Hijacking the Scriptures: The Romans 9 Debate - Rightly Dividing the Word?

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line, my name is Rich Pierce and I am sitting in for dr. White today. I have prepared a special dividing line here in The Romans 9 debate in a remix. That's right.

I'm gonna review the Romans 9 debate from last May. This debate is actually Well, it's been a burr under my saddle ever since we received. Since I viewed the videos for the first time I Have this thing about Preachers and their methods preachers adequately not just adequately but faithfully preaching the Word of God and Sticking to it and not having agendas when they come before the Word of God.

Faithful Handling of the Word of God

But letting the Bible teach them and they then pass that teaching on to us and we are charged in 2nd Timothy 2 15 as the The Apostle Paul tells us be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed accurately handling the Word of Truth.

Now the Romans 9 debate if you've seen it you may already know what I'm talking about on the other hand if you have seen it maybe you're Arminian and maybe you think that professor flowers did a good job in presenting his case.

The problem is in my view. The case was about Romans chapter 9 and what it teaches and last I checked Romans chapter 9 is still part of sacred scripture. So, let's take a look at how he handled the text in The process of presenting his case.

The method matters and dr. White I'm not saying anything new if you've seen the debate, you know full well that the things I'm bringing up dr. White pointed out in the cross-examination sections he asked these questions he got professor flowers his answers and I Found them woefully inadequate.

The answers that is questions were right on target. So with that the before we we dig into that I'd like to give you a better idea as to what it is I've got in mind. As to what I'd like you to focus on because I want to set the issue of Calvinism aside.

And I want to ask the question What is it that we expect from our preachers? Does the man of God go behind the sacred desk and open up the sacred scriptures with that attitude. That that's what he's doing that.

That's what he's there for. Or does he have the attitude that this week? How can I motivate the people to come back next week? How can I get more as they say butts in the seats or if we're coming around to as?

James, I'm not sure James and I both when we were at North thinks Baptist knew full well when we came around to tithing season. It didn't matter what text was gonna get opened up. We were gonna hear about tithing.

In fact the running Southern Baptist joke was this morning our focal text will be and then they'd read it and Then quickly depart there from if you're familiar with his book public crimes. James writes about this he writes about the methods and The tactics that are used.

That I believe the best way to describe it is a hijacking hijacking the pulpit for your own personal gain purpose. Agenda, it doesn't matter to me. Where you are? When you open the Word of God. Whether you're standing on a street corner whether you are Behind a pulpit no matter what your circumstance or in a debate like here No matter what your circumstance.

You need to be faithful to the text when one of the things in my avenues and working with the ministry, by the way my role here is primarily administrative. I'm the president of Alpha Omega Ministries and I'd also like to plug the fact that I've been working with John Sampson over at King's Church for the last few months and in fact, my wife and I are the newest members at King's Church, and I'm teaching the Wednesday night Bible studies and if if you are in the Northwest Valley Like to invite you over be more than happy to have you with us as we just finished Walking through the book the first chapter and second chapter of Colossians Culminating last night and our focal text Colossians 2 9 so with that said I Want to focus on the methods that we use and the methods that our preachers use when they unpack The scriptures and present them to us.

But before I do I would like to read this section from the introduction from dr. White's book. Which I think really illustrates this point very well. To this day I fully understand his motivations. He was an up-and-coming preacher in a large evangelical denomination.

He had clearly the ability to motivate from the pulpit. He was exciting and passionate. He came to me because he knew I had some level of knowledge of the original languages. He found a commentary written by a fairly well-known scholar that presented in its Interpretation of one of the Beatitudes in Matthew chapter 5 an application and interpretation.

He had never seen. He asked me if there was any merit to the inter in the interpretation. I went to the text the commentary. I went to the text the grammar the lexical sources checked and cross-checked other commentaries and Concluded that even though the writer was a fella fairly well-known man.

This was one of those examples where even the best of us chase a rabbit a bit too far down the trail. The text just did not support the application. He was making. I wrote up in my findings. I wrote up my findings and presented them to the preacher.

He was clearly disappointed, but he thanked me for the time I had taken a few weeks later. I saw that he was preaching in the Sunday morning services Which were attended by about 7 ,000 people and televised locally, by the way I was in that audience that day when he did that.

