NT Wright Addresses Why Calvinists Interpret Romans 9 Incorrectly | Leighton Flowers | Calvinism

NT Wright addresses the reason why Calvinists come to the wrong conclusion about Romans 9. When you approach the text with faulty presuppositions, you will come away with the wrong interpretation. Dr. Leighton Flowers responds to NT Wright's thoughts on Romans 9.
Check out the full video here:
• NT Wright on Romans 9
To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: soteriology101.com/support/
Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter
Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
DOWNLOAD OUR APP:
LINK FOR ANDROIDS: play.google.com/store/apps/de...
LINK FOR APPLE: apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...
Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!
To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: soteriology101.com/shop/
To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: soteriology101.com/home/
For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com
Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise,” can be found here: www.amazon.com/Potters-Promis...
Dr. Flowers’ book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...
To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: / 1806702. .
For updates and news, follow us at: www.facebook/Soteriology101
Or @soteriology101 on Twitter
Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!
To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: soteriology101.com/support/
#LeightonFlowers #Calvinism #NTWright #Romans9

[@jelly7310]

I had a guy tell me that everyone that believes in Jesus Christ is a Calvinist. And here I am believing I was a Christian for believing in CHRIST.

[@keith3362]

Funny what about the other 1500 years before Calvin

[@cerealscrub4609]

Well you believed wrongly. Next time do better and be a Calvinist. lol

[@dr.dreymisenheimer8499]

Did he mean to say everyone who believes in Christ is elect?

[@jelly7310]

@@dr.dreymisenheimer8499 no, he said exactly what I stated.

[@gregorylatta8159]

​@@keith3362They were wrong for about 1100 years.

[@chaddonal4331]

“If you don’t know the question the author is addressing, you will most likely come to the wrong answer.” Such a great point with wide application.

[@AVB2-LST1154]

Yes I have noticed. I like what Dr. Charles Swindoll stated about understanding scripture, I quote "If the normal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense." While I will grant you that this is not 100% it is pretty good advice.

[@makedisciples8653]

@@AVB2-LST1154 If the literal sense makes common sense, look for no other sense or you’ll end up with nonsense. The Calvinist’s problem…. God cannot communicate without the Calvinist helping Him explain what He means to say

[@AVB2-LST1154]

@@makedisciples8653 You are right! Quote "God cannot communicate without the Calvinist helping Him explain what He means to say. Acts 8:30 "Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him." Verse 35 "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus." Amazing huh? It's as if the word of God doesn't make sense to unsaved people! 1 Cor 1:18 "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. " Good thing we have Calvinists to explain God's word to Arminians and others who are in error or who listen to men who twist the scriptures to their destruction. Gal 1:7 "... You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ."

[@makedisciples8653]

⁠@@AVB2-LST1154your ALMOST there! Watch the entire video again. Philip (the evangelist used the WORD of God, the words of theologians like Augustine, Calvin, Bezoz (if Arminius only understood 8:51 that) Stop using inductive reasoning (Calvinism) and only use the inductive method. Come to deductive conclusions Your understanding will be based on deductive reasoning not. Arminius was a Calvinist Do you understand that? If you start with Calvinism you’re driving the wrong way. Make a u-turn

[@makedisciples8653]

Galatians 1:7 is about the churchES of the area of Galatia. There were judaizers bringing another gospel based on legalism Chapter 4 “why are you still observing special days based on the old covenant?” Chapter 5 “why are still demanding physical circumcision? GO BACK TO WHO IS SAYING WHAT TO WHOM!!! Some Arminians get stuck on “fall from grace” As a Calvinist you SHOULD be able to correct that

[@jonathanschubert9052]

"If you let your Systematic Theology contradict your Biblical Theology you have a problem" I hope Beyond the Fundamentals reads this.

[@djs9315]

🤔 curious as to why you wrote that.. and why the hope that BTF reads it?? 🙂

[@thirdplace3973]

Kevin at BTF would reject any and all systematic theologies.

[@Dilley_G45]

​@@thirdplace3973isn't He a Baptist tho? 🤔 do he subscribes to some doctrine

[@thirdplace3973]

@@Dilley_G45 Former Independent Baptist. But not pro any systematic theologies.

[@Dilley_G45]

@@thirdplace3973 ok. I thought he was Baptist in some way. Well I don't subscribe 100% to my denomination because they use the filioque (Luther overlooked that catholic add on to the creed). But back to Kevin I think it's not wrong to categorize in a way. I mean instead of explaining your theological points in an hour you can use one word...like eastern orthodox or Roman catholic or methodist to sum it up. E.g. I wouldn't have married if I had known how anti-my church my ex was. Had to fight tooth and nail to get the kids baptized. Refused to go to the service with me. And she said she was protestant. .. lesson learned....my way or the highway next time 😆

[@kevinkleinhenz6511]

I believe it was John Wesley who when asked if Romans 9 taught theistic determinism answered “I may not understand it but I know it doesn’t mean that.” That’s what happens when you read the Bible starting at Genesis by the time you get to Romans 9 there is no way you interpret it Calvinistically.

[@jordandthornburg]

Totally agree. We need a better answer when asked about the passage but that is a totally rational conclusion for personal Bible reading.

[@whatsaiththescriptures]

A simple question for Mr. Wesley who can no longer answer: If one CANNOT understand something, how then can he KNOW that it DOE NOT mean a particular thing? I am not for or against - I am simply asking a question. And who says that Romans 9 teaches DETERMINISM?

[@kevinkleinhenz6511]

@@whatsaiththescriptures Well he was like many throughout the centuries who wondered about the passage KNOWING that of all the “interpretations” the least likely is that God damns people before they are born. Reading your Bible from Genesis to Revelation makes that very clear. So he wasn’t attempting at that time to give an interpretation he was simply ruling out one because he knew enough about the God of scripture to know He is Just and Holy and doesn’t damn men and women prior to their birth. Hope that helps you.

[@wenhari06]

Very much on point

[@whatsaiththescriptures]

@@kevinkleinhenz6511 Thank you for your answer - Dead on. However, Romans 9 IS NOT teaching that, we have to take God's word as a whole. Let me be clear that I am not a Calvinist, I am a Christian. However, i sincerely believe that if God did not open my heart like he did Lydia's, I WOULD NOT believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. If he did not open any believer's heart, NONE OF US would be saved. Calvinism DOES NOT TEACH that God ORDAINS some to Eternal Damnation. That is what SOME say it does, but it does not. What I am saying is this: This writer (as well as every believer) is SAVED only by God's Sovereign Grace - Ephesians 2: 1-10. God does not owe us anything for ALL have sinned - Romans 3. That does not mean that we are robots, we have to BELIEVE, and RECEIVE him, but we did so ONLY because we were BORN of God. God MUST do a work in us for any of us to believe. If he did not do that work, all of Adam's Race would be damned. Thank God for those two (2) words in Ephesians 2 verse 4 which says BUT GOD ........ It is written: And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God. For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake - Philippians 1:28-29 KJV. Please note that there are two types of people spoken of in Philippians. But sincere thanks for your response - Much appreciated.

