Radio Free Geneva: Responding to Flame on Romans 9

Romans 9 in Context and the Charge of Misreading Election

You can constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this.

Raaah! Raaah! God's suffering! God's suffering! Raaah! Suffering! Suffering! Suffering!

They just keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a biblical truth.

Inside the tomb of Lazarus, she says, Lazarus, come out! And Lazarus said, I can't, I'm dead. That's not what he did. Lazarus came out. She didn't mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ.

And then you take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durbin. It shows in this kind of sequential format.

Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things? Um, no.

Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine.

Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief.

You know it would sound like if you were listening to it? Blblblblblblblblblbl blblblblblblblblblblblblblblb. It wouldn't make any sense to him. A self-righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk.

You need to realize that he's gone from pre-determinism. Now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to...

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge.

Don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

Not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat.

Prayer for Ukraine and the Ministry Context

From our underground bunker deep beneath the faculty cafeteria in New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Saint from all those moderate Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re-read George Bryson's books, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say for his own eternal glory.

Well, greetings and welcome to Radio Free Geneva. I would be obviously just somewhat remiss if I did not denote to people, especially if you're watching this, you know, five years from now, you know what came of all this, if the Internet still exists five years from now.

But today is the first day, I guess starting last, it's been less than 24 hours, first day of the invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin. I hate to say Russia because there are even Russians who are protesting this kind of action on his part.

But I would be remiss before getting to our topic if I did not encourage us all not only to be praying for the situation in general, but as some of you might know, I have had the opportunity of ministering in Ukraine a number of times.

And I'm thinking of one point in time doing a class, I think it was on the Trinity, and it was during periods where there were blackouts, it was cold, and I have a picture of us in the classroom. And the only lights we have are candles and the screens of the laptops as we are going there.

And so obviously many men there that I know in Ukraine, families there. Greg White and his family are there. And of course, my dear friend Nick, it's actually Mikola Leliavsky, but Nick, as he normally goes with those of us who can only massacre pronunciation of their names, is over there.

Thankfully, I did hear from him a few hours ago, and they're trusting in God's providence and God's care. But we need to be praying for those folks. And Nick, as most of you know, well, again, probably a minority of you know, was my translator there.

He also does almost all the translation at the Shepherds Conference. I remember the last time I spoke at the TMAI pre-conference, he was going to sit in and listen to my presentation on Islam, and then I noticed he was gone.

And that was because they had come and gotten him, because the language I was using was too complicated for the other translators. They needed Nick, because he speaks absolutely perfect English. And the first time I met Nick, I was teaching a class on sexual criticism in Berlin, and the school in Ukraine brought a bunch of students and Nick.

And so I had to wear this microphone. I was wondering what this was all about. Well, Nick sat in the nursery room, so there was a window where he could see me, and he's listening to me over that microphone.

And then he is doing live translation, so it's not the stop-start type of translation. It is, you have to be listening to someone and live translating. So, like at the UN, my understanding is that at the UN, they do not ask anyone to do that for more than half an hour, because it will simply drain your mind.

You're trying to listen to someone speak in one language, and then you're translating in another language. Realize, this is a class on textual criticism, therefore it's highly technical language. Thankfully, I wasn't quite aware of this yet, but Nick had been listening to the dividing line for years.

And so he knew what I was going to be saying, and he translated me for eight hours a day, which is astonishing. No one should ever be asked to do that. I think it causes permanent damage. But he did, and we, of course, became dear friends.

And when Nick would have to translate for me stop-start, without using headsets and things like that, there would be times when I could tell he was expanding on what I said. And that would normally bother me a lot, because I wouldn't know what was being said.

But Nick is the one person in the world where I just go, I'm sure he realizes they need an extra bit of information. Nick is a theologian on his own right, and so I fully trusted him to do whatever it was that he felt he needed to be doing in those situations.

