you to make a decision we see this clearly with Cain (to paraphrase)God came to Cain ask him why he was down hearted , then God showed him 2 choices with 2 different endings 1. “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? 2. “and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭4:7‬ ‭ So God Himself gave Cain a choice to do well or not and showed him the outcome of either choice one a good outcome one a bad....Cain choose poorly I think the Amplified version translated from the original Hebrew speaks volumes God word alone says it all my input is secondary “If you do well [believing Me and doing what is acceptable and pleasing to Me], will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well [but ignore My instruction], sin crouches at your door; its desire is for you [to overpower you], but you must master it.”” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭4:7‬ ‭AMP‬‬ Ppl need to understand it’s 100% grace but free will is not a work to earn salvation it’s a ability to make a choice to repent

[@nevarezomar]

Jesse Harper Paul cites the rest of the Bible to make his point clear in Romans 9.

[@justlooking6434]

Omar Nevarez So salvation isn’t available to all? Are you saying Adams sin / disobedience is more powerful then Jesus sacrifice? Romans 5: 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

[@nevarezomar]

​@@justlooking6434 When Paul uses the terms "all men" and "many", he does it in the qualitative context he has established from 1:16. Paul wants to announce that this gospel is for both groups of people that make the "all men" in the verses you mention. And also he described the "all men" as "many" because those many who are being saved belong to Adam in first place just as any other men. However, Paul is focusing in chapter 5 in those who are being justified, and not all of the number of individuals who inhabit the world for it is not quantitative. So, in that sense, and after reading that whole argument in Romans 5, one can cross reference with Isaiah 53:12 where it is evident that Jesus bore the sin of many. Both "all men" and "many" are desciptors of the quality of that group that is justified in Christ Jesus and when you keep reading the epistle Paul explains further that those have been forknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified to affirm that nothing is going to change that. This is not the first time that Paul makes reference of this issue in regards of salvation, the Espistle to the Ephesians also brings this reality in the qualitative fashion in Ephesians 3:6- "to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel..." I have made my best to try to explain the text you brought in relation to the immediate context in the Epistle and then I made cross reference using arguments that present the same topic. But brother, don't stress out much with solving this or fighting this back, we understand what we understand about what we read. You can disagree, as Mike Winger, I respect that and like you, I also want the people to be saved and one thing that any calvinist or Paul or you or me don't know is who is to be turned to Christ. God bless you!

[@nevarezomar]

Brother Mike, with all due respect, I strongly disagree. I will explain: 1. Romans 9 does not teach calvinisn, is the other way around, Calvinism teaches Romans 9. Paul wrote it first, then Calvin explained it after many others. 2. You are saying that the chapter is not about salvation, but you never mentioned that it comes from the argumentation from chapter 8 which ends exposing the qualitative range of salvation in Christ. Why is Paul mourning about? Israel not being elected for being people and having promises? That is against the whole argument of Paul from the beginning, which is salvation through the gospel. 3. Your explanation is not different from others. It is base on reading 4 verses and breaking to insert a comment or to apply a ramdon verse that is not in the context of Romans 9. Why not reading the chapter in conjunction with chapter 8? The answer is: because it is going to sound as what Paul really intended to mean. 4. Hermeneutics matter. It is not to say what the text does not say, it is a matter of exposing the text. The context is clear, it has been established from chapter 1: The gospel is power of God for salvation for jews first and then gentiles. The condemnation is upon all and salvation was accomplished for all in a qualitative sense. How do we know it is qualitative and not quantitative? Because Paul stays on topic (salvation) in chapter 9 and states that not every individual of Israel is under the promise as a reason for God's word not having failed in the sense of those who don't believe (which is clearly evidencing that Paul is talking about salvation). So God is who elects who is under the promise and who isn't because salvation comes from Him from the beginning to the end.

[@Steblu74]

Omar Nevarez thank you for your comments. I consider myself a "Calvinist" (at least I am accused of being one) and your connection of Romans 9 with Romans 8 was helpful for me. WhileI truly appreciate Mr. Winger's thoughtful and gracious manner of delivery, the comments he made concerning free will were troubling because I don't think Calvin taught that people don't make free will choices, but rather that their ability to make "right" choices is bound by their fallen natures. I recognize at my age, after much sin and self-delusion, that my desire to be "right" invariably clouds my judgement, which actually makes me desire the security of God's election all the more. I too used to exult in my "free-will" decision for Christ, 'till I failed so badly that I lost all confidence in my ability to be saved by "free-will" obedience. I NEED Calvinism. Evidently some don't. Thanks again-

[@nevarezomar]

@@Steblu74 I feel you when you mention the accusation of being calvinist. I don't like to be labeled, although I don't take any harm when they do. In fact, Calvin was just another theologian who presented this position on the doctrines of grace. Moreover, he did not founded the calvinist view, but his followers. If you read his writings, he is always encouraging readers to read the bible by themselves after explaining certain things. The calvinistic points displayed in the TULIP are spread out in his many apologetic writings to people who were mostly Roman Catholic oppositors. He was mostly focused on restoring the order in the church worshiping rather than establish a theological position. Being that said, I appreciate your reply and like you, I also rely my security in God's sovereing election and that makes me cry and repent everyday just for the simple fact that He has been more than merciful and graceful with this sinner. That is the motor of my conviction to fight back with my nature while I am in this imperfect condition. Yeah, brother Winger has my respect and I recognize he, just as me, has traditions that might be impeding him to approach to the text the same way he does when explaining other doctrines we have in common. Anyways, that is no problem, all the contrary is part of dealing with our pride and accept true brothers as ourselves, in Lord Jesus.

[@nevarezomar]

@@luxchristus343 I appreciate the way you are approaching to this matter. I see the seriousness of your thinking. This is a very deep topic. Along with Christology it is a continuous study to clarify and refine our understanding of what has been a treasure given by our Lord. I will try to answer the questions you make in the most clear way possible. 1. Do I consider faith as a work? Yes and No. Yes in regards to God, it is a work of God. No in regards to us because it is a completed work given by God as a mean for act upon us. I encourage you to read the passage in John 6:25-34. You will see how Jesus knew that the human search for Christ is based upon their own needs and not for have eternal life. When he rebuked them, he said to them to WORK on what is not perishable. This is what we quickly conclude here: If Jesus is asking them to work in what endures to eternal life that means they can do it. But that is not the case here, because they asked the natural question, a one that does not make sense: "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" This question can be understood in two ways: a. How can we contribute in the works of God? b. How can we emulate the works of God? Either way it is an absurdity, because the works of God belong to God, whose purpose and means transcends our understanding. But notice how Jesus answers: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” So Jesus is saying that the action of believing in Jesus is the work of God. If you keep moving on this passage, you will evidently run into absolute statements that reinforce what is implicit "this is the work of God". Jesus said: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day". Notice how he is saying "I should lose nothing of all that is given by God. The complete number of those who are given by the Father to the Son will be resurrected in the last day. Another evidence on why faith is a full work of God is that as they started to grumble against the gospel, he said plain and simple: “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day". The next verses are only to confirm this and close any doubt of this being the God's work, Jesus says: "But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 2. A non calvinism position is consider synergist because of its definition of faith. Faith is not believing, that is just a partial definition, the effectual component of it. Faith is testimony driven by the power of God upon a person. There is people who says regeneration comes first, I like to say that faith comes embedded in regeneration. It is a full conviction that Jesus is our only necessity. That is only testified, sent and worked by God in human beings with no failure, no delay, no trial and error. Luther defined faith as: notice, acceptance and embracing. A three component mean to the end of salvation caused by the sovereign and free grace of God. When a non calvinistic position defines faith: they say that it is the act of believing and that is the error because they turn the faith from being a work of God to be a work of our part. Calvinism submits the act of believing inside the work of God, making it a inevitable reaction. It is like he created Adam from the dust, Adam did not work or decided or resisted his creation. There is no effort from us, we are being moved irresistibly by the power of God. As the text in John says: "“THIS IS THE WORK OF GOD, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Believing is a response worked by another agent: God. I know you will have more questions. As I said, this is a deep doctrine, so I hope you delight in pursuing Christ now more than ever.