[@johngeasland2193]

Thank you for the reasonable explanations. As a Christian but not a formally trained theologian I appreciate having access to respectful and reasonable scripture based dialogue.

[@JesusProtects]

Have you changed your mind already? Is a false gospel, plain and simple. And a blasphemous one. I pray you get out of it and fast. Being nice is not going to help your situation so sorry if my approach sounds harsh to you. I'm just tired of seeing hundreds of calvinists singing praises to brother Leighton but still believing in that false gospel that is calvinism for years and years and nothing changing in their lives. This is not a social club where everyone can believe whatever they like, this is serious, a matter of eternal life or eternal death.

[@joshwilliams3939]

💯 I just preached through Romans 9 and you got. National service, not individual salvation-you nailed it!

[@joshwilliams3939]

You’re wrong my friend. 9-11 all deal with the nation of Israel and the Gentiles. It shouldn’t surprise us because Paul says “to the Jew first and also to the Gentile” a few times in early chapters. 9-11 expound on that phrase.

[@joshwilliams3939]

Yes he hardens individuals (1:24-25), but Isaac is a representative of Israel and Pharaoh is a representative of Egypt (Ex 14:17). The OT passages Paul uses are referring to Israel as a nation. Paul, who knows the Bible better than you or me, would not take scriptures out of context

[@joshwilliams3939]

@@soulosxpiotov7280 Abram, Sara, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob all were the ones God chose to father the nation of Israel, so in that sense, yes. God could have chosen any number of others to father His chosen people who ultimately brought the messiah into the world, but he chose them because He is Sovereign and can; and consequently God chose Israel. Isaiah is a reference to his message to Israel (once again nations). Chpt 9 God chose Israel to bring the messiah into the world. Chpt 10 so all nations could be saved. Chpt 11 Israel can be saved too and one day will. You cannot take a few verses and ignore the context of Romans and the topic that Paul is addressing. It’s so clearly National service (individually Abram to bring the nation Israel). It’s not individual salvation. So clear-the only reason someone imo would believe otherwise is because they are influenced by religious traditions rather than the Word of God itself.

[@JWar-]

@@soulosxpiotov7280 Dude, when Paul says "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" he's literally quoting the Old Testament. Ok, lets go back into the Old Testament to read the context of what he's quoting. It's from a time period when the individuals Jacob and Esau are already dead. This is generations later, and in reference to their specific tribes. The big silver bullet of Calvanism is referring irrefutably to corporate election, not individual. Your belief system is a house of cards.

[@chaddonal4331]

@@soulosxpiotov7280Jesus indeed came as the incarnation of YHWH. (Not JeHoVaH, as this is a known and well documented 16th century mistake.

[@waynezimmer1288]

Thanks for your blessed clarity. Calvinism was sneaking into my faith creating all kinds of unnecessary stress and confusion where it never existed before. Peace has returned. Praise to our logical and loving God!

[@NaBaronLes]

I've emailed Wright before just as a hail mary to thank him for his work and to ask a question about a topic. He responded to me and gave me direction to look for my answer. Super awesome guy! Maybe just try emailing him if you haven't already?

[@contemplate-Matt.G]

How did you get his email?The only one I can find on his website is the one he gives to sign up for courses

[@NaBaronLes]

@contemplate247 tbh I don't know how I found it... and looking through my emails I can't find his reply anymore! 😭😭 this was quite a few years ago so maybe he's since taken his email out of circulation.

[@kimberleerivera1483]

Yes! How Wonderful! Thank you so very much Leighton Flowers! GLORY TO GOD!

[@ewallt]

The thing about Romans 9 is that, given the context of Romans as a whole, and the immediate context, it seems obvious it’s talking about Israel. The rest of Romans wouldn’t make sense, and there would be no flow. Paul wrote it as a letter to be read in one sitting in public. It has to be something the readers could understand by hearing it read.

[@bryanmercille3049]

Every time I hear the name NT Wright spoken, I think of Todd Friel of wretched radio, and the time he said “NT Wright is NT wrong” lol… now I follow up with NoT wrong.

[@WTG194]

I think it was MacArthur who said that, but Todd Friel also comes across as being so arrogant

[@bryanmercille3049]

I know I saw Todd say it. But Jonny may have as well.

[@johndisalvo6283]

@@bryanmercille3049. Yes, both did!

[@cvent8454]

Dr. Flowers, once again, you show that context is integral to correct biblical exegesis. Thank you.

[@emf49]

Dr. Flowers, I met NT Wright several years ago when he came to Toronto to speak as a guest of Bruxy Cavey - former teaching pastor of The Meeting House, Oakville, Ontario (and an ardent follower of his.) Unfortunately, Bruxy is now off grid so I don’t know how to connect with him. At the time I met ‘Tom Wright’ - as he was introduced - he was playing with a band in a small Toronto pub rented for the occasion. I’m really a ‘nobody’ but my impression of NT Wright was that he is a very down to earth guy so I think you should definitely try to contact him to have him on your program. I hope you are successful in doing this and I will pray in this regard. 🙏 I’m new to your program and am finding it invaluable because after 41 years of simply following scripture, I now find myself in a Calvinist Church and I’m shocked by their belief ‘system’! I’m beginning to understand they use the same words but they mean something completely different. I’m currently trying to navigate being a part of this ‘church’ while not buying into it. However, as a 75 year old woman, I am very troubled to see young people being persuaded of this doctrine. I don’t want to ‘rock the boat’ but am praying fervently that God will protect the minds and hearts of these young naive people (including my son) and give them a discomfort that will motivate them to seek out truth for themselves. As you know, most young people don’t like to be told they’re wrong, especially by aging ladies and most particularly, mothers! I would appreciate your prayers, Dr. Flowers. ❤ Thanks once again! I just bought your book btw! :)

[@mikelyons2831]

Yes. The letter/Epistle is to be read in it's entirety. From the precedence of 1:16-17. The further emphasis of the letter 2:24. More keys leading up to chptr 9 note 3:29. 5:18 (note: free gift to all men). Paul's conclusions of mid 9 found in 9:30-10:4. How to be saved & all can be saved (10:8-13). More on Israel's resistance (10:19, 11:11, 11:14). Israel can believe & be grafted in again (11:23). Mercy to all (11:32). Measure of faith dealt to everyman (12:3). More consistent theme (15:8-12). Finally preaching of Jesus Christ to all nations, just like the promise given to Abraham (16:25-27). This is for you Calvinists.