I'm a personal witness. This is not a made-up story. I In question I listened with sinking heart as he made the very same claims Contained in the commentary. He had asked me to examine. After the service I happened to encounter him in a narrow hallway in the back of the church.

He saw me coming. He looked embarrassed looked down at the floor and then looked at me and said I know I know. But you see. It preaches so good. It preaches so good. Your method is a Reflection of how you view the scriptures.

I'm gonna say it again your method of presenting the scriptures is a reflection of how you view the scriptures. My own recollection of this event Is very much like dr. White's. I remember him. I Remember this preacher and I remember he was exactly as dr. White describes him Fiery on fire and the youth loved him.

Just he was he was he was on his way and I remember dr White coming in. Well, he wasn't a doctor at the time still in Seminary if I recall maybe Bible College still Coming into our offices and and telling us about how this man had asked him to do this and Then I sat being familiar with the text and what he was trying to do.

I sat through that sermon and I listened to him do the very thing that I knew full. Well, he knew. Was not there. He was gonna preach it. Anyway, he's gonna preach it. Anyway, he knew full well, it was not there and that was the beginning of the end for me at that church as it began to plant seeds of doubt for me and trust in the leadership's Dedication to the scriptures which to me is the is the pinnacle.

If your leadership is not Dedicated to the scriptures if they don't see the scriptures as something that they are to submit to then how is it we look at the Roman Catholics and these we correct their understanding of The pillar and foundation of the truth passage that they're supposed to be holding up.

No, the pillar and foundation of the truth holds something up. We are to hold up the scriptures the soul infallible Word of God the soul and foul a rule of faith for the church and fallible. So with that said let's move on to the structure of the debate and when I run through some things with you because as We dig into this and unpack the debate as it was as it unfolded.

One needs to understand how a debate is supposed to work and if you don't already I'd like to point out that there are Primarily four elements to a debate the opening remarks the rebuttal cross examination and then closing remarks audience questions are optional.

But they can be there. Sometimes they are sometimes they aren't but in the opening remarks section the debater or in this case if we're Unpacking if we're preaching Romans chapter 9 essentially, it's the preacher.

Okay. He used to make his case. This is where the the the debate is Formulated usually you have a point and a counterpoint kind of scenario where we have a positive and a negative Commentary on the thesis of the debate in this case both debaters are presenting a positive case.

So they're putting forward a positive message in contrast to a positive and a negative so in essence Either one could have gone first. It really didn't matter. Dr. White happened to go first in this particular debate.

So in the opening remarks They are to make their case and also remember time is limited. So as you're evaluating their performance and wondering why didn't they spend more time here? Why didn't they spend more time here?

They've totally forgot that. They have to make it count so they have to go through in this particular case we have a 22 minute opening for both debaters and they have to make their time count and So they can't put everything into the equation.

They must choose the most important points and the most important elements so that they make every moment of their case. Count they really have to make that case count. The second part part is the rebuttal period now in many cases.

We've seen a lot of the debates that dr. White has done the opponent who goes second if dr. White has gone first well. Unfortunately use their introduction time or their opening remarks time. To simply launch into their rebuttal.

The rebuttal tends to get them a lot more ground. It's easier if you don't actually make a case you just begin by attacking the other guy's case right up front and That's not how it's supposed to work.

We get to the rebuttal period and the rebuttal period is designed to respond directly to your opponent's opening remarks this. It's a much better thing than I can do. It's not something I can do to where you can sit there and On the fly write down what this guy is saying and then get up there and spend However long whether that's five minutes to rebut or you know depending on the bait debate structure.

You can off the top of your head on the fly from your notes. Dig in to what your opponent had to say. The next section is the cross-examination. Now the point of the cross-examination is to inquire into your opponent's open.

Rebuttal or both. So if we're going to do cross-examination after the opens and the rebuttal then your cross-examination can inquire into One or the other or both together? Usually it's both together.

As the debate has already developed at up to this point now this can vary. Depending on the order of presentation for instance in this particular debate. The structure was a little unusual. So both debaters gave opening remarks and then immediately after the individual gave opening remarks.