[@joerizzi4045]

I would love your interpretation of Isaiah 5. In terms of the Sovereignty of God and how God says in verse 4 " what more could I have done for my vineyard, that I have not done it"? Also the quote of the Potters house from Jeremiah 18 how do you interpret this chapter? Seems clear this is speaking clearly of nations. Last in Luke 7 Jesus is amazed by the Centurions faith. If faith is a gift by God the way you define it, how do you interpret this chapter, as Jesus is amazed by his faith.

[@nevarezomar]

@@joerizzi4045 very easy, in the context of the covenant God made with the people, that is the way those words work. That covenant was conditioned to the works of the people. See the words of God in Exodus 20 and the response of the people in Exodus 24. Then read Deut 28-29. You will se how God had a part to fulfill in the convenant and the people of Israel had also a part to fulfill. It was a two way covenant. God is rebuking Israel constantly in the prophets because they did not do their part after God always did. Therefore he promises a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36) in which it is God and no one else who will accomplished everything by fulfilling his own justice and producing the obedience in his people. What God is showing us there is that we can not enter in a covenant with God in which we need to do something for God so that he does his part. He will do all good, but we will fail before even start. See Exodus 19 and you will see that before even God established the covenand, they couldn't even get close to the mountain for they would die. So Isaiah 5 is talking about the old covenant and how it did not work even when God did his part. That does not invalidates his Sovereignty, but shows that God is the only one with the capacity to fulfill his own will and justice.

[@danijax24]

Thank you so much for this teaching. This summer, I began looking into reformed theology/calvinism and it has been very difficult. Before, when I would get to certain passages of scripture, I would have questions about “free will” vs “sovereignty” and what was at work in a particular verse. But, I would quickly chalk it up to the “mysteries of God,” and would keep moving right along. But, this summer I visited a Presbyterian church which I enjoyed tremendously, began to become interested in Christ-centered preaching, redemptive-historical Bible teaching, and reformed liturgy. I assumed I was becoming reformed, that this was what it meant to be reformed. But, I took a deep dive into TULIP and its implications and began to struggle immensely! I struggle with ocd/scrupulosity and it has taken me a very long time to get to a place where I could believe God loved me. For many years, I could see His bigness, His holiness, but I struggled so much with self-condemnation and the concepts of His love, grace and nearness. Learning about TULIP has been disorienting and caused me to struggle greatly with reconciling who TULIP described God to be, with the God that I believed I had been getting to know over the past 11 years. Lots of emotional and mental turmoil. After several months of research, I can say that I do enjoy some elements of the reformed tradition, but I haven’t been convinced that the soteriological view of Calvinism is correct. I hold this with an open hand, though, because I truly desire to follow after truth, and submit myself to truth. I am grateful for this teaching and glad to see there are scholarly treatments of the text that aren’t necessarily Calvinistic in nature. Thank you.

[@craigwise4]

Thank you for your comments. Yours has been a very similar path to mine through Presbyterian, reformed theology, etc - only to reach a disturbing and disorienting confrontation of my truth-grounding against the election and pre-destination imbedded in TULIP. This video and interpretation has really begun to free me from the unsettling trap I felt confined by within “election” in Calvinism.

[@Elizabeth-1722]

@danijax24 I just want to tell you that you are not alone. I also struggle with OCD. And I’ve been in the same boat as what you just explained over the last couple months regarding the doctrine of grace and TULIP teachings. And my whole life I have struggled with whether or not my faith was enough to save me. Did I have enough faith? Was it the right kind of faith? Did my doubts in my mind cause me to lack true faith? I recently found a SBC that taught exegetical sermons and I could tell I was growing, not only myself but also my husband. Then shortly after, I discovered the pastor leans toward the Calvinist beliefs. It doesn’t come out in his sermons. But they do hold separate Theological Reading Groups discussing the main Calvinist interpretations of “common grace” and “predestination” When I did research on what Calvinism was, I began to struggled (the TULIPS) I was repulsed by the implications. And I started to doubt my faith even more. But in my research, study, prayer, and listening to other teachers like Mike Winger, I found peace. Peace I letting go of the worry that my faith is enough because it isn’t my faith online that I am given eternal life. It is by Gods grace through my faith that I am saved by Jesus’ death on the cross. And that is truly all I need to be certain of right now. Like you said, I want biblical truth. And I’m not shutting out Calvinism, and I won’t demonize them. I will continue to go to church here, because I can see how much it is helping me grow. And I was continue to study scripture on my own as well.

[@dylancowling8774]

Hi Mike, I am a Calvinist. I really appreciate your honesty with the text, this was one of the best exegesis of Rom9 from a non-Calvinist that I've heard thus far in my research and I actually agreed with almost all of your interpretation. That said, I'm confused about how there is a difference between being a child of the promise and being saved? That was my biggest disagreement. Could you elaborate more?

[@ShepherdMinistry]

It’s obviously about salvation. If not then is it just a coincidence both Esau and you Ishmael we’re not saved?

[@lindenpeters2601]

He explained it's about lineage, not salvation. Israelites are God Chosen People. Not all of them are saved, just as not all Gentiles are unsaved.

[@PT121551]

I, too, struggled with this passage. Your teaching helps me a lot in understanding of it. I appreciate the clarity and succinctness of your explanation, especially regarding “ love” and “hate”, about election as a choice for the nation of Israel to receive the promise and covenant of God, and not about salvation. Thank you so much. I plan to listen some more, especially the book of Romans.

[@alexandergrahamcracker5581]

Around the 56th minute you talk about questioning God. It always reminds me of Job 38-39. God just gives it to Job. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world? Two straight chapters of God putting Job in his place..... and it did. (It put me in my place also, as I was going through my God blaming stage during a time of immense hurt and grief.) He's such a just, loving and merciful God. Thank you for your teaching pastor Mike.

[@andrettanylund830]

I totally agree with you but why doesn't any preacher bring up when Abraham was kind of arguing or questioning God when he said won't God do what is right and not destroy the righteous with the unrighteous. I paraphrased that and not very good but I think that's an argument against Calvinism

[@andrewderksen3342]

David Bercot put it this way when talking about hardening hearts "There are to objects left out in the sun 🌞 Ones is a candle 🕯️ Another is a clump of clay 🪨 The sum says I will harden one & soften the other "

[@waitingandwatching9328]

Love this teaching totally in agreement with it ....the teaching of Calvinism changes the character of the God of the Bible....and opens the door for pride and arrogance in some of the 'so called' elect. I pray that God will our eyes when we don't see the truth.

[@StudioGalvan]

How can the teaching of Calvinism change the view and character of God if it is based directly on what scripture teaches? Perhaps the character of God that many traditions teach are not Biblical. After studying most of the books of the Bible, I myself have found that the previous View I held, diminished the Holiness of God as well as the sinfulness of man.