[@edsnyder2801]

2 Thessalonians 3:2 And that the Lord may deliver Us from unreasonable and wicked men, for all men have not faith.

[@KlintonSilvey]

@@edsnyder2801 including the guy who wrote that line?

[@mikelyons2831]

@@edsnyder2801 Curious? Who is this directed to...Calvinists?

[@edsnyder2801]

You are completely wrong on the measure of faith that God has dealt to everyman as found in Roman's! Paul is speaking to the church! And the faith that Paul is speaking of is: Saving Faith! Ephesians teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, and that, not of ourselves, but it is The Gift Of God! Not of works lest Any Man should boast! So if you go back to Roman's and claim that God has dealt a measure of Saving Faith to All Men and then you made the right decision and then your neighbor made the wrong decision? Then you would have to boast on yourself! When He, the spirit of truth is come? He shall not speak of himself! You All love to speak of yourselves in things pertaining to salvation!

[@mikelyons2831]

@@edsnyder2801 Hmm. God has dealt the measure of faith to everyman...who is limited there?? Read Romans 5:18, the gift is available to all. If Calvin's Institutes are influencing you over scripture, you open yourself up to deception. 👿 favorite go-to "Hath God indeed said?". False teachings cause wilful blindness to the clear, plain, comprehensive passages of scripture.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

Anglican, here! Two charitable corrections on the clerical status of Bishop NT Wright: A Bishop is necessarily a priest (you can't be consecrated as a Bishop without first having been ordained as a priest), so it's not technically wrong to call him a priest. Once you are ordained (Deacon, Priest, or consecrated as Bishop), you are always that. Bishop Wright is not a "former Bishop"; once a Bishop always a Bishop. I'm sorry we are so difficult, haha.

[@stephengriffin4612]

Hi, I too once met NT Wright. My first impression of him was that he was better looking than his photos. He was also a humble and kind man. The basic question that Anglicans are asked is about the validity of Anglican Orders. Especially now with women bishops.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@stephengriffin4612 well, a few things: 1) My group, the Continuing Anglicans, rejects women within Holy Orders, so this is not even an issue for us. 2) The only ones who wouldn't have valid Orders with the concern of women's "ordination" would be the women pretending to be clergy and the men who were "ordained" by women.

[@markbrooks8623]

Reading the scriptures literally is what dispensationalism has been doing for a long time. Calvinists claim to do so but what they really do is cherry pick through the lens of Calvinistic theology. If you don't interpret the prophetic scriptures literally, you can end up with a eschatology that skews your soteriology. Context matters. What was the writer saying in context. Who was he saying it to. What prior revelation did he refer to. Etc.

[@omnitheus5442]

Um Dispensationalism is as kooky as Calvinism… nothing legit about it.

[@benanderson4118]

Covenant theology's insistence on the church replacing or superceding Israel makes it very difficult for them to see corporate election in Romans 9. Yet, Paul's emphasis in Rom. 9-11 is that God has the right to both choose Israel to be a blessing and to remove them from that position for a period.

[@benanderson4118]

@jasonr9678 Yes, and one reason is because I believe God will fulfil all his promises to Israel.

[@jack_galt]

@@benanderson4118 Nobody told him that Revelation is about God's judgment on Israel in 70 AD. :O

[@bogusphone8000]

@@benanderson4118 So, who is Israel? Christ himself said "all who are of Israel are not of Israel."

[@bobthomas1536]

I love your content and agree! One critique. When reacting to a video let it play longer before commenting. I like NT Wright also so it would be nice to hear what he had to say, Thanks for your channel , I am a subscriber.

[@Balaamsasss]

NT Wright's pretty accessible. You should have no problem getting him on.

[@masonbooth2363]

I agreed..I have emailed him and spoken to him a couple of times..in addition..he travels to the USA at least once a year to attend the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). He normally sets up a couple of speaking engagements while he is here. I think that he now teaches at St Andrew’s.

[@jeremyyap1714]

Yes get him on please!!

[@BugattianVeyronian]

While often explaining things in unique manners/words, NT Wright is a Calvinist and he will disagree with Leighton and he will surely destroy Leighton lol.

[@nealwright5630]

When you consider that we are predestined "in Christ" this makes so much sense!

[@cjphillips90]

Thank you for the video. Commenting for the Algorithm.

[@drittenberry1]

Thank you

[@thirdplace3973]

Calvinists also must ignore Paul's context in verses 3-4. It's about his brethren after the flesh, Israel.

[@keith3362]

Exactly. That what it’s all about, which is why he quotes Jeremiah 18 about the potter, when God was talking to Israel and saying if they rebel He will still have a people. Also in Jeremiah it says the clay became marred, it doesn’t say the potter purposely marred it. And why would a perfect God mar the clay or does man have free will and is able to rebel like Israel did?

[@thirdplace3973]

@@keith3362 He also references Genesis 25:23 where God chooses Jacob over Esau. But when you go to the passage in Genesis which Paul cites the choice wasn’t between the two boys themselves, it was two nations and two peoples in Rebekah’s womb. The choice was the children of Israel over the Edomites to carry the promise.

[@Jason-Austin]

@@keith3362 _Also in Jeremiah it says the clay became marred, it doesn’t say the potter purposely marred it_ Being "marred in the hand of the Potter" is just another way of saying: *Psalm 51:5* Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. This has absolutely nothing to do with man's so-called 'free will' we are all conceived and born in sin, this is why we all need a Savior.

[@SisterBaby]

@@Jason-Austin We all sin; that is why we need a Savior.

[@bigburton24]

@Jason-Austin Poor exegesis of psalm 51…

[@billfarnham1592]

A slight amplification on NT Wright's title/office. He IS a bishop. He has retired from the episcopal ministry - i.e. he is no longer in charge of a diocese. But he IS a bishop, he retains the address of "The Rt Rev N T Wright" as opposed to "The Rev NT Wright" he wore as a priest. He does not exercise the office of bishop, yet the ontological change effected when he was ordained a bishop has not and will not go away. So he is still a bishop, appropriately addressed as Bishop Wright (although in many cases he'd be just as happy with "Tom Wright"). He still has the authority of a bishop in that, were he asked to ordain someone as a deacon or priest by another bishop, he could quite validly do so. If he decided to make another career change and undertake episcopal ministry again, he could be appointed as a bishop in a diocese, etc.

[@kevinteichroeb6997]

I really appreciate NT Wright as a historian; his work on the Resurrection is top notch. But his 'new approach' to the Apostle Paul seems to me to be deeply flawed.

[@dissidentleathermonster]

The quality of the livestream is very low. It's hard to watch. Thanks for talking about this, though. I'm just listening.