So Nick's over there in Kiev, so we pray for the situation there, and God's restraint upon evil men and women in our world today. So with that, Radio Free Geneva today is brought to you in light of a series, a tweet thread that I think was only posted yesterday.

Normally we're a little bit behind the times. You're welcome. Thank you very much, Siri. I have no idea. Sometimes I can figure out. Somewhere in there, there was something that, now that it's upside down.

Here's the problem. Okay, now it won't do that because it's upside down. But if I get a text message, the light flashes, which will probably be highly visible. So let me actually, there. Now it won't be quite as visible.

Technology! Isn't it fun? I've thought many times Spurgeon would have just taken any cell phone and chucked it out into the street and let it get run over by the horses. This thread appeared only yesterday, I believe, so we are getting to it fairly quickly.

But Flame is a Christian rapper. I don't know a lot about Christian rappers, I'll be perfectly honest with you. But I think it was Samuel Say, it might have been Kofi, I think it was Samuel Say. One of those guys, I know they live north of me, let's just put it that way.

One of the two of them said that Flame was slash is his favorite rapper. And you'll see from the thread that he was once Reformed in the sense of Calvinistic and I think is now Lutheran, if I read things correctly.

And Kdub was the one that brought my attention to this initially. Well, not my attention, I follow him and he responded to something that had been said and that's how all this happened. So you can blame Kdub for all this, we all blame Kdub for everything.

Anyhow, the reason that I chose this to respond to this thread, it's been a while and it's an excellent, I thought it was well written. And as soon as I read it, I'm like, okay, this is Lenski's take primarily on the Romans 9 material.

This is sort of a general, this is generally how Lutherans express themselves very often on this, in the modern period anyways. And so this would be valuable edifying, I'm not trying to flame Flame. But I want to respond from a Reformed perspective because I think there are problems with what was said.

But since it was written so well, it makes it actually easier to respond to. So I'm going to read it and probably have to make a few comments on the way through. And then we will go to the big board and do our thing.

That does look very, very different, the lighting now does, doesn't it? And it makes this thing look like it's actually a graphic and it's not actually on the wall. So that's interesting. Rich has been playing around since I was, it's the first time we've been in here in over a month.

And so Rich has been doing stuff with the lights. And it actually is easier on my eyes because they're not the spotlights that are just like burning holes in my retinas. So that is somewhat more useful.

Flame’s Thread: Election, Predestination, and Romans 9

Okay, so here's the thread from Flame. I joined a Reformed Baptist Calvinist church and attended a Bible study there. One of my professors led the study. He explained to us that he'd be teaching on election and predestination.

I was excited and a bit scared, if I'm honest. We isolated the chapter. Please note that language. We isolated the chapter and dealt with it as if Paul's intention with Romans 9 was to teach the doctrine of predestination and double predestination.

I've got issues with the language here, but that's what it is. That was wrong and not Paul's intentions. Romans 9 should be considered in light of the entire book, of course. And in particular with chapters 10 and 11.

Yes, obviously. But 9 comes immediately after 8. And that incredible material regarding predestination and election at the end of chapter 8. The golden chain and the heavenly court situation and all of that is there.

And there is a transition, plainly, between 8 and 9. And 9, 10, 11 do form the final portion of the theological argumentation of the book of Romans. Because starting in chapter 12, you have the practical application material.

So, yeah. Paul is building the case that we are justified by faith and not works. Well, he had already built that case. He had established that case all the way back in chapter 4, actually. And so, I would disagree.

There's certainly consistency. But to try to say that what you have in chapter 9 is actually a defense of justification by faith, I think we will demonstrate, is simply not the case. He will conclude with the key issue.

And that is, whether you're a Jew or a Gentile, you are justified by faith. That is central. That goes all the way back to chapter 3. For all of sin, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, is what the issue there is.

So, what we're going to see is there's an attempt to shift the focus. And we'll demonstrate the focus cannot be shifted exegetically. But to shift the focus from the real issue, which is, why is it that not all of Israel are Israel?