[@YouTubehatesconservativespeech]

@@StudioGalvan Calvinism changes the Nature of God as it destroys His attribute of Love. Remember whatever GOD has, God is. If He is loving then He is Perfectly-ALL LOVING. He loves all and wants ALL to be saved as this was demonstrated on the cross when He died for all.-1Jn 2:2. A God who loves only some is not perfect in love and therefore can't be God as He(the God of calvinism) is not perfect in love. Whatever God has He is in totality. Again if He has love then He is All loving, if He is Holy then He is All Holy and so on. Whatever attribute God has HE is perfect in it. So therefore God can't be some loving or some holy or part mighty. So when Calvinism presents a God that could save all but only choose to save some and pass others by is not perfect in love and not the God of the Bible. The biblical God tells us to be good Samaritans and not pass by the wounded. Whereas the God of Calvinism is a hypocrite of his own word by choosing to save some and passing by other sinners not extending help to them. This theology (calvinism)is based off the teachings of 2 murderous men Calvin and first Augustine who was a Gnostic and brought his Gnostic teachings into Christianity. From the 2nd century to the time of Calvin no church father taught this theology. All church father's held to free-will and rejected the determinist view that Augustine brought from his Gnostic teachings. Im sorry i can go on and on about this heresy but i shall stop here. Again the Calvinist God lacks perfection and therefore cannot be the God presented in scriptures. God bless. I hope this helps.

[@timothykring4772]

@@KZbinhatesconservativespeech nope...your hatred doesn't help at all.

[@YouTubehatesconservativespeech]

@@timothykring4772 My brother in Christ, please show me where I was being hateful in my comment. I stated nothing but scripture and Theology Proper(The study of God) Taken from Dr.Norman Giesler's Systematic Theology. Would you not agree that Dr.Giesler is one of thee Greatest Christian Apologist of our time? Again, show me where I was hateful in my post, otherwise I take your comment as being disrespectful and hateful.

[@koriclaypool9548]

@@KZbinhatesconservativespeech this is hatred. "Im sorry i can go on and on about this heresy but i shall stop here. Again the Calvinist God lacks perfection and therefore cannot be the God presented in scriptures." God is loving but he is also JUST. Romans 9 says it has nothing to do the man who wills. That in itself proves this video wrong.

[@Dintinosanto]

Calvinist here... I appreciated the tone of the presentation. But I was very disappointed where the video cuts off. Is there a part 2? I listened to an hour for a "Non-Calvinist Interpretation of Romans 9" and the presentation cuts off just as it gets to the "juiciest" Calvinist verses about the potter and the clay. The first 10 minutes I don't think any Calvinist would disagree with. Yes, the topic has to do with Jews/Gentiles and God's handling of them. As Paul gets into Romans 9 the question is: What happened to God's choice of the Jews? Did God forget about them? Paul's answer basically is: Of course not. Remember, all along God never chose ALL the Jews. God has always chosen some individuals and not others. Trying to make the "election" spoken of into anything but individual election misses the very issue being raised and Paul's answer, which all has to do with individual election within the promised people. I think you did a good job in the first 10 minutes leading up to the context but then dropped the ball and never clearly formulated a consistent conversation in Romans 9. Some other miscellaneous objections that came to mind while listening... 1- Your claim that "election" in Romans 9 is not salvific: Can you give examples of Paul using elect/election in a non-salvific way? I can fine none. If we back up just a few verses into Romans 8 we have "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies." When did Paul make the shift in his usage of the term from salvific to non-salvific? Your claim that election in Romans 9 doesn't have to do with salvation, if true, seems to stand alone in Paul's usage of the term. And that begs the question of how you managed to figure out his unique usage of the term in this one passage. 2- Your claim that the "hatred" of Esau isn't as harsh as it sounds seems lacking considering the language of Malachi 1. God doesn't just say "Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated." It goes into detail about the nature of that hatred: "And laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness.” That sure sounds like hatred, not simply second-choice or even indifference. 3- Hardening. If Pharaoh hardened his own heart enough to be beyond the point of no return, (1) why does God even need to harden it further? And (2) why is (Arminian) God in the business of hardening hearts at all if he really wants everyone to be saved? 4- v19 you made out to be some sort of objection about the Problem of Evil. That is quite foreign to the context of the passage. The objection in the passage isn't why God lets bad things happen. The objection is why God hardens some and shows mercy to others. I didn't hear an answer to the actual objection raised, but rather an objection foreign to the context was imported into the passage. I appreciated the tone and the attempt, but find it lacking on a number of points, not the least of which is that it suddenly cuts short at perhaps THE key passage. I looked for a part 2. The closest I could find was a video specifically about Hardening. Is there a video for the rest of the passage?

[@lukeharrington9816]

As also a Calvinist I would like to add to your Hardening section. My big question is, If in fact Pharaoh Hardened his own heart than why does verse 19 exist? "You will say to me then, "why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will"? If Pharaoh had hardened his own heart than that question would have never been asked, because it would have been obvious why he found fault. As well the answer to the question in verses 20-23 seems to even further prove that out.

[@teemu1381]

The reality is they do not like the God of the scriptures and do not take God at his word. The Sovereignty of God and his choice is all over the scriptures and yet these will worshippers insist that salvation is up to them

[@an_nie_dyc1386]

teemu1381 WHO IN THE WORLD WORSHIPS WILL? Please don’t be so hateful! We love God as He presents Himself as Love. 1. Corinthians 13 is about GOD, for He is Love.

[@retroman252]

Just now I’m preaching at church Romans 9 (I’m a pastor and we are studying the whole book of Romans). This is such inspiring and a blessing for me. May God bless you so much my brother.

[@fernandopaulus9088]

This is the best interpretation of Romans 9 on the entire internet!!!!!!! I listened to PHD scholars, countless books and videos but just 18 minutes into this video and already God answered me!!!! this is brilliant

[@fastlane6096]

Do you read your Bible at all? It is quite apparent that you don't know much. This teaching is juvenile junk.

[@fernandopaulus9088]

@@fastlane6096 You must be reformed

[@fastlane6096]

@@fernandopaulus9088 What gave you that idea?

[@fernandopaulus9088]

@@fastlane6096 It goes against your teachings

[@fastlane6096]

​Not againstmy teachings, its against the plain teaching of god@@fernandopaulus9088

[@patticarey9016]

Thank you so much, Mike, for this teaching on Romans 9. I've wrestled with those verses for a long time, but after listening to you while taking notes and looking up each verse, I have a better understanding. Thank you, again!

[@joshpeterson2451]

“We’re nfver told that God is hate.” Technically true, but we are told in Nahum 1:2, “The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD is avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.” Wrath is just as much an attribute as love.

[@bobpolo2964]

God's wrath is born out of His love.

[@rickkelley4618]

Josh Peterson God’s wrath, more than a capricious emotion, as in our case, is probably more likely the absence, perhaps even withdrawal, of His mercy, in the instance of a hardened heart. It’s not that God is angry in the sense that we get angry, but we are left to receive nothing of His love and grace when we live in rebellion against him. Thus, like Esau, who was an ingrate and unholy, wrath abides.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@rickkelley4618 You may need to rework your interpretation of God's wrath. Remember, God's wrath will be poured out on Satan on our behalf and for His glory.