[@audofit]

LOL, I actually found NT Wright's book Surprised by Hope a couple days ago while I was sitting reading in a book pub/restaurant here in Portland, OR. Just a bunch of used books on the shelf - it was an immediate buy hahaha. So funny that this episode also featured him.

[@zachboles8466]

Incredible book!

[@sheilasmith7779]

audofit: I miss McMenamins and other great restaurants....but not Portland.

[@audofit]

@sheilasmith7779 haha yeah those are everywhere. I found out you can do some passport scavenger hunt there. I'm new to Portland, so I'm just getting situated.

[@sheilasmith7779]

@@audofit Lake Oswego...Tualatin, Wilsonville, Sherwood,, smaller and safer.

[@MichaelHernandez-lc2wb]

😆 the best part was the 30% percent smarter do to his accent... LOL

[@kencritchley5546]

A deep subject when Leighton's 'shorts' are 25 minutes :)

[@user-jt3yv9tz7m]

Would be wonderful if you allowed the video to play all the way thru and then analyze or explain it. Just a suggestion. ❤

[@King_of_Blades]

Copyright issues. Have to break it up.

[@jeremyyap1714]

Dr Flowers, please get Dr Wright on the show!!

[@Dilley_G45]

...and tell him women aren't supposed to be pastors. NT falsely teaches against that

[@jeremyyap1714]

@@Dilley_G45 pastor wasn't a title in the New Testament, only apostles, bishops/elders, deacons

[@BugattianVeyronian]

​@@jeremyyap1714Not sure what do you mean by title but poimen can be translated as either shepherd or pastor and it is definitely a role in the church.

[@HJM0409]

Please if you get NT wright ask him about Romans 8 and how that fits with 9

[@df6957]

I sometimes wonder if it is not even worse than Dr Flowers states... I don't think we even need someone to help us "put on the Calvinist lenses" I think that the western, post-enlightenment society that so many of us live in gives us lenses that are already very close to the calvinistic ones... Namely a view that "If there is a God, then he is a long way off, capable of intervening, but not often doing it; and that everything is about an individualized reality. I read the scriptures and look for myself there... When I read a name, i think only of that individual, not who they represent, etc. Unfortunately, the culture that many of us are growing up in makes it difficult to see any other perspective, and so the jump to Calvinism is an easier one for many people today. Putting on the lenses of a first century person is much more difficult... I don't know what others think, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts....

[@glennmariacher4525]

Mr. Flowers, would you please interview Jack Hi9bbs on this as well? You two are petty much on the same page with this and I think it would be beneficial for all involved. Thank you for clarity, as he too gives. Glenn

[@johnboden8430]

How many of the christian denominations are correct?

[@DamonNomad82]

Correct on what, specifically? All of them get a lot of individual things correct, like the Virgin Birth, one God in three Persons, Jesus' death, burial and resurrection and His being the only way to come to God the Father, to name a few examples. If they were wrong on such things, they wouldn't qualify as "Christian denominations" and would be pseudo-Christian cults instead. All of them get at least a few things wrong as well, due to the fact that every denomination is composed entirely of fallen, fallible human beings who genuinely make mistakes from time to time.

[@johnboden8430]

@@DamonNomad82 You would think some of them would get the real things right like the moral teachings.

[@jimyoung9262]

Calvinism is not good news

[@stephengorman1025]

I have to agree with that and add it's terrible news. Thankfully God is good and will ensure the Good News of Jesus Christ is not undermined by the dead end of Calvinism Romans 11 v 32 - 36.

[@JesusSavesJn316]

Yes, but N. T. Wright approaches Gen. 1 incorrectly by inserting millions of years into a text which clearly claims otherwise. I have a hard time taking seriously a ‘scholar’s’ teaching on any part of the Bible when they completely butcher the very first chapter which affects the understanding of sin, death and the Gospel itself not to mention the veracity of the words of Jesus. Not many 'wise’ are called.

[@angelt.5276]

I agree with you 100%!

[@mattheweast4486]

Yes! If that's truly his view of gen 1 and he cant discern the simplest of passages then how will he discern rightly Romans 9. And I don't believe Romans 9 is difficult but genesis 1? Really?

[@jordandthornburg]

@@mattheweast4486 because his reasons for his conclusion on genesis 1 clearly come from his views on science. That is not likely to be the case for Romans 9.

[@SETGL2010]

Agree. Why use someone with questionable beliefs to try to prove a point?

[@UnderTheFloor79]

This video undermines Leighton's credibility. It's unfortunate because Leighton makes sound biblical arguments that don't need to be supplemented by the likes of NT Wright

[@heartofalegend]

Romans 9 is all about Paul explaining his argument that not all Israel is Israel. He's answering the critics who suggest that the Gospel is insufficient to save by demonstrating that it's not about that. It's about God's exercising His sovereign freedom to bring about His plans, irrespective of what man does or thinks. He then goes on to provide example after example of God being the deciding factor, when it comes to man's condemnation or redemption. If you just follow the flow of the text coming out of Romans 8 and follow it all the way to the end of Romans 9, Paul's line of reasoning is clear and consistent, and certainly what the Romans would've understood him to mean. He also understood that folks weren't going to like what he had to say, which is why he spends a good portion of the remainder of this chapter defending God's prerogative to do exactly as He pleases with His creation, while maintaining His absolute justice. People can do handstands and back flips, but that is the most honest straightforward reading of the text.

[@dagwould]

It would be interesting to interview NTW, but I doubt it would happen. NT is sought by leading schools and conferences to address them and he has his own KZbin outlets.

[@1969cmp]

I'm not a Calvinist and I'd avoid Wright in regards to Genesis and Revelation.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

At this point you should interview N.T. Wright!

[@PeacewithGod22]

Isaiah 46:3-5 "listen to me, o house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from before your birth, carried from the womb; even till your old age I am he, and to gray hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and I will save. This verse is Cleary talking about Yahweh choosing to save individual people

[@skatter44]

The best way to understand what Romans 9 is talking about is to read chapters 9, 10, AND 11. Most Calvinists I have interacted with do not read in that large of context. And then to understand those three chapters, you should read the entire letter in one sitting. When the letter to the Romans was first read to them, they didn't read a little bit each week for 15-20 weeks. It was read out loud to them in one day. Context is your friend.

[@suzannedebusschere1607]

Thank you. Really good.

[@johnathanbrown1035]

The question Paul was answering is regarding the identity of the children of God (v. 8). It has nothing to do with service.

[@coltlancaster6911]

doesn't NT Wright deny justification by faith alone? I know he says be holds to it but he redefines it as liberal theologians tend to do. substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness is pagan to NT Wright...

[@truthseeker5698]

Don’t calvinists reformers think purport believe Jesus The Messiah only died for a few pre-select? What a lie. Sola de false witness calvinists.