They go into the cross-examination then the next debater gets up does his opening remarks and then goes into cross-examination of his opening remarks and Then they went into rebuttal in the same order actually not in the same order.

I think they reversed that and that was also a little different. But again, as I said Both are making a positive presentation. So the order isn't all that critical in this situation. So after the rebuttal they also then went into cross-ex.

So you have dr. White doing his opening then going and being cross-examination. Then after professor flowers same thing then dr. White rebuttal and then another cross-examination. He's being cross-examined on his rebuttal.

It's actually an intriguing way of doing it and in that regard I thought it worked out really well in the in the debate structure. And then finally in your closing remarks, this is key and Very very few of dr. White's opponents have I found Have actually abided by this and that is in your closing remarks they are supposed to be a summation of the case that you have presented in contrast to what your opponent has Presented so far.

So this is the summing up of Everything that has happened. I Opened I rebutted we cross-examined and I'm putting it all together to make a summary case and and And conclude my entire case here. This is the way it finishes up.

No new information is supposed to be presented at this point. Closing remarks is not supposed to have any new information. It's supposed to recap all that's come before. So with that in mind we need to remember also these events are time for a reason because no filibustering You've got in this case.

They've got 22 minutes each To make their case and make it count no more. And if they want they can go less. Yeah. So why am I doing this? Again, as I said before I have a problem with preaching with an agenda.

It's never a good thing and too many sermons in our day and age have been the result of preachers with an agenda that Is outside of scripture or for that matter? Think about it. How many sermons have you heard that?

You know, the guy makes a good point. It's right on target. But the text he was working with had nothing to do with what he was preaching about. He just forced it in there. It's called shoehorning. We're gonna shoehorn it into the case and Back to that example, dr. White gave earlier why because it preaches good.

That's not it that's not the way to do this. We need to let God's Word do the talking. We need to follow the simple act of contextual reading. Before we can understand a text. We must first Establish the text and we can only do that by walking through it and letting it speak for itself.

You may say but I struggle with a lot of texts or people tell me they struggle they don't like what it says. You know what? All of us Struggle with things in Scripture. I struggle with what I hear. I struggle with what God has to say to me.

I am a sinner. I'm a man. I'm filled with pride and It is often difficult for me to hear what the Bible has to say to me and about me. But the solution to this is not to run away from it the solution is to confront it and submit to it.

That's right. Submit to it. This is why the concept of Jesus Christ as our Lord is So important because if he's not my Lord, I'm still a rebel. I'm still out there doing my own thing. Live in my own life.

What's the difference? Submitting to the Word of God is Important and believing all the Word of God. I had a Twitter exchange in late November with mr. Flowers. It involved a number of things. I'm not going to go into today I don't have time to in even in this case situation.

I'm having to pick and choose where I spend my time and one of the things I thought was really interesting was Mr. Flowers had the perspective that when one handles the text any text I guess One needs to first come to it from a bird's-eye point of view.

That was his phrase. Then we come and look at it in a grammatical point of view so I guess we're supposed to stand back and and look at the big picture of it all and maybe Acts and in Romans and 1st Corinthians and 2nd Corinthians and just kind of look at all of it in a big global sense and Then we can get specific.

I don't see that. What about the context? I Think that there are circumstances where we learn things and we learn more through understanding the light and knowledge that Parallel passages bring to the table and illuminate this text for us the text that we're in.

But before we can ever even know that this text and that text go here. We must first understand this text and what it's talking about. This is not a circumstance where we can just go and grab all these different verses and shove them together.

As some have said throw them into our shopping cart and go do the checkout thing and Now we've got our own little customized preferred preferred theologies in our shopping cart. That's not how the Word of God works.

There are some questions to consider. I'd like you to consider as we go into this. Ask yourself is the text is the presenter interacting with the text. Is it Actually being addressed. Is he listening to what's being said.

How much time is being spent with the text now? Keep in mind as I said Time is of the essence and there's going to be portions that the both debaters will have to summarize for you. They don't have the time to be able to go through every single portion of it verse by verse.

So keep that in mind as we go through this. Is the presenter? This is key. Is the presenter embracing the text or avoiding it. Is a presenter embracing the text or avoiding it. Look for evasive tactics like running away from the text we read it and Okay, we're gonna go over here and talk about this over here.