[@christianmissionforthedeaf1522]

@@rickkelley4618 Sorry, Rick, but I think you need to spend more time studying the wrath of God. He is described in Heb 12:29 as a "consuming fire", and dire warning is given to everyone who treats His passion with indifference: [+] For if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. If anyone disregards Moses’ law, he dies without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know the One who has said, Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, and again, The Lord will judge His people. It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God! (Heb 10:26-31) That's a quote from Deut 32. I don't think Deut 32 can be understood as "withdrawing love and grace". Words like "fury", "anger" and "vengeance" are proactive words, not words describing an omission of grace. Thanks.

[@a.w.hughes6648]

Ezekiel 22 adds to this as well, but the difference is that wrath is geared toward refinement out of Love.

[@yvonnehedeker3441]

Thank you! This helped immeasurably in my understanding of this chapter and most importantly, gave me a an understanding of the text in a way that doesn't contradict (as Calvinism does) the word if God in both OT scripture and the NT Gospel

[@JosephLachh]

Lol I was just thinking about that: Calvinist: God choses some. Look, he hates Esau Non denom: God loved the whole world Atheist: oop, contradictions. See, your Bible’s wrong.

[@sydneyscott7105]

We see faith as a gift, not of ourselves “not of him who wills” that’s why we see our hearts regenerated by God through faith in Jesus (the faith is from him)

[@jimd9339]

Salvation is from God.... Freewill is God's (my opinion) greatest demonstration of His sovereignty and almighty power. God created us with a freewill. I choose to reject Calvinism. I am predestinated to reject Calvinism. I chose to get saved when it was offered to me. God did not force me to love Him, I choose to love Him and that love is demonstrated when I choose to obey Him. John 14:15, 21 & 23

[@luisjaramillo9718]

Man is free indeed but free to sin ! Man is dead in sin! Man's will, decision is corrupt and we can not respond to God’s call! God is the author of Salvation, He is the giver of life to Him all the glory!!! Amen

[@jimd9339]

@@luisjaramillo9718 Calvinism is heresy...

[@luisjaramillo9718]

@@jimd9339 Really? Becuase you say so? Your opinion doesn't count! My God is sovereign and he decides to save or not save man! He rules over everything! Be blessed

[@jimd9339]

@@luisjaramillo9718 My opinion doesn't even enter the discussion... The Bible debunks Calvin's heresies.... Mankind has a freewill... Your complete house of cards (Calvinism) comes crashing down upon that one Bible fact.

[@cosmasmbuzi.1467]

To suggest that Romans 9 is not about salvation is misleading. In verse 3 Paul says "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:" Is not apostle Paul wishing that he were "accursed from Christ" so that his "kinsmen" could instead be "blessed" in Christ?

[@CaldwellApologetics]

Hello Mike. I watched your video and appreciate the effort that you have taken to address a challenging chapter. Though you started to delve into God’s selection of Israel as a nation through Jacob, I believe the lack of exegesis left some significant issues in the chapter untouched. 1. Why is the proposition of injustice referenced? 2. Why is God’s mercy under consideration. Mercy is a verb in verse 18 so this is an action that God has actively performed 3. Why are the actions of God efficacious versus the ineptitude of man? It is not about free will but the ability of one’s will achieve a goal. 4. Why are the actions of Jacob and Esau not used as the basis of God’s preference for Jacob. Though the chapter begins with Israel selection by God, it is clear that as you read the entire chapter, Israel’s selection is an archetype for God’s sovereign choosing including those he elected to salvation.

[@wojak91]

Because arminians are simply wrong, end of story. Regardless what they say, every effort made to disprove the truths of predestination and monergism is due to a desire to make God's grace less offensive to the flesh and to preserve human autonomy. Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6, etc. none of these are "hard" texts to a heart that delights to simply submit to what God has said without questioning it. The truth of predestination is God's final and ultimate kill-blow to all pride of the flesh and the highest exaltation of His grace.

[@PastorBenHammond]

Great job! It's nice to hear someone teaching this passage correctly.

[@Rbl7132]

Hes not teaching Romans 9 correctly!!

[@fastlane6096]

@@Rbl7132 "Correctly" You need your head examined!

[@pdxnikki1]

Understanding Torah will help in understand his position. What he states in the beginning is absolutely true: for Jews like me, the gospels don’t make sense at all as separate from Torah but as a continuation only, and this is precisely the way Paul understood the Messiah. He had to; the NT hadn’t yet been written! If Jesus isn’t the Messiah of the Jews He’s noone’s Messiah. Therefore if we study the gospels first without a very firm grasp of Torah we will miss much of it and make our theology based on incomplete knowledge and understanding. We should first study Torah as did the disciples of Yeshua and then approach the gospels with new eyes. Whether we do so or not doesn’t change our salvation; it simply corrects our theology.

[@aurorahw7085]

I agree so much! and welcome to the family dear sister Nikki! How much joy is stirred in me to hear that you believe on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Jews hold a special place in my heart after reading the Pentateuch (I'm still studying the rest of the OT). The Bible is a whole piece. If you only know the OT, then you are as Cornelius who needed the gospel because the Holy Spirit had prepared him for salvation. But if you don't know the NT, it's a little difficult to understand context of where it all came from and how it came to be that Jesus, the Messiah, could be rejected by His own people although He proved He is one with the Father and has the power to forgive sin. The Bible is this beautiful history and foretelling that we have sooooo much more to learn about Jesus because it's not fully fulfilled; we're waiting for His return. May you grow in your faith and may many more children of Israel come back to the Lord. His anguish for Israel just reverberates throughout the Bible. But He will redeem the remnant! This is the mystery of the blindness of Israel but are we not as Israel was in our sin? Did we not love our sin more than God? This is one reason why we must have humble compassion with the Jews; we were just as dead in our trespasses and sins and the law was written on all of our hearts... the conscience. Be encouraged and I hope to meet you in heaven!!!

[@bobtaylor170]

@@aurorahw7085, you're a special one, kiddo. I'm glad you're my sister in Christ.

[@bobtaylor170]

Amen, Nikki!

[@safatadros1455]

You're absolutely right the old testament is an essential part of Christianity we can never separate it from the new testement

[@codyclay88]

Hey Mike, I just wanna say this is really great work. God bless you, brother.

[@equalityandjusticeforall3190]

Mike, You've no idea how much the grace of God working in you elaborating the Scripture faithfully only to the word of God and not being biased with perspective of doctrines. This chapter was very challenging to me as it contradicts some other verses and you cleared it now.

[@joshpeterson2451]

“Is this about salvation?” Yes! Look at the context. Verses 1-5 are raising the question, “Why don’t all Jews believe in Jesus?” That’s about salvation. Then, Paul uses the words “called” and “election” referring to Jacob. Where have we seen those words recently? Romans 8:29-39. “Those whom He predestined, He also called. Those whom He called, He also justified.” This results in the statement, “Who can bring a charge against God’s elect?” The immediately preceding context already defined the words “called” and “election.” They are soteriological words. Paul uses them a few verses later in chapter 9 and has not changed subjects. He’s still talking about salvation, namely why Jews aren’t saved. This is undoubtedly, unabashedly, without hesitation about salvation.

[@Travis-tx7um]

Mike! thank you my dude. I haven't watched yet but I was having a hard time with this chapter today trying to see around the Calvinist interpretation (not to mention I was reading the MacArthur Bible which was a mistake) and this is just the video I was hoping existed.

[@nataser2011]

When I started reading Romans I understood it this way, then I started hearing Calvinist opinion on it and it depressed me I literally started praying to God to forgive me on how dumb I am that I don’t understand it their way. I’ll be praying for you we need more like you online!