[@jordandthornburg]

Where did he say those things you said at the end?

[@omnitheus5442]

I think the problem lies with just how complex his mind is and how so often he leaves the reader hanging on certain points so he can write another book on it down the line. Personally I prefer reading his best mate’s books - James Dunn. He is far more succinct and both have very similar systematics/biblical theology/hermeneutics. Dunn’s work called The Theology of Paul the Apostle is the best work I’ve read on Pauline Theology. Maybe deSilva may take that accolade from him if he ever finishes a work on Paul in the future.

[@omnitheus5442]

@@jordandthornburg I think he mentions that in his book - Paul. Those concepts only began during post-Reformation

[@davidolivares247]

Thanks

[@boaz63]

Is there something wrong with your camera? I’ve got this on 1080p and you look like you’re on Russian TV, even though the video in your pop-up window looks clear… 🤔🙏

[@esmevandermewe6106]

Romans 9 verse 8 says the promise who is the Holy Spirit says the children of the promise (The Holy Spirit) are counted for the seed.

[@shredhed572]

Wasnt James White on the translation committee for the NIV?

[@johndisalvo6283]

NASB I believe. With his mail-order doctorate too! Lol

[@OnTheThirdDay]

Yeah, I don't think he should be because he is not a professor of Biblical languages. As someone who mentioned his degree, it isn't in a relevant topic such as language or culture as far as I know but based in his work on the trinity or something. Regardless I do know that these people like having varying perspectives but I am unsure how that works out with White particularly because he doesn't come across as someone who can negotiate to a compromised position and is overtly a Calvinistism apologist.

[@angloaust1575]

Kjv under attack since 1881 When Westcott and hort Brought in the revised version Slamming the kjv as a vile Translation!

[@dfischer5878]

Nothing better than hearing the fruit of the spirit when we speak of brothers in Christ🤦‍♀️

[@duncescotus2342]

@@angloaust1575 Newsflash, a poem: Newsflash: This item is rash: The King James is trash say Wescott and Hort, or synod of Dordt (?) But the story is short: The word of a king is worthy to sing. Amen.

[@user-tf1oo9rj6u]

*In a similar manner, it is important who the passage is speaking to.* For instance, *Ephesians (sent to a Church) specifically calls out that it is written to the [sacred/holy] and [faithful/reliable].* Can you really be faithful to God without being _set apart_ for Him? And can you really be set apart for Him while lacking faithfulness toward Him? It's a compound descriptor, making a distinction. What distinction? This compound description makes it clear that *it's not talking to every believer there,* rather *to the believers who remain true/faithful in their dedication to the Lord.* Imagine you hosted a conference where you talked about integrity in business and showed promises in Scripture, where God gives benefits and blessings for living out His principles. Can a liar and cheating conman claim those promises? *Do those promises apply to him?* But that's what OSAS and Calvinism do with Eph. *Because of their skewed lens, they create a conflict* between Eph and Heb+Rev+Jame+numbered John's. When you realize a limitation was stated on who those promises are being given to, there is no conflict. It makes perfect sense how Ephesians _affirms_ the warnings & promises in revelation about those who shirk away vs those who remain faithful and endure until the end.

[@andreso9595]

Reach out to Lanier Theological Library or Remnant Radio for the interview connections 😃

[@joelwoody517]

I love you Dr. Flowers. Dont agree with you at all, but I love you.

[@davidjohnson6538]

You don't agree with him you get anything of what he was teaching while open your mind like a parachute

[@rdrift1879]

Oh, my! Leighton! Are you adopting N. T. Wright's view of justufucation?

[@glennshrom5801]

A real eye-opener for me regarding Romans 9, is when I saw that it is talking about how God had mercy on Pharaoh. It refers back to Exodus 9:13-17. God could have destroyed Pharaoh long before the time of the Exodus, but God had mercy on Pharaoh and instead raised him up to a position of power and glory. The reason God did that, was so that later on, through the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, God could show his might and faithfulness to Israel and to all the Gentile nations who would get the news of God's deliverance of Israel from Pharaoh's hand. God would show that He is greater than the Egyptian gods, when all the world would have said that the Egyptian greatness was the sign that the Egyptian gods were the greatest. Read Romans 9:16-17. "It depends on God's mercy ... and that is why we read that God raised Pharaoh up ..." In a similar way, God raised up Israel and had mercy on Israel. Through that raising up and through the hardening of Israel's heart when they reject the Messiah, - those two things together - is exactly how God would show His glory to the earth and let all nations know that He is the greatest and most trustworthy god of all time. God had shown mercy and then hardened before, in the Exodus, and it worked a dream! Now he would do it again in NT times! The argument building up in Romans 9 finds its conclusion in Romans 11:25-36. God will use the hardening of Israel to reach the Gentiles that He could not otherwise reach, and God will use the salvation of the Gentiles to reach the Jews that He otherwise could not reach. The end game is to save the whole earth - all people groups - as through history the Good News spreads across the earth, and brings redeemed ones from every nation, tribe, and tongue. God's glory is achieved as he saves the whole earth, and he will do this by first having mercy on Israel, and then allowing for their hardening. NT Wright has written about the struggle Paul had wrestling with why his own people the Jews were not softened to Christ; the answer that was revealed to Paul by the Scriptures and the prophetic Spirit of God is the answer we get to read when we read Romans 9-11.

[@museeyaya6778]

Why does Paul say"not by works" if this is referring to national service Or verse 30 which talks about righteousness by faith. Or v22 objects of his wrath. Many other verses. Sorry, still a Calvinist. Love you guys.

[@kenfroehlich444]

Some where elected to start a program called Soteriology101 😊

[@gregorylatta8159]

Can we show equal disdain for Arminism, please 🙏

[@kenbeach5021]

I wonder if Mrs Elizabeth Ann Larson is a Calvinist? She seems to adorn comments threads on a regular basis! 😁

[@MyRoBeRtBaKeR]

When I read, i take any preconceived notions amd throw them to the wind. I am a blank slate and my full attention is on hearing the Lord in every verse.

[@Sermonseeker777]

Great video 👍

[@OrthodoxJourney359]

You should have Fr. John Whitford on. He is an Orthodox Priest and would give the Patristic position.

[@Behavelee]

I am so glad I found somebody that does not believe in original sin. Thank you very much.

[@NnannaO]

Hello. I think you mean imputed guilt. As far as I'm aware, he doesn't believe we inherit the guilt of Adam, but we do inherit weakness of our wills and an inclination toward sin such that we need grace to make a decision to turn to God.

[@Behavelee]

@@NnannaO yes, I believe the father has to draw. It’s what the scripture says.