Cherry-picking. Cherry-picking. All right. I'm gonna read this section. It sounds like this and sounds like that so I'm gonna go grab and pluck some verses out of their own context that sounds like that and We're gonna discuss those instead.

Cherry-picking my favorite. Actually my second favorite reading it backwards reading it backwards we start at the end and Literally read it backwards and you may chuckle at that, but we've actually had circumstances where James has had exchanges with Arminians about John 6 37 through 45 where the Arminian wants to start at verse 45 and Start working his way instead of left to right.

It's right to left and See how we can You know what we can come up with through this method. I Don't know that may work well with a Beatles album, but I don't think it's very good for Scripture. Hmm anyway.

Now my personal favorite and that's leapfrogging. Leapfrogging let's leapfrogging while leapfrogging is you go. You're bopping along through a text of Scripture and you're going along and you know what?

You don't really like this next portion. So we'll just jump right over it leapfrog jump right over it. I Still to this day don't know why This preacher did this but back in the days of my youth The pastor of my church was at the time again same church.

Dr. White and I were both attending at the time. He was he was teaching on Colossians 1 Expository preaching okay and One week he stops it chapter 2 verse 8. The following week he picks up at chapter 2 verse 10 in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.

Was the text that he skipped? I don't know why He leapfrogged it. And to this day, I I just don't I can't fathom why? Maybe it was a mistake. But I know people at the time brought it up to him. Never went back to it.

I Don't understand so leapfrogging. There's also something else that you need to keep in mind. Things to look for in these debates. You're gonna see both debaters of will appeal to hermeneutics. They're going to say they're going to claim that there theirs is the case that is being faithful to the text.

Proper hermeneutics as I said before they will need to summarize for portions of time. For this the sake of this presentation just so we have the context. Because that's what I'm about when I'm teaching on Wednesday nights in Bible study.

Context context context and it is amazing especially when one is going through the Apostle Paul how much and how precise a writer Paul was and How much is there as you're walking through it just Section by section word by word.

He doesn't waste a single word and how he uses it and how he packs a line of thought together and You know Colossians 1 is an amazing amazing Passage that we've been going through and And oftentimes I find myself preaching to myself more than I am teaching others.

I just it's such a blessing to do it. So I'm gonna read the text before I play the section and I want you to watch how closely as we they get into it. The text is being followed or departed from. Is the debater interested in what is written.

Or is this the last thing in the world? They want to read that may sound harsh. But I think you're gonna see that's the case for one of these debaters. Now I did change the order. That's why I called it a Romans 9 remix.

I changed the order up because I felt that one of them needs to be put forward as the example of what not to do and then as the counterfeit frankly and Then the real thing needs to be presented. This is how it should have been done.

This is how it would have been done, rightly. So I changed the order professor flowers will go first then James and again this first section this first portion Of my filling in is just going to be in their introductory remarks in their opening remarks.

We'll see if we get any further than that. James may kick me out. He may lock the door. He may never let me back in here again. I don't know. We'll see but for now, I've commandeered the studio and I've taken over and this is what we're gonna do and I'm uploading this show today.

Okay, so remember also it doesn't change the effect or how the debaters would have Conducted themselves because James had number one not heard professor flowers his presentation. Although if he had It might have totally thrown his present his opening off we may not have actually seen this simply because of how far off the beam professor flowers went and Professor flowers this presentation would not be changed by this because he read it all verbatim from his notes.

So with that we're going to speed in here and I've got my keyboard over here operating the machines from the other room. I'm doing a one-man show today. I really hope and pray this works and we're gonna go ahead and hear the initial portion of Professor flowers is let's call it the introduction to his opening remarks.

Romans 9 and the Question of Israel's Salvation

First of all, I want to just say that I agree with dr. White on many of the things he just now taught. I agree with much of the the things that he teaches and that he does on his dividing line program.

I very much support his ministry and Hold him in high esteem as I do with many of my Calvinistic friends. There's No ill will to those who disagree with me on this subject. And I hope everyone understands that we can be brothers and love one another even though we do disagree over this point in doctrine.