[@toplobster1040]

Yes Calvinism is extremely depressing. I almost turned away from God because of it

[@toplobster1040]

Beyond the Fundamentals has some AMAZING videos debunking Calvinism! You should check him out.

[@SerenityNow22]

Interesting. I’m Calvinist and am more at peace than ever resting in God’s sovereignty over his entire creation, not relying on man’s free will to hopefully execute his plans. We will never fully understand it all this side of glory but He’s holy, good & in complete control.

[@toplobster1040]

@@SerenityNow22 Yes everyone has different reactions. We do have some responsibility though. Calvinism puts it all on God, which I think is the reason why some people find it so comforting.

[@mikefoht2738]

I have been attending conservative reformed baptist churches for some time. I have never been able to bring myself to embrace the 5 points of calvanism because I will not elevate any man's commentaries above the written word no matter how much pressure is applied to conform. I have listened to both sides of this issue for many years now and enjoy vigorous debates and strong arguements on both sides of the issue. yet pastor wingers 2 part message on Roman's 9 is the most comprehensive and quite honestly the best interpretation of the election chapter I have ever heard. it is very sound in its hermanutics and bluntly honest in how we should seek to understand such passages. I am grateful to pastor winger for having the courage to share his commentary on this chapter. this commentary stands far above all others I have read or heard on this subject. I will have to admit that when it comes to understanding the complexity of salvation I will never understand how every detail is worked out. but I find much more hope in wingers position for lost souls than I do in the election position, not to mention that the context clearly backs up a totally different position than the calvanist claims. thank you pastor winger. I enjoy your commentaries and openess and humbleness to teach the scripture in all its pureness.

[@ShalaJC]

Wonderfully put, and you are answering a vicious debate with balance and with humility

[@mosesmanaka8109]

Ironically Romans was written by Paul who persecuted Christians UNTIL he met Jesus on the Damascus Road. Did Paul come to a knowledge of Christ through his own rational and objective thinking or was it Christ who changed him? Paul later says in Ephesians, Blessed and worthy of praise be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ, just as [in His love] He chose us in Christ [actually selected us for Himself as His own] before the foundation of the world, so that we would be holy [that is, consecrated, set apart for Him, purpose-driven] and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined and lovingly planned for us to be adopted to Himself as [His own] children through Jesus Christ, in accordance with the kind intention and good pleasure of His will- to the praise of His glorious grace and favor, which He so freely bestowed on us in the Beloved [His Son, Jesus Christ]. In Him we have redemption [that is, our deliverance and salvation] through His blood, [which paid the penalty for our sin and resulted in] the forgiveness and complete pardon of our sin, in accordance with the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and understanding [with practical insight] In Him also we have received an inheritance [a destiny-we were claimed by God as His own], having been predestined (chosen, appointed beforehand) according to the purpose of Him who works everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ [who first put our confidence in Him as our Lord and Savior] would exist to the praise of His glory. Ephesians 1:3‭-‬8‭, ‬11‭- And: And you [He made alive when you] were [spiritually] dead and separated from Him because of your transgressions and sins, in which you once walked. You were following the ways of this world [influenced by this present age], in accordance with the prince of the power of the air (Satan), the spirit who is now at work in the disobedient [the unbelieving, who fight against the purposes of God]. Among these [unbelievers] we all once lived in the passions of our flesh [our behavior governed by the sinful self], indulging the desires of human nature [without the Holy Spirit] and [the impulses] of the [sinful] mind. We were, by nature, children [under the sentence] of [God’s] wrath, just like the rest [of mankind]. But God, being [so very] rich in mercy, because of His great and wonderful love with which He loved us, even when we were [spiritually] dead and separated from Him because of our sins, He made us [spiritually] alive together with Christ (for by His grace-His undeserved favor and mercy-you have been saved from God’s judgment). And He raised us up together with Him [when we believed], and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, [because we are] in Christ Jesus, [and He did this] so that in the ages to come He might [clearly] show the immeasurable and unsurpassed riches of His grace in [His] kindness toward us in Christ Jesus [by providing for our redemption]. Ephesians 2:1‭-‬7 AMP

[@fly.into.theblue]

Yes! On that Damascus Road Paul has been a zealous pharisee trying to eradicate Christians until the very moment Jesus Christ revealed Himself to Paul, then Paul is a changed man. Salvation is a gift from God, not by man's work. God is Sovereign.

[@abuelb]

Arminianism cant answer this and will dance around it.

[@abuelb]

Romans 9 key words: elect, calls, loved, hated, etc. God's Will. No human free will in that chapter.

[@Rhall6451]

God also chose Adam and Eve (by creation), Noah, Abraham and his sons, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, the other prophets, and of course himself to die on the cross, the apostles. When you think about the whole Bible, God is choosing for himself fruits of his creation. A couple thousand years later he chose me. It's so clear to me. Not my will God, but yours.

[@Rhall6451]

The people chose Saul.

[@miketaylor9969]

I respectfully disagree, I am a “ Calvinist” ( although I think he himself would reject that term ) But you are dug in as I , I’m glad we can agree to disagree 👍

[@mrstaleycl]

If your logic presented at 38 minutes regarding “Esau I hated” is true then we’d have to reject the idea that Paul uses Abraham as an example of “salvation” by faith. Romans 4:13 says, “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” By your hermeneutic, this means that Romans 4 is not about salvation but about a nation that Abraham would make God into. There is almost no meaningful example in the Old Testament that would speak of salvation because of how narrowly you are defining it. In fact the concept of salvation becomes so elusive that you could argue that Paul never talks about salvation proper. The Arminian position seems to state that Romans 9 is so specific that we cannot apply it to any discussion of individual salvation. But Paul seems to be arguing the opposite direction, namely “these are specific examples of how God works out salvation.” You also set up a false dichotomy between the “promises of God” and “salvation.” Is salvation not a promise that God has given to his people? This is basis of Paul’s angst... if the Jews are the people of promise, how are they not part of the promise of salvation through faith in Christ. His answer is that the Gentiles have been grafted into the promises of God (including salvation) through faith.

[@Tigerex966]

no we do not.

[@mrstaleycl]

Tigerex966 ok... please elaborate :)

[@EDSONHLYCHHO22]

from your point of view. all the Israelites that have died and stiil lived will all be save... because God adopted them. choose them... are you agreeing with me?

[@mrstaleycl]

De' Raino not sure I understand your question... if you are asking if I believe all of the Israelites are saved then my answer is no... only Israelites who believed in Jesus will be saved. If they have died without believing in Jesus then it seems to me that they would not be saved (per Romans 10, they need to hear and believe. Paul says they have beard but not believed.)

[@mrstaleycl]

Steadfast Devotions Ministries 1. Why did Jesus have to die if we were predestined? Because he still had to pay for sins of his people in atonement 2. If we don’t have free will... can you show me a passage that teaches explicitly that man has libertarian free will? You introducing a philosophical concept of free will that was foreign to the biblical writers. I’d like to encourage you to study the subject of creaturely will. The questions you are Asking are very basic and I think you’d benefit more from doing your own research than me trying to convince you of anything. 3. Does God want all people to repent? I think there’s a sense in which this is true. But let me ask you, if God wants ALL individuals to repent , then why don’t they?

[@denverbevins4052]

The term "love" is often misunderstood, particularly since music & poets focus our minds toward the "affection" of love. Biblical love seems to be confusing sometime because of the various words all translated as "love." To simplify, God's love means "to meet the needs of" This definition feels simple until we consider the depths & types of needs people have.