[@NnannaO]

@@Behavelee Hey, I'm thinking you intended that response for someone else

[@Behavelee]

I thought I was responding to your reply about original sin

[@NnannaO]

@@Behavelee OK, I understand now. Well, your answer seems to imply some belief in original sin, that the Fall affected us, and we need God to strengthen us that we may come to Christ

[@brianschmidt704]

Calvinists consistently change the bible to talk about the church instead of Israel. I know some reformed pastors who will insist that they are not replacement theology believers. But every time they talk about a passage like Roman's Nine, The emphasis of paul speaking of his brothers the Jewish people is lost.

[@JesusProtects]

Brothers in the sense that they were partakers of the promises of God, but everything changed with the new testament and the promises changed from earthly and bodily Israel for spiritual Israel, those who believe in Jesus. They are not his brothers in Christ, and that is of vital importance. There's only ONE bride of Christ, not two. Those who call themselves jews nowdays are most definitely not saved and need to believe the gospel like everyone else. And if they do, then they will be grafted again in the vine of Israel that is by faith, not by genes. Even tho they are all so mixed that there are no Israelite pure genes anymore. That's why the bible says to not pay attention to endless genealogies, there's no salvation in that.

[@brianschmidt704]

@JesusProtects Even paul said that all who are his descendants of abraham were not of the promise. But the land promises to israel were not conditional. And many of the promises in the old testament about the millennial kingdom are about a literal kingdom centered in jerusalem. All are saved by Christ, but the difference is that being born a Jew did not guarantee salvation. "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. "

[@Countercommie]

Plenty of us Calvinists arrived at our view, not because we were taught by Calvinists, but because the overall tenor of scripture is that God is in control while man thinks he is in control. I came to faith at 35 in a ABC church which was not Calvinist. A retired pastor (I could not determine if he was Calvinist or not) challenged me to find the passages that did or did not support election/free will. I subsequently designated a Bible to this discipline: highlight the "calvinist" passages in green and the "Arminian" verses in orange. Eventually, there was so much green in that Bible, that I could not help but put on the calvinist lenses. What I observed was that the overall message of scripture, not just a list of proof texts, is that man foolishly believes himself to be in control while God is actually the prime mover. What's more is a view of scripture that sees God as controlling the actions and decisions of men in the Old Testament so that scripture appears as it does. As an example: If Jonah had gone directly to Ninivah, what would the Book of Jonah look like today? It would look different. I eventually came to the understanding that every single aspect of Biblically recorded history has been superintended by God, so that the Bible would look precisely as it does. Otherwise, man and his decisions determined the course of history, and of the Bible, rather than God. God has consistently revealed Himself as a God who chooses. He chooses nations, kings, places, times, messengers, apostles... knowing this, we should be very, very skeptical about a theology that insists that man chooses God.

[@RestfulLearning]

Interesting- but when you marked the passages, did you mark all the passages that imply the human is an active agent? Cain is warned. “Choose this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord,” etc.

[@Countercommie]

@@RestfulLearning Well, the verse you are citing is Joshua pressing Israel to make a decision. And they did make their decision. But what came of it? Like so many other oaths that Israel made, it was abandoned. They were unable or unwilling to keep their commitment to God. There are several such passages in scripture. And they are recorded for us that we might learn from them; not mimic them. Even in the New Testament, we see the disciples who witnessed the very miracles of Jesus make such an oath: Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples. (Mathew 26:35) Moments later, Peter would deny Christ thrice. So, it's not that men don't choose... but their choices are folly. Man certainly has a will, but his will is corrupt; and it is not free.

[@samvogel2368]

Southern Baptists Convention original documents are Reformed Theology.

[@gingernutpreacher]

I was just thinking of nt Wright

[@jackwilley9847]

We're all approaching death. Where you going for eternity?Well? People act like you can know infine things and how proud are you from this.

[@greengateacreshomestead4324]

Question for you, can you defend Romans 9 without bashing " Calvinists " ? Or do you need that in order to make your case, because is that weak.

[@tomvondra2632]

It bothers me to hear John Calvin vilified as a heritic, but he should have held on to his French Hugenot amaraldian theology that recognized the positive decree of election of Romans 8:29-30 without the unstated negative corollary that is not in the rext. Great insight about Romans 9. It's a Jewish guy talking about Jewish leadership and their crowd. Bishop Wright knows the 39 Articles that acknowledge the positive decree

[@Briaalys]

"There is scarcely another word that arouses such suspicion, mistrust, and even animosity among professing Christians as the word 'Calvinism.' And yet much of the zeal that is levelled against this system and those who hold and preach it is most certainly a zeal which is not according to knowledge. The following articles are written in the hope that much of the abuse that is hurled at the Calvinistic system of theology will be withdrawn, and that the truth of that great teaching, which was the backbone of our fathers in the faith, and the strength of the church in a far more glorious era than our own, will be clearly seen." - Preface to W.J. Seaton's "The Five Points of 'Calvinism'"...a brief essay available for online reading

[@savedby_grace6110]

Is NT Wright a Provisionist,

[@chadwickdoyle2293]

But why hate Esau? Jacob was eventually choose over Esau because of Esau’s sin. This I understand what I don’t understand is why love Jacob and hate Esau?

[@drummera7418]

The storie of Esau and Jacob, as a matter of fact, is a narrative created by the priests of the temple of Jerusalem with the purpose of showing that they were the true descendents of Jacob, moreover they were the ones that God chose to bless. It's a text of conflict. It's not about God himself. Its about who is controlling the narrative.

[@MyRoBeRtBaKeR]

The way they see it is because of how it looks to them. Having two sons, one to be His people amd the other to be vessels of wrath. What they lack to understand is that all men are born to reject God's sovereignty over them, they are but not all men will refuse to humble themselves, HUMBLENESS is what they refuse to believe is a necessity in order to be chosen out of the hard and impenitent hearts.