In light of God's promises, why do you have such rejection by the Jewish people as a whole of Jesus as Messiah? Chapter 9 establishes the historical reality of God's choice in covenant blessings. His choice to whom the promises are going to come.

It is about God's sovereignty. There's no question about it. But it will eventually come back around to proclamation of the gospel, who believes, etc. etc. In chapter 10 and chapter 11, the warnings against the Gentiles in light of the hardening that has taken place amongst Israel.

Not to boast against them, lest they themselves fall into unbelief. So, Paul is building the case that we were justified by faith and that works. Paul has already done that. And now he's addressing objections that come as a result of having already established that.

In fact, he really transitions into dealing with that in the middle of chapter 5. That's been going on for quite some time. Nor does salvation come through bloodline, but by faith. Well, it definitely does not come by bloodline.

And it definitely does come by faith. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the result of that is going to be what you want to be there. Now I'm going to have to, I don't know how this, how that, and boom.

Sound's off. Normally I have to have the sound on because, oh, that's right, the sound is normally being piped through that back to you. And that's why we're not normally able to hear it. Anyway, technology, technology.

But just simply speaking the truth that it's not by bloodline but by faith isn't addressing what Romans 9 is addressing. And that is God's freedom in election that results in faith. That's where the issue is.

If God's election is what results in the granting of saving faith, that's where people struggle. That's where the real sovereignty of God comes in, not just in making something available, but in actually saving.

And that's where the objection is. He draws on a few Old Testament figures to make his point, his point of justification by faith. Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh, to name a few. Now what we'll see is that the point that Paul is going to make with these individuals is that it is God's choice, not man's.

That's the issue of Romans 9. That's why it's so objectionable, is that that's what he actually says, as we will see. That God chooses not on the basis of works or lineage, but by grace. So it's the choice of the individual that results in the faith.

And that is done by grace. I wish my professor would have rightly taught us that Romans 9 .13, as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated, was not about their eternal state, nor individual salvation, not to mention later the two bros reconciled, but about God's free choice to choose Jacob to be the carrier of the nation of Israel.

Well, okay, there is no question. I almost feel heat turning on. There is no question to me that God did choose Jacob, and it was through Jacob that the nation of Israel is to come. That's true. No question about it.

But is that what it is saying in this text? Is that Paul's application? Or is that, we need to, boy, we got to get that stopped, because it's getting hot in here. Or is Paul's application beyond that?

There are many people who would say, no, no, no, no, Paul can't go beyond that, because this is the only application that can be made of that. No, that is not what we will see. Through whom the Messiah came, as opposed to Esau, who was the carrier of Edom, a wicked nation.

Paul assumes people would contend for some injustice in God. That's not fair, they might say. Romans 9, 14 -15, what shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means, for he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.

I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. The context is, why has God left Israel in their hardened state and allowed Gentiles to come by faith? Well, there's an element of that, but that's not derived directly from Paul's argumentation, as we will see.

Like God did with Pharaoh, he allowed Israel and Pharaoh to persist in their already existing rebellion. It was an act of judgment and not a random, unconditional decision. Now, that's a very odd phrase, random, unconditional decision.

God doesn't do anything random. God does things purposefully, but God does all sorts of things unconditionally, because he's sovereign. And God told Moses he was going to harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses ever came into Egypt.

Exodus chapter 4. So, there seems to be some concern there that we need to be looking at. He turned them over to what they genuinely wanted. Well, let's point something out from Paul's anthropology. If you turn someone over to what they genuinely want, we would all be in a world of hurt.

God does do that. That is an act of judgment. But that's universal of all mankind. So, to do their own thing. God hardens after the person has given themselves over to wickedness is put in quotations.

I don't know what that quotation is coming from, or where it's coming from, or who allegedly said it. But the fact is, since we're all fallen sons and daughters of Adam, we've already been given over to wickedness.

That is our nature. And unless God, by his grace, restrains our evil, there go all of us. So, keep that in mind. I wish my professor would have rightly taught us that Romans 9, 22 -23. Well, we're going to look at this very closely.