I also agree with dr. White on the point that this chapter is so true logical. It is about salvation. It involves individuals. It's not just about nations. It involves Jacob and Esau. It involves there being chosen.

It involves Moses. It involves Pharaoh all individuals many times. My view is totally and completely dismissed and washed aside as not being applicable because we don't involve individuals and that's just not clear view of our presentation.

Salvation by faith not by works. That's the focus in Romans chapter 9. It's by grace. Not law. Paul's contrast in Romans 9 is not monergism versus synergism. I believe those are man-made terms used to reframe this debate throughout the entire Letter.

Paul has contrasted the salvation of those who pursue righteousness by works through law. Versus those who pursue righteousness by grace through faith, which in general is a contrast between the Jews and the Gentiles.

Okay, so in summary professor flowers begins his introduction to his opening remarks and he wants to point out that the focus of chapter 9 is a contrast between salvation by grace and Against salvation by works so salvation by grace and not by works.

He rejects the labels of monergism and synergism as a false premise man-made terms and then he says that the entire letter is about righteousness through law versus grace and faith and Claims a general contrast that is presented between the Jews representing by law and the Gentiles representing by faith.

Now on to James's presentation. We're going to go ahead and play that clip and see how he opens up.

Consistency in Handling Romans 9

The test from my perspective this evening is the test of consistency. Who is going to present a consistent perspective. Who is able to apply the exact same method of hermeneutics and exegesis to this text that we would apply to any other text in regards to the Resurrection the deity of Christ the Trinity the Atonement, etc Etc.

Who is going to be consistent in their handling of the text of scripture this evening? Now as I open up Romans chapter 9 with you the exegesis that I will offer to you needs to be the same exegesis that I would give in a mosque in South Africa in the East London mosque in in a meeting with atheists a debate with Roman Catholics or a Classroom at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary though.

I'm only welcome in four out of those five places. It needs to be. It needs to be consistent. And it needs to be something that you hold me to as you consider everything else that we believe as Christians.

And how we handle the Word of God in those other areas.

Okay, so in summary of dr. White's introduction to his Opening remarks, he is focusing on the need for Consistency in the method he it shows a test of consistency. That's the handling of the text needs to be something that is faithful.

Will you when you're over here? Do you handle the scriptures the same way as you would over here if the issue were not Calvinism and the issue was about The deity of Christ and this comes up in the debate in the cross-examination even if professor flowers was in fact debating a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon seemed about dr. White do both.

I Challenge you go back and listen go back and watch those either one of those debates. They're on YouTube. See If dr. White departs from the same methodology that he uses here in this debate tonight.

It needs to be the same as I said before whether you're on the street corner or you're behind the sacred desk. Now, let's go ahead and continue with professor flowers's Continuation as he continues and he is going to begin with a focal text as he begins Romans chapter 9 in his presentation.

The substance of it. He begins with his focus on Romans 9 30 through 32. Yeah, that's it. The end. Well, we'll go to the end. Well for what it's worth. This is what it has to say. What shall we say then that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness?

Attained righteousness even the righteousness which is by faith. But Israel pursuing a law of righteousness did not arrive at that law. Why. Because they did not pursue it by faith. But as though it were by works they stumbled over the stumbling stone.

So with that we're going to go ahead and play the next section in professor flowers presentation.

This is why Paul summarizes this chapter in verse 30 and following by contrasting the Gentiles who are attaining righteousness. Versus the Israelites who are not. And why? Why isn't Israel attaining righteousness?

Is it because God doesn't really love them. God hasn't chosen them. God has destined them from hell before birth. Is that why it's not what the scripture says. Verse 32 tells us exactly why? They are not attaining righteousness.

Quote. Because they did not pursue it by faith. But though it were by works God clearly desires all Israel and every single Israelite including the hardened ones to be saved and I want to prove that point.

Okay, he says he's going to prove that point and he has just now doubled down on his previous section say using 30 through 31 as the Place to take his stand that Romans 9 is about Israel the law and Gentiles by faith he started at the end.

Is this reading it backwards? I Submit to you. It's leapfrogging because he's just leapfrogged the entire. Everything that came before. Here's the tactic folks. The tactic is that I'm gonna go to the end and I'm going to use the conclusion that the writer uses.