[@johnnyanglo6709]

Is it true that Romans 9 is about "the purpose of God in electing Israel is that the Messiah would come through the nation of Israel and His message would be proclaimed through the national of Israel?" Thus, according to this view, there are those of Israel who "stand against the promise of God" and others who don't. Those who didn't are a "remnant of ragtag people" who fulfill God's purpose. Because Israel was elected to bring forth the Messiah, and though many have failed to carry the message, a remnant has, so thus God's elective purpose is accomplished. Is this Paul's point in Romans 9? Before Romans 9, God says concerning who would be heirs with Christ and partaking of future glory: Rom 8:28-30 "We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose. (29) For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (30) Whom he predestined, those he also called. Whom he called, those he also justified. Whom he justified, those he also glorified." Paul is delineating the life in Christ, free from the law, versus those who walk according to the flesh. Rom 8:14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are children of God." So, the takeaway here is that God has purposed to have a people indwelt with His Spirit who are conformed to Christ's image, who are called the "children of God." Paul further says that God's purpose was to take these people whom He foreknew, who were predetermined by God, to be called out of the mass of fallen humanity and be made just or righteous in God's eyes, and these people would be glorified. The whole of creation "waits with eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed" (Rom 8:19), meaning the purpose of God in subjecting creation to vanity was to bring forth out of "the bondage of decay" the "liberty of the glory of the children of God" (Rom 8:21). Paul's point is the Sovereignty of God is purposed in saving a people He has chosen to be redeemed and glorified in Christ, becoming adopted children of God, so they would carry the image of their parent - Christ. Christ was not spared but delivered up for all those so chosen (Rom 8:32); thus if all this is true, "who could bring a charge against God's chosen ones? (Rom 8:33a). Why not? Because those chosen didn't do anything deserving salvation, "It is God who justifies" (Rom 8:33b). IN ROMANS 9, Paul turns to God's sovereignty over Israel, delineating those who are Israel "according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3), meaning the Jews belong corporately to the nation of Israel, a people and nation which God used mightily and from whom Christ, according to the flesh, arose. But Paul has unceasing pain knowing they reject their Messiah; he wishes he could take God's wrath "for my brothers' sake" (Rom 9:3). But Paul knows that though the nation is in rebellion, "they are not all Israel, that are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). This is the important point Paul is making The promise of redemption, of God's purpose in predestination and calling a people to Himself, a people who will be conformed to the image of Christ is a reality, despite Israel's obvious hatred for Christ, it is "not as though the word ofGod has come to nothing" (Rom 9:6). But Israel has rejected Christ. It was through Israel that the promises were given, yet they rejected their Messiah. What now? Paul says you must understand, "For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). There are two Israels in view here. Israel, as children of the flesh (bloodline), is not called to be the children of God; the promise is not based on Abraham's bloodline, which the Jews hope. God's salvation promise, as outlined in Romans 8, will come to those God has chosen; they will be the true Israel of God; though the majority of the nation be in rebellion, and has been since the beginning, there is still an 'Israel' that fulfills God's Old Covenant promises. Paul goes further to show it is only "the children of the promise are counted as seed" (Rom 9:8), meaning those being adopted into God's family are not by bloodline, but by election (God's sovereign choice), "that the purpose of God according to election might stand" (Rom 9:11). God is talking about people, people He picked to redeem out of Israel, such that they are the true Israel because they actually belong to God. So, God "has mercy on whom I have mercy" and "compassion on whom I have compassion" (Rom 9:15). Paul makes it clear that this is God's choice alone, "not of works but of Him who calls" (Rom 9:11). Who is calling? God is. Who is electing? God is. Who is choosing a remnant of Israel out of Israel to receive the promise? God is. So, Paul concludes, It is God "who has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). Is Paul saying they were granted mercy by God, elected only to "fulfill God's promise" of proclaiming a Messiah, as Flowers claims? It is far deeper than that, isn't it! Paul is saying the promise to the true Israel (not all Israel) is by God's will (choice) in election "that He might make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:23). Go back to Romans 8, read again who is prepared beforehand for glory, who are made "joint heirs with Christ" (Rom 8:17a), who "suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him" (Rom 8:17b). These are the same who are predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Rom 8:30), are they not. Are these not God's chosen ones whom He justifies, whom He makes intercession for, who are made more than conquerors through Him who loved us, who cannot be separated from the love of God (see Rom 8:33-37). Yes, the Israel of God, not by the flesh but by the promised salvation in Christ, is Paul's subject, the true Israel that includes now the Gentiles too. Again, Paul's topic is "the remnant who will be saved" (Rom 9:27). Though most of national Israel is apostate and under God's wrath, God's plan of salvation is not thwarted. National Israel and the Gentiles each contain vessels of honor, 'honor' because of God's choice in election must stand, of those "which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:23). If God had not intervened to redeem a remnant, then God's seed through the Godly line that began with Seth would have soon perished, and the earth would be totally corrupt like Sodom and Gomorrah, and all the earth would be under God's wrath. The Godly line of the redeemed has continued to carry God's banner, having received the promise of salvation throughout all generations. In conclusion, Paul has made it abundantly clear God's promise of salvation is based on His sovereign choice, not on all; those people were vessels of mercy chosen by God to receive His love and, thus, were made children of God by the redemption in Christ, and will be called out, glorified, to join the true heirs of God and be called the Israel of God, and "they will be called 'the children of the living God'" (Rom 9:26).

[@RonKelmell]

Aren't we glad salvation has only one question, "How do you respond to Christ's death and resurrection?" or. "Do you trust Christ's finished work on your behalf?"

[@claudecharest7018]

No matter what or why , God choses.

[@ShooterReview]

BROTHER STOP! STOP WITH YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS. When you read the scriptures, as led by the Holy Spirit, WITHOUT your own PRESUPPOSITIONS then you see God is in control and man is dead. Man will never choose God of his own freewill. God says so, so why do you continually contradict God?

[@whatsaiththescriptures]

Because he WILL NOT have the God of Holy Scripture to be God - That's why. Many serve a God of their IMAGINATION.

[@shredhed572]

Isn't he contradicting God by eternal degree? My, my! Don't Calvies get triggered by His Decrees😂 You guys don't even believe your own theology. Priceless

[@ShooterReview]

@shredhed572 I'm not a " calvanist" and misreprestations of truth should trigger any truly born again believer.

[@losnfjslefn8857]

"Man will never choose God of his own free will. God says so..." Where does God say this?

[@ShooterReview]

@@losnfjslefn8857 " THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD, NOT ONE. THEY HAVE ALL GONE ASTRAY...." Romans 3:11

[@jamesmcclary855]

TRUTH TIME RADIO --- YOU WILL GET YOUR ANSWER!!!!

[@trippydalejr]

Currently listening in 1.25x

[@grannyblinda]

Calvinists read the Doctrines, decide what the Bible MUST say, then go to the Bible, NOT to study, but to prove their point! AS DO most sects who find what they want to find and prove in the Bible ... no respect for context, purpose, to whom and why the passage was written... a

[@paulwright7551]

Usually shorter is better

[@christophertaylor9100]

When you have to turn to NT Wright for your arguments you're in trouble.

[@karldo4809]

Flowers I forgot to mention that this Anglican priest you are referring to is loved by many Catholics. Another Arminian on youtube was citing CS Lewis,who is an Anglo-catholic, to argue against Calvinism.

[@ClauGutierrezY]

so?

[@karldo4809]

@@ClauGutierrezY Pay attention, kid. There are two classes of Arminians. Neo Arminians and Old school Arminianism. I don't know which type Flowers is. The former are more ecumenist than the latter. The former wants unity with all the flavors of Christianity even the ones who are not recognized by all Protestants.