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and make his power known, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the richness of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, was not teaching double predestination that God made some for hell?

Keeping in mind, hell was created for the devil and his angels, not for people, Matthew 25 -41. I've seen this a number of times. Why is it that saying that hell was created for the devil and his angels means that God didn't have...

I mean, it's almost like you're opting for some type of open theistic... God didn't expect this to happen, and so now he's sort of making a shift in his plans or something along these lines. What is that supposed to mean?

I keep hearing anti-Calvinists saying that, and I'm wondering, so you mean God didn't know this was going to happen? God didn't plan for this to happen? God's making alterations? What are you trying to say?

They never really say exactly what it is they're trying to say there. But a more careful read exposes, the text says, has endured with much patience. Well, actually, a more careful read, which we hope to provide to you, will demonstrate that what is being said here about making vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy is the direct fulfillment of the potter and the pots.

That's what's not even mentioned here, just right over top of it, as we will see. A more careful read exposes, the text says, has endured with much patience. God is patient and enduring with those vessels of wrath.

Well, yes, when he extends life and gives happiness and even health and blessings of food and everything else to those that— I have to ask, does God know that these are vessels of wrath? Does he know that they are going to be experiencing punishment in eternity?

These are questions we—the thread does not answer. The text does not say God prepared those vessels for wrath. There is the Lenski argument. We'll look at it very closely in the text here in a moment.

This requires us to completely disconnect one verse from the verse that came before it. That's where the primary error is right there. It only says, what if God, desiring to show his wrath and power, endured with them?

So it's like, oh, this is just a conditional. No, this is the whole point. As long as you recognize that verse 6 is the question that's being answered all the way through, the confusion found here will no longer be confusion.

We'll see that in a moment. Does God want to show his wrath and power? Yes. Who prepared the vessels of wrath? The devil? The sinning person? Perhaps. Yet Paul does not say. Yes, he does. He does still very clearly.

It's silent as to who prepared those vessels of wrath for destruction, but the whole of Scripture credits the sinner and the devil for sinful rebellion. It does, but under the almighty decree of God. So God decrees the ends and the means, so you don't get rid of the one, just simply for the other.

Yes, it does say explicitly and clearly that he, God, has prepared vessels of mercy beforehand for glory, Romans 9 .23. In order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, God is actively doing one and is not actively doing the other.

Again, sounds like Lenski or someone similar along those lines. Again, the context is salvation by faith, not works. If the previous stuff wasn't about salvation, how did this become about salvation? This is, again, one of the inconsistencies of those who try to get away from the sovereignty of God in Romans 9.

And saying, well, the first illustrations were just about service or they're about nations, but now all of a sudden we are talking salvation. How did the switch take place? Because Paul's not shifted his focus.

Interesting. Addressing the question, why hasn't God brought all the Jews in but gives his mercy to the Gentiles? He allows the Jews to stay in their rebellious state. Having said all that, Paul still has hope, Romans 10 .1.

My heart desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. And in chapter 11, Paul confesses that Israel's rejection is not permanent, Romans 11 .32. For God has consigned all disobedience and he may have mercy on all.

Yes, it's true, there is universal condemnation under the law. And yet, Paul notes, it ends with universal grace for those who believe by faith. Okay, so most people who read Romans chapter 9, a couple things.

It's always, always good and appropriate, always proper to read any section in its context. I think every Christian, after a relatively short period of time in the faith, should have some of the key books outlined in their minds.

So I don't think that I'm at all being outrageous to say that we should know what each chapter in Romans is about. And the flow of the argument. So we can recognize when an argument is solid or when it's maybe pushing the boundaries, just a little bit like some of what we saw there.

We should know where justification by faith is actually established in Romans 3 and 4. With the conclusion in 5. And then the transition into application issues. For example, the whole issue of the second Adam and original sin, everything in Romans chapter 5.