But I'm gonna get there a whole different way and I'm gonna ignore all of what he had to say in getting here. Usually jump into the end is a red flag should be a red flag for you to understand that there's a problem in how the this presenter is already attacking or taking.

Don't coming to the text. So again, let's we've got leapfrogging already going on we're just a few minutes into the debate. Let's go ahead and listen as James. He opens. Well, he doesn't open up in Romans 9 either.

Hmm. Well, let's listen to where he does open up because he opens up before Romans 9 starting in verse 28 of chapter 8. Remember and he'll point this out the verse divisions in your Bible didn't come along until 1551 so Frankly, it's one of those unfortunate places in which there's a chapter division in in a place.

It just doesn't belong. So starting in verse 28. Let's read it into your hearing and we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God. To those who are called according to his purpose for those him whom he foreknew.

He also predestined to become conformed to the image of his son. So that he would be the firstborn among many brethren. And these whom he Predestined he also called and these whom he called he also justified and these whom he justified.

He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things if God is for us who is against us? He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all how will he not also with him freely? Give us all things.

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is he who died? Yes, rather who was raised who is at the right hand of God who also intercedes for us?

Who will separate us from the love of Christ will tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? Just it is written as it is written for your sake. We are being put to death all day long.

We are considered sheep as sheep to be slaughtered. But in all these things we overwhelmingly Conquer through him who loves that loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor Principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other created thing.

We'll be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Now, let's see how closely dr. White sticks to the text.

So I'd ask you to open your Bibles. I'm actually going to start outside of Romans 9 and Romans 8 we have to do that. Most of you are aware of the fact that chapter and verse divisions are a later additions the final verse divisions.

We're not added until 1551 and we need to look a little bit before Romans 9 to get the context and what is the context? Well, we know about the golden chain of redemption in Romans chapter 8. We know that Paul talks about those whom God for ordained those whom he predestined.

These ones also he called those whom he called these he also Justified and those who he justified these he also glorified. Why do I mention this? These are soteriological terms. These are terms that have to do with salvation especially when we look at terms such as justification and therefore.

Please note the use of the term Eccleson in verse 30 he called that term is going to be seen more than once this evening. And what is that calling and if the calling of verse 30 of chapter 8 is? Soteriological because it results in the next step is justification and hence it does have to do with personal salvation.

Then will anything be presented that tells us that we have shifted subjects that we're no longer talking about the soteriology of chapter 8. Likewise in verses 31 and following we have the law court and we have the question asked in those verses.

Who will bring a charge against whom God's elect? Well, what's the charge have to do with it has to do with condemnation who is the one who will condemn God's elect? It's Christ Jesus who died who was raised again.

All of this is clearly in regards to Salvation itself the salvation of individuals and the salvation of the elect as a group. So this is the context that we have going into chapter 9.

The Context of Romans 8:28-39

Okay, so now we have the presentations will begin in parallel so Professor flowers began with Romans 8 or Romans 9 30 or 32. Dr. White begins with Romans 8 28 through 39. One goes to the end. The other goes to the very beginning context context.

Context that's the key folks context context context so now with that said fasten your seatbelts because we're about to go into both debaters now starting at verse 1 and carrying on we're going to begin with professor flowers, and I'm going to read the text into your hearing and Pay attention to the text it's important.

I'm telling you the truth in Christ. I am NOT lying. My conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren my kinsmen according to the flesh who are Israelites to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the Giving of the law and the temple service and the promises.

Whose are the fathers and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh who is overall God blessed forever. Amen, I Submit to you that what you're about to view is Where the bait-and-switch occurs, that's right.

That sounds harsh. But a new narrative is about to begin you're going to find that Professor flowers is about to take off on the longest portion of His presentation it will amount to 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

8 minutes 46 seconds and He will spend More than 40 of his time outside of the text. So as I play this, I'm I'm gonna start and stop it. I'm gonna interact with it because there's some things here that need to be pointed out along the way so with that said.

Let's go ahead and play the clip. At the beginning of Romans 9 Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Expresses a self-sacrificial love for the hardened unbelieving Jews. Which sounds a lot like Jesus to me one who is willing to sacrifice himself to give himself up for all his enemies.