[@robertpreisser3547]

Romans 9-11 is not only topically/thematically consistent, it flows directly from the prior chapters as well. Many Calvinists I interact with seem to think that Paul shifts focus from nations to individuals, but Romans 9-11 remains about nations. Paul is addressing an expected objection that his fellow Jews might raise: Did God’s promises fail because salvation was now going to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected their own Messiah. This context is crucially important to keep in mind, because Romans is one, single, integrated, coherent, long argument.

[@richardwalters9249]

I embraced Calvinistic teachings … but this is a very good “other-side” explanation of Romans 9 - and it makes a lot of sense. Re-evaluating …

[@johnnyjohnson1370]

You do well to re-evaluate

[@jimwheeler7277]

While you didn't convince me to abandon my calvinist interpretation of this text, I do appreciate your humble, non-confrontational approach and your embracing calvinists as your brothers and sisters in Christ.

[@gregorycox2377]

Our identity as believers is in Christ Jesus and what he did at Calvary for his elect. John Calvin happened to be a Protestant preacher who shed light on the Bible doctrine of Predestination at a pivotal time in modern Church history. Mike Winger appears to endorse the contemporary Western doctrine of men having freewill for salvation. John Calvin and early church fathers never preached this doctrine because it is not Biblical. Jesus tells us in John 15:16 "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you," This not only applies to his apostles; this applies to all believers. Mike Winger also seems to be endorsing the Edict of Toleration, first planted in the Church by Constantine. Titus 3;10 tells us: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself". I don't call myself a Calvinist. I call myself the redeemed of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[@HappyPenguin75034]

Nobody can embrace a person as brother if they think they made the decision to choose Christ when Bible says not possible. Do we embrace church of Christ and Mormons and Catholics in general as brothers? Let’s just all go for works based salvation.

[@seanoconnor5311]

@@gregorycox2377 Sure, but whenever you have factions in the church, you have factious people claiming the mantle of being the one faction that are 'just Christians'. Look at 1 Corinthians 1:12 - What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." I accept God's election and that I'm saved by grace alone, and that his will is sovereign as per your reading of Rom 9. It doesn't mean I accept e.g. limited atonement or Calvin's take on any matter at all, e.g. infant baptism. It's not a one sided thing here: the factious man is to be cast out of the church. So you ought to be thinking really hard about questions like: Does regeneration entail correct theology re: the economy of salvation (I say no), even if yes, is that sanctification instant (obvious no), does the intellect remain subject to our carnal nature (yes, at least in part), what is the objective criterion for salvation (all who believe shall not perish), etc, and ask yourself: should someone saved so recklessly declare who is a child of God and who is a child of the devil?

[@NinaBeaver]

@@HappyPenguin75034 But faith is not a work, as Paul himself makes quite clear in this very book of Romans.

[@JFLJR28]

The context of Romans 9 has to be seen in the light of the context of Romans 8. Especially verses 28 and onward. I think the problem here is that Romans 9 was grouped together with chapters 10 &11 as "parenthetical" instead of taking it in its direct context from the end of Romans 8. I think Dr. James White does an exceptional job of exegeting Romans 9 in the entirety of its true context including Romans 8:28 and on. He emphasizes on the word "called" in those passages as key to understanding the passage. I encourage you guys to check out Dr. James detailed breakdown of Romans 9. Also, see Dr. White's Romans 9 debate with Professor Leighton Flowers. In that debate you see the serious inconsistencies in the "corporate election" argument.

[@christianmissionforthedeaf1522]

I didn't know JW debated LF on the issue. That should be worth watching. Personally, I have a hard time listening to JW monologue. Too many rabbit trails. And the same can be said about LF. Plus, LF doesn't apply a consistent rationale to his points (wheter or not I take his side, it's quite irritating, actually). But JW tends to be quite good in debates (where he's timed ;) ). Thanks for the mention. I'll definitely check it out.

[@JFLJR28]

@@christianmissionforthedeaf1522 - Oh no probably. "Iron sharpens iron". I agree with both of your points. I listen to JW's "Dividing line" frequently and there are times that he can go on rants lol but I appreciate his zeal for the gospel and his consistency. Now LF, on the other hand, I cannot listen to anymore. I had never heard of LF before that debate, but after the debate, I decided to listen to some of his podcasts and watch some of his videos. Then I started noticing what JW was saying about LF going on a full on assault against Calvinism. If you look at the majority of LF's videos, they all have to do with refuting Calvinism. Then you get into watching his refutations and you start to see all the inconsistencies and the misunderstanding on his part on the doctrines of grace. He doesn't do a good job of representing Calvinism or providing a good rebuttal to some of the claims of Calvinism. Please check out that debate and lmk your thoughts. Pray it blesses you.

[@snowman4821]

wow, I really loved the analogy of a child's perception of how things "are," a certain way to them. actually, just before this my son and i got into a bit of a disagreement about a game he was playing. he wanted to make some sort of account to save his progress and i told him to choose "not now" and he was so upset at first because he was dead set on "it won't show up again if i exit the screen." i had to explain to him that if it had no way of accessing it later, it would have said so. he still wanted to disagree with me and say " well, it won't show up until tomorrow." my patience flew out the window, but thanks to God i didn't become angry, i just told him the game makers know what they're doing and not to worry. it kind of tickles me to think this literally just happened and then this type of example was in this teaching 😄

[@ambassadorofconciliation]

If both camps believed these straightforward verses: 1Tim 4:9-11: "Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers. These things be charging and teaching." This debate, and all the contradictions DISAPPEAR.

[@johngodsey5327]

I’ve taught missionaries romans as prep for the field just because it’s so important for a foundational theology. Romans 9 has always, initially been a sticking point for people but as we move through it, just as you have here, it tends to make sense. My boys are 17 and 16 and part of their homeschooling this year is romans this fall and then Galatians during the winter. Thanks for this as an additional resource to help discuss and study this awesome and important book. Love the videos and podcasts. You are appreciated Jgod Wec international

[@morningjoeapologetics7982]

At minute 46 you hit the nail right on the head, brother. The interlocutor asking about the unrighteousness of God is probably a Jew who is asking why the promises for Israel are not being fulfilled (thereby implying that God hasn’t kept his promise and is therefore unrighteous). It breaks my heart every time I hear a Calvinist use that verse to shut people up who are questioning the verse in the context of deterministic salvation. You laid out a great teaching sermon here to show the improper hermeneutics of those who think Paul’s interlocutor is some kind of Arminian.

[@clintonvictor1413]

Have you ever listened to Jeff Durban's explanation of Calvinism in His video Objections to Calvinism? And if so how would you respond to a sermon like that?

[@brianmassman6016]

Soteriology 101 with leighton flowers did just that with Durban.

[@ramonlopez5557]

AMEN!!!! JEFF DORBIN NAILS IT

[@carlospadron488]

Ill have a beer and a cigar with Jeff😎😤...thats what i think about your hero🤮

[@ramonlopez5557]

@@carlospadron488 sound doctrine and a thorough exogesis of scripture is always my hero. What's yours

[@NunyaBizness-X]

Amazing explanation….. one that I didn’t think existed. So thankful the Holy Spirit revealed this to us

[@roydenboom]

I have always interpreted the hardening of Pharaoh's heart as God ensuring his freewill. If I use fear and threats to compel you to do as I say you have no freewill. It was was only after the last plague that Pharaoh truly recognized God for what He is.