Therefore, Romans 5 .1 is really the end of Paul's argument establishing justification by faith. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. There's the conclusion of that argument.

And now having said that, let's address these other issues that then come before us. And so it is always good to know and to not isolate chapter 9. And to know that chapter 9 goes into chapter 10 and chapter 11.

And this is the end of the doctrinal portion. And then chapter 12 begins the application portions in regards to regular Christian life. And all those things that go along with all of that. That is all good.

It's always good to know the Old Testament background. But it's absolutely necessary to walk through the text. And that's, you know, we've done a few debates on this. And that's where the opponents just fail.

That's where they struggle so badly is to simply walk through the text. And so let's do that. We've done it before, but we've not done it, to my recollection, in the big studio. Not as far as I recall.

So let's utilize the big board here and look at Romans chapter 9. That didn't look right. I did not. There we go. See, I didn't see my blue thing. Do it's blue thing. Now, I note that Romans 9, 1 through 5, ends with the disputed text.

And I did notice that I have the NASB up here right now. But the Legacy Standard Bible has improved on the NASB's rendering. Romans 9, 5. Not part of our topic right now on the deity of Christ. There's a whole chapter.

Well, there's a section in a chapter in the Forgotten Trinity on this if you want to take a look at it. But I think it would be better to have who is God over all rather than God blessed forever in the NASB.

But that's not an issue right now. Point being, you have the blessings of Israel that have been mentioned. And then 9, 6. And here is what is key. Here you have the Word of God. And what Paul is concerned about is Uk.

It is not as if the Word of God has fallen, has failed. Paul is well aware of the arguments that have been used against his position. He has been debating in synagogues and in marketplaces for quite some time.

And so he's heard the arguments. He's heard the Jewish responses to his great, beautiful presentation. I'm sure that Romans 8 reflects some preaching on the apostles part. And so they hear this wonderful presentation of what God has done in the Messiah.

But they reject him as the Messiah. And you just know that one of their primary responses is, well, Paul, if this is true. And all these promises have come true in the Messiah. Why is it that the vast majority of our people reject Jesus as the Messiah?

This means that the Word of God has failed. That the promises to Israel have failed. And so he immediately wants to say, it is not as though the Word of God has failed. And then here really is, if you keep this section in mind, you will understand the rest of Romans 9.

And it is not a long section. But it is not. There you go. For not all those from Israel, these are Israel. Not all those who are, the translation in ASB here is, they are not all Israel who are descended.

Notice descended is put in italics, so it's being added. That would come from ex-Israel, these are Israel. And so that's Paul's response. Is that, well, you may say that the majority of the people are rejecting Christ.

But that doesn't mean that they are actually of the people of Israel. So who are the people of Israel? Well, verse 7. Nor are they all children. Nor are they all children because they are Abraham's seed, sperma.

But, and then you have the first Old Testament citation. In Isaac, your seed shall be what? Shall be called. Shall be identified, but it is also calling, election. This is what Paul is going to be playing out.

That is, it is not the technotes sarcas, the children of the flesh, that are the children, the technotu theu. But the technotes epangaleas, the children of promise. And then here's a term that we should know by now in Romans, legiditate, literally to impute or to be reckoned.

They're the ones reckoned as seed. As the children, as descendants, as the NASB puts it over here. So his argument is indisputable from any Old Testament perspective. Anyone who's read the history of Israel, the history of Judah, knows that you have a huge number of circumcised animal offering individuals who do not have hearts of flesh.

They have hearts of stone. They rebel against Yahweh. They do not love Yahweh's ways. They go after other gods. You can't read any one of the prophets and not encounter this. And so Paul has thought this through.

And he said, it's obviously just being the physical descendant of Israel does not make you one of the children of Israel, one of the children of God. But it is the children of promise. In other words, God gets to delimit the range of his blessing, the range of his covenant.

God is the one making these choices here. There is nothing in any of this here that is talking about mankind's faith. This is all about God so far. Are we agreed on that? I think that's pretty plain. All right?