[@Nunya_Bidness_53]

Disagree. Other passages make it plain that God has to make you spiritually alive and aware before you can seek Him let alone trust Him. God does the choosing, we don't. The Father does the begetting through his spirit, we don't sire ourselves as His children. That doesn't mean every aspect of Calvinist thought is correct.

[@MyRoBeRtBaKeR]

God did not design any of us to sin nor be fitted FOR destruction. Yet man has sinned and are fitted TO destruction as a result.

[@lifelinesoutreach]

Was Judas chosen to betray Jesus?

[@willherondale483]

Once ordained a Bishop, always a Bishop. He is no longer the Ordinary of Durham, but will remain a Bishop until he dies.

[@johntc8840]

Do you believe women can hold the position of elder in the church? You push NT Wright a lot.

[@jordandthornburg]

It’s ok to good agree with him on some things but disagree on others.

[@johntc8840]

@@jordandthornburg Would like to know Flowers' position on the issue.

[@miguelramos1855]

The Apostle Paul did not leave room for cavivism Romans 9 has been abused by this doctrine the Apostle Paul says what(( if)) God chose some for what(( if)) does not give a for sure answer the what(( if)) puts the doctrine of Calvin to rest .

[@SETGL2010]

NT Wright 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@SETGL2010]

This channel would be more valid without videos making it seem like the opinion of NT Wright or Andy Stanley were valid. Both are in error at best but likely false teachers.

[@jordandthornburg]

@@SETGL2010 what is NT wright a “false teacher” on?

[@robertholmes12]

Q: "Bishop Wright you have suggested that God elected Israel. This is a corporate, historical election but does Scripture ever refer to individual, soteriological election? If so, where?" A: "Paul seems determined to stick to his question which he is much more interested in which is; how is God's redemptive, historical plan being carried through the people of Israel and then within that in relation to specific individuals as it is getting narrowed down. So even there that's as close as I think we can get, that isn't about what we would mean if we said the phrase 'the election of individuals' which is within that larger context." In other words, NT Wright does not endorse a view on the election of individuals because according to him Romans 9 does not address the question of individual salvation but rather it addresses the salvation of individuals within the Abrahamic Covenant in which some are saved and others are not. NT Wright does what he always does which is, leave important questions unanswered, muddled and more mysterious than when he began with them! Wright's God always becomes more concealed and less known in contravention of Scripture which likens God to light and "in whom there is no shadow or variation of turning" (James 1:17-18). I still fail to see how this refutes Calvinism or supports Arminianism. Romans 8:28-9:33 is quite clear about who and how God elects individuals within the promises of the New Covenant.

[@erikbartlam7377]

The Bishop’s not right about everything, who is, but if you find yourself agreeing with him in fact and approach…maybe you’d like to join us in the Anglican communion brother. 😊

[@zobewan9347]

Shocker!!! Many of their scriptural assumptions are false. Only a gullible following keep them in business.

[@windyday8598]

why don't you just let him speak?

[@bryanmercille3049]

If a prisoner is going to break out of prison, would he break out to be free? Or would they break out to go to another prison. Going from one systematic to another that’s essentially what you’re doing. Systematic means done or acting according to a FIXED plan or system; methodical. If the Spirit told you to sacrifice your son, you wouldn’t go up the mountain. If you are led by a systematic, you won’t be led by the Spirit.

[@inTruthbyGrace]

but those words have meaning and Paul *_was_* communicating an idea about the choice of who was going to bear the Messiah and fill the promises... so "systematic" or whatever... the "Spirit" is NOT "leading" everyone to a *_different_* or new meaning... we are endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.... not many. ONE

[@bryanmercille3049]

@@inTruthbyGrace I wish I would have posted your response before you because I already knew somebody would say that. How is there unity with so much division? There are so many “isms” and systematics and every single one of them is a division. Agin how is that unity? We kind of have unity within our divisions, but not really.

[@inTruthbyGrace]

@@bryanmercille3049 was Paul lying?

[@bryanmercille3049]

I guess I don’t follow what you’re trying to communicate. Why would i think Paul’s lying?

[@scwienert]

If a spirit told me to sacrifice my son, I most definitely would not go up the mountain - because I would know it isn’t the Holy Spirit. I’d say that’s just a sound biblical doctrine thing. You can’t separate the Spirit and His leading from His word.

[@jjemsnd7]

Too much anecdotal yammering from Mr Flowers. I wanted to hear NT Wright s take on Romans 9.

[@lukewagner8871]

1 Timothy 4:9-11 KJVS This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. [10] For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. [11] These things command and teach. Large majority of the Christian organizations teach contrary to what apostle Paul commanded to be taught. And why is that? Greed. The corner stone of these organizations ability to grow and prosper is the fear of eternal hell. That fear has enriched them over the centuries. Especially in America, because Americans believe you get what you pay for. These men speak out of the side of their mouth of God being all powerful, and the other side of their mouth they say, man has free will which makes man in control of their destiny. Romans 9:16,18-21 KJVS So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. [18] Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. [19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? [20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? [21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[@jackwilley9847]

We can talk about specific individuals all we want and their election but everyone Inquiring wants to know one thing and one thing only and that is am I saved or not. Paul says later that he wishes himself to be cut off for his brethren sake and his prayers are that Ishreal might be saved because they were zealous but not according to knowledge and in this were going about establishing or at least trying to establish their own righteousness. And that's the real problem. You see God in his infinite heart and being and in his Sovereign own will KNOWS if your freewill after having the Gospel preached (and everyone past, present and future has) has FAITH that came by hearing it or DOES NOT. Then you have to live out the rest of your life running the race till the end. Not with a high altitude doctrine like once saved always saved, but with a lower voyage traveling closer to the surface so you can discern the terrain. REALLY BECOMING HOLY MEN. The world is in trouble because people study and wrestle the scripture to their own destruction.

[@bonnieclement2454]

The one who said they never heard any one exegete all of Romans 9.That's a case for your ignorance.Try William Hendrickson,John Murray.

[@robertmcvicar5824]

I keep telling Christians that we're here for him God's not here for us. We're vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath. If we're truly Born again let us be grateful for our election. And serve him accordingly. Ex Arminian Calvinist.

[@glennshrom5801]

Pharaoh was both a vessel of mercy and a vessel of wrath. But the point is that he was first raised up in mercy, and then allowed to be hardened, just as Israel was first raised up (chosen) in mercy, and then allowed to be hardened.

[@robertmcvicar5824]

@@glennshrom5801 Hi there I beg to differ God hardened Pharaoh by leaving him to himself. He did the same in Esau but those of us who are his elect he puts us through the mincer to change us from Jacob into an Israel. This is why every true believer enters the kingdom through much tribulation.