[@gongthaigangmei9663]

Brother Mike, you explained it so well. I have never heard like this explanation about this passage before. Of course I am a non calvinist. God blesss

[@slaveministries]

I know nothing, nothing again, that is more humbling for us than this doctrine of election. I have sometimes fallen prostrate before it, when endeavoring to understand it. I have stretched my wings, and, eagle-like, I have soared toward the sun. Steady has been my eye, and true my wing, for a while; but when I came near it, only one thought possessed me--"From the beginning God chose you to be saved"--I was lost in its luster, I was staggered with the mighty thought; and from the dizzy elevation down came my soul, prostrate and broken, saying, "Lord, I am nothing, I am less than nothing. Why me? Why me?" Spurgeon. When given the understanding of the biblical truth we call election, I too had an experience like Spurgeon describes here, it's been a tremendous blessing to say the least. To my "Calvanist" friends I would encourage humility, patients, kindness and compassion, as you should very well know understanding "election" is a gift.

[@midnighthymn]

Mike this is absolutely amazing. You hit the nail on the head. Thank you, man.

[@baruchvemai4524]

You are the real guy. Openness is what I personally do appreciate.

[@justlooking6434]

Great teaching. “The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.” ‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:9‬ ‭NLT‬‬

[@carlospadron488]

No He doesnt 😡where did you get that from😠

[@justlooking6434]

@@carlospadron488 the Bible

[@justlooking6434]

Why would it upset you if God wants to save people?

[@michaal105]

​@@carlospadron488 It's directly from the Bible. How are you doing?

[@wilson_paul_deshapaga]

Thanks for beautiful interpretation of this highly misunderstood chapter. It's easy to cherry pick, be short sighted and be misled unless we read this chapter with overall context and audience it is intended to. It is also good to know the state of audience when it is written.

[@Bobshinglebottom]

I think what every non Calvinist is having trouble understanding is that salvation is for all. When Jesus paid the debt on the cross, it was truly sufficient for all. The only problem, is that we as sinners are blind. We have a carnal mind that can’t understand spiritual things as the scriptures teaches. Gods grace and mercy IS sufficient for ALL, but unless God opens our eyes (carnal mind) we can’t receive it. As Ephesians 2:8-9 has stated. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” It is a gift. I wasn’t looking for it. Ask yourself. Before you were saved, who told you that you were a sinner? Gods word, right? Doesn’t matter if it was straight from you reading the scriptures or from a word someone had spoke. When Jesus went up to peter, James and John did he ask them to follow him? No... he said “follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” What would Jesus had done if they all three looked at him like he was crazy and said no? Same with Paul. When he was formally Saul, walking on his way to Damascus. God struck him down blind. The ones who were to pray over Paul to receive his sight again questioned God and his plan to use Paul and what was Gods answer? “He is a chosen vessel unto me.” It doesn’t seem as if Paul has a choice. It was like in that moment he was struck down, he realized that God was truly real. And how? Because God opened his eyes. (His carnal mind.) These are truths I don’t think we can ignore. Again, Gods plan for salvation is sufficient for ALL. Just because something may be sufficient for all doesn’t mean all will have it or want it. Let me dig a bit deeper with a different thought all together. What stopped Adam and Eve from simply obeying God? If they could easily do wrong, why couldn’t they easily just obey?

[@leviwilliams9507]

That's a good criticism. I have not had A Calvanist fully disaude me from my understanding. I appreciate the constructive criticism and I am sure Mike would as well.

[@padretienesseis]

You nailed it when you say that God's sacrifice was sufficient for all while all people don't want to be covered by Jesus' sacrifice for humanity. Some people looking for God will find Him and some not looking for God will be brought to Him. Either way, we who were completely dead in our sins have had our spirits awoken by the Lord to respond to Him. The initial move was God's move first.

[@vj563]

Please explain why God wants no one to perish, but all to be saved. Why say that if you only want some to be saved?

[@armandsimmons6195]

V read the chapter, not just that verse hahahaha

[@brandonpemberton5707]

Paul is a HORRIBLE communicator if Romans 9 doesn't mean exactly what he went out of his way to state repeatedly. In Several epistles, not just Romans 8-9. And also the gospels. God ELECTED in his mercy. Romans 9 is CLEAR because it reinforces an already definitively established scriptural doctrine. The Father elected. The elect are a reward/gift for the Son. You could not, if you had two lifetimes, devise clearer semantics to communicate this than what Paul says here and in Ephesians, or John recounts in Ch. 6 of his gospel, etc..

[@moxiegirlvintagecoffee9170]

I am of Jewish heritage- 1/2 Jewish and was brought up Jewish. You are right- and one issue I have with Calvinist is the absence of Jewish thought in its teachings as if it entirely disengages from the “olive branch “

[@nattlesnake.]

I have been really wrestling with the ideas of Calvinism/predestination vs free will. My spirit is much more comfortable believing we all have an equal, and free, chance at receiving salvation through Jesus. But, I have been tripped up by passages, especially Romans 9, that seem to support the doctrine of Calvinism. After watching this video, it finally feels like a little bit of that theological weight has been lifted off of my shoulders. This is such a respectful, honest, humble, and truthful explanation of what Romans 9 is actually getting at (and of course, you so humbly explain in your prayer at the end that we can always be interpreting things wrong, only God has the final say). I love how you emphasize the importance of loving our brothers and sisters, despite their stance on this issue. God wins, so love wins. I'm going to watch this again and again because its so good! There is so much you unpacked and I'm loving every second of it. Thank you for taking the time to really understand God's word in context, truly living out 1 Peter 3:15. And when you said how if you're going to take a stance on an issue, and also be sure to give REASONS for your stance, that hit home. I have been researching this topic for quite some time now, and I commonly come across half-hearted answers. They just say, "of course that isn't what the bible means," and in my head I'm screaming "how do you know!! why??" Thank you for explaining why. God knew i needed to hear this. God bless.

[@jrconway3]

Watching this again is interesting. I still keep seeing Calvanists pop up all the time, but its come even closer to home now that my dad is seriously considering it as well. I never really took Calvanism seriously even after I learned the term "Calvanism" (I knew about the term "predestination" which is basically the same thing, but I only recently heard about "Calvanism"). The truth of the Bible makes it clear to me that God wants all to come to him, but he gives us the choice to follow him or reject him. So I never really wavered on this issue. But it doesn't make chapters like Romans 9 easier when Calvanists always love to quote Romans 9. I read Romans 9 during watching this video and found that if you go to the end of Romans 9 its clearly describing what its talking about: its about justification by works over faith and about Gentiles vs Jews issues. The "elect" are those who faithfully follow God rather than believing they can earn their way by the works of the Law, which is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Those are the ones God chooses.

[@Dan-gb5hm]

Hes not mentioning Esau and Jacob and those examples to say those people were saved or not saved. hes using the examples to show that God picks and chooses who he wants. The reason it's about salvation is because of what he started out in the 1st 6 verses. Summary..... God picks and chooses who he want to save because that's the way God has always operated. When you get beyond verse 7 you forget about what Paul was talking about in the 1st place.

[@peterfox7663]

Yes, God sets the criteria for who is saved, and that criteria is accepting by faith Jesus as one's saviour

[@Dan-gb5hm]

@@peterfox7663 Sets the criteria?