Okay. So, scroll on up. So how does he prove it's the children of promise that are regarded as descendants? Well, that begins in verse 9. So, I wish I didn't do that. I bet you there's a way to turn that off someplace.

I just haven't found that particular switch. For this is the word of promise because he talks about the promise. This is the word of promise. At this time, I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. So God promises this.

And not only this, but there was Rebecca also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac. For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand, not because it works because of him who calls, it was said to her, the older will serve the younger.

So once again, you have to have your Old Testament backgrounds class in mind. And so what we have here is not only that situation, not only that is an example, but Rebecca, when she had conceived twins by one man, Isaac, our patras, our father.

Now please note verse 11, because part of the argument that was given in the thread was that you have a situation here where what Paul is doing is he's bringing these people in. He mentions Rebecca and Abram and Sarah, and all this is to demonstrate justification by faith.

But what it's actually demonstrating is God's sovereign choice to do as he pleases. That's what it's actually demonstrating. And verse 11 is really hard to get around. For although, Mapo, for although the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything, either good or bad, in order that he caught eclogaine prothesis to theumene.

Here is, this is really an important section right here. In order that, so here's your Hinnah clause in verse 11. So that, in order that, God's purpose according to choice. God's purpose according to choice.

Whose choice? Well, it was before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad. The whole point was their actions did not determine what God did. And his whole point is, and it wasn't God looking down the corridors of time.

Or this whole, or the whole first beginning of verse 11 is a lie. So before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad. In order that, God's purpose according to his choice would stand or Menno would abide.

And then just to make sure, just to make sure that we're getting this point. Because again, Paul had been through this in the synagogue, on the street corner, in the marketplace. How many times? And let's, let's make sure it's clear here.

Uk ex ergone. Not from works. We're not just talking about works here of merit or covenantal works or anything like that. That's, that's not what this context would be. This is human action right there.

Uk ex ergone. Not from works, but instead ek tu kalunta. Now ex, ex and ex, some people might look at that and might get confused. They're the exact same word. The only reason this is in the form it's in is because it has a vowel following it.

This has a constant following it. They're the exact same word. So not by means of or from ergone, but instead from by means of the one calling. The one calling. Look, ask yourself a question. If you wanted to express the idea that it's not from what humans do, it's from the purpose and calling of God, how else are you going to say it?

How much more strongly can you create? Uk ala. Not this, but this. Not this, but this, but we want it to be this, not this. And so we stand on our heads and we put filters on and we, we go, maybe if I look at it from this way, or maybe if I look over that way, and maybe we consider this instead of just letting this be what it says, not by human actions, but by the one calling.

And that's that. The one calling takes us right back up to here. All right. His purpose, his choice. That's what it's about. Because of that, it was said to her. The younger, the greater will serve the older, the younger, sorry.

Hot my zone, the, the greater one or the older one will serve the lesser one. Just as it's been written, Jacob, I love, but Esau, I hate it. Now that this text was mentioned by flame in his comment. And that, well, okay.

This, this is, this all goes back to the old Testament. And this is about God establishing Israel, but not Edom. The choice goes through Jacob. It doesn't go through Esau. All of that is true. All of that is true.

No one is disputing that. But what is the basis for saying while that is true, that's all it can ever be. Because that's not how Paul's applying it or is it? Because he has just as it has been written.

And that summarizes all of this. Are you saying Paul's wrong? Are you saying Paul's gone beyond what he should have said here? Oh, Paul, he's just, he's just talking about Israel and Edom here. Well, then why does he put it in here in the flow of this context, in the flow of his argument?

Because up here, not only this, okay, this is where we are. Here's our example. And what is he establishing that it's not of human works. It is of the one calling. And that's why the more manly dude, the guy going out and doing the hunting, he's got the four by and then the accountant kid, the accountant kid gets chosen and the guy in the four by gets over, gets, gets passed by Jacob.