[@joannafalconer6224]

Thank you so much for this 🙏 I am totally on your wave length with all this and your humility speaks volumes brother. I don't understand why there are all these people saying "oh I'm a Calvinist, or an Arminian or a Lutheran or whatever other man made label folks want to use. As a newish believer hungry for His truth and His truth alone, doesn't Paul address this issue in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 as sectarianism...which is sin?! "I am of Apollos or I am of Paul!" 🤦 I simply just consider myself to be a follower of Christ and isn't that what we all should just simply be in humility of the amazing gift of salvation that we really don't deserve! I just pray Lord Jesus for all of us to be representing you as we are called to, in love and humility, simple faith and obedience to your God breathed word. Amen 📖✝️🛐❤️

[@ezequielarce8079]

Once you start going down searching for truth, we see both of this sides in a believe. We lean more on one side. And when that happens we just get referred to famous theologians who once made an impact because of their intellect and we learn from them

[@PBAdventures146]

When reading this particular passage I think it's important to remember that the Bible did not have chapter breaks in it when they were written. And definitely the chapters before and after in this situation maybe more than any other situation in the Bible have to be taken into consideration to explain the context of chapter 9 . I think you nailed the meaning behind the chapter! Great video

[@darinstruble]

@mikeringer do you have any videos talking through Romans 9:18-33? I'm studying this for myself, and am a little frustrated that it appears there isn't much non-calvinist teaching on the rest of Romans 9. To me, the latter section of chapter 9 deserves more attention. Thanks for any direction you can give!

[@betterthanlife499]

I'm a calvinist, and I love this brother. I appreciate how he interprets Romans 9 lovingly. But the "HATE" on that verse is not merely "love-less", read Malachi 1, where paul took that verse he qouted.

[@betterthanlife499]

GOD destroys Essau's inheritance, and Edom says "we will build it up again", but GOD says "they may build up but I will tear down" is that "love-less" or "unloved"? No! it is hate.

[@nevadadad5007]

Q1:Read Gen 25:23. Did God say to Rebekah that He hated Esau and loved Jacob, or simply that one nation (from the older) would serve the other nation (from the younger)? Q2: Read Mal 1:1-5. When God spoke to Malachi and used the words love/hate, it was 1100 years after Esau and Jacob lived. Was love/hate here directed at nations or the individual twins? Was God choosing an individual for SERVICE (father of a chosen nation’s lineage) or for SALVATION?

[@weswheeler89]

Mike, also you say calvinist aren't consistent with romans 9. You say every verse isn't about salvation until verse 15 and 16: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. So it depends not on the one who wills and the one who runs but on the one who has mercy..which you are correct because that verse wouldn't make sense if it was just about nations and carrying the promise, but your interpretation is inconsistent and there is no flow...sorry🤷🏼‍♂️

[@innovationflow4437]

Stunning! Best explanation of Rom 9 I've ever heard.

[@Rbl7132]

Thats a sad statement of your discernment of Biblical truth. Because Wingers teaching is false and denies the plain text

[@peterfox7663]

@@Rbl7132 how does it ignore the plain text? What is the plain text saying? Is there context to go with this plain text?

[@nicolethompson8613]

Me too!

[@kimberleerivera3334]

Thank you Mike for this message! I'm in agreement with your prayer Mike - that we are not striving to fight for one camp over the other, but that we want to know GOD'S truth, and we will be in prayer as we read the HOLY SCRIPTURES - seeking GOD'S truth, and praying for humility and love in our hearts for one another, as we follow where GOD'S truth leads us. PRAISE OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST! GLORY TO GOD!

[@IrrelevantIrrelevant-s8v]

Thanks mike. This teaching was perfect! Very good analysis on the differences between by calling versus by flesh, absolutely hooked through the enitre explanation, you have a real gift for this God be with you brother

[@Vissers_Of_Men]

Hi Mike, I Agree with most of your sermon and I like all your videos. I disagree with your view on Calvinism. I think you're right that you cant argue that out of Romans 9, but scripture as a whole. Would love a discussion with you about it. I'm willing to have my mind changed. I think we are alike in that manner. Not wanting a theological fight, just a God glorifying, Christ exalting discussion so that iron may sharpen iron as one man sharpens another! Love you brother! Keep up the good work! (Tim, the Calvinist😜)

[@carlosnieves6405]

Timothy Visser why Tim the Christian or Disiple of Jesus Christ or Bond Servant of The lord. Is Christ Divided? 🙏

[@StudioGalvan]

I have to admit, when I first heard you on this video, I thought you were trying to defend Arminianism as a Calvinist! I suppose that because the arguments against the Sovereign Grace view are so weak compared to those of the "Calvinist". But you are still one of the teachers I like to listen to. Especially when looking at movements that are truly false.

[@valentinlapatskiy250]

1st If you say that Esau I hated meant for nation Edom, then who the nation consists of?? 2nd You’ve mentioned For God so loved the world. Why didn’t you elaborate on that the same way you tried with the meaning of Esau I hated but Jacob I loved? Don’t you think the word “world” meant to Jews that not only Jews that salvation is coming upon, but to gentiles as well? If Christ death is an act, and that He died for those whom the Father gave him, don’t you think that dying for everyone means universal salvation? Why don’t people understand that death and resurrection of Christ is subjective, not objective. 3rd. You’ve said in Calvinist views the Faith is response of ones salvation, where as you say faith gives you access to the salvation. Have you thought about Abraham and when was the faith imputed? Before his circumcision? Before the promise? Before He offered Isack on the atar? Or that was after from your perspective? 4th How can misinterpret hardening of Pharaoh?? It’s says explicitly for that purpose I raised you up, what purpose? To show his Golry. Wow I’ve never heard anyone interpret this chapter in this way, not even Arminians. 5th Your problem is that you interpret scripture for not what it actually says, but using your logic and your wrong theology. It’s a great example when you see someone twist everything to fit their theology. Why not just say like Calvinists believe? Yes God elects and it is true and it’s all over the Bible... Yes it is true Man is responsible for his actions. How do you put these things together? Calvinist says we don’t know and our mind can’t understand, but it’s in the scripture. Arminian or some other view says, NO we got it, and they create their little box of theology and start misinterpreting scripture just so that it makes since to them. People read, know your bible and what it says. If you are the author of your saving faith, then I wonder what you will say to Christ on that day when you meet Him and explain the basis why “you” came to Him but not the one in Africa living it tribes that never heard the Gospel? Your answer is Ephesians 2:8..

[@alanlietzke5738]

Mike, division and conflict ( 01:20) between Armininan and Calvinist believers appear unavoidable, because their theologies are fundamentally opposed on several divisive issues: 1) Is God completely sovereign over all things, or do men have "Free-Will" to do as they please? 2) Who has the final say about ones salvation (God alone, or each person alone)? 3) For whom did Jesus die? (everybody or just His Sheep), "His Elect" (Mt 24:31", having been chosen from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), and given to the Son (Jn 6:39), with there names eternally written into "The Lamb's Book of Life" from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8, 17:8), the" blessed of the Father", for whom a kingdom has been prepared from the foundation of the world (Mt 25:34). 4) Is one saved by grace alone or can one do something, about which he can boast (Eph 2:8-9)? 5) Is one justified by the blood of Jesus or by his own faith? 6) Can one come toward Jesus whenever one desires? (Jn 6:44) 7) Can one remain lost forever, because of wrong choices? (Jn 6:39) 8) Who is criticizing whom via KZbin videos, Calvinists or Arminians?

[@matthewdyer2926]

Nailed it.

[@aro8434]

Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you for this clear and thoughtful teaching. I understand these verses in a more correct way now. I'm going to listen to the next part of this study right now, praying for wisdom and understanding all the while. May God continue to bless you and your ministry.