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

And welcome to the dividing line my name is Rich Pierce and I'm once again sitting in for dr White today as we continue our review of the Romans 9 debate. Boy, I tell you run both sides this This equation is is very stressful YouTube.

I don't even know right now whether or not YouTube is behaving I'm praying that it is stabilized, but it took me four or five shots at Connecting up to YouTube today, and I'm just hoping that we actually have a live stream on YouTube If we don't if it's hiccuping on you, I apologize for that.

I will Upload the recording version recorded version of this later on if that's what it comes to but I'm really hoping that it doesn't so. Just a word of reminder. We've been taking a look at the Romans 9 debate between dr. White and Layton flowers of Dallas Baptist University from last May and We've actually only gotten into a very short portion of this although we're 15 minutes into my version of this video.

We have another I believe 20 to go and I've got to get through all of that today. So time is very limited for me and But at the same time we'll probably be playing larger segments of this as professor flowers has now fully stood up his Alternate narrative in opposition to the narrative given by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9.

The Charge to Rightly Handle Romans 9

I Want to remind you of our charge our charge is that? is from 2nd Timothy 2 15 and That we are to accurately handle the word of truth. It's pretty simple. It's pretty straightforward. We are to take an honest evaluation of the word as it comes to us.

And as I said in the beginning Sometimes this isn't easy But it is not for us To make it up as we go along. I Don't like what this text says. I'm pretty sure there was someone in history He was accused of having a Bible with a whole bunch of sections That he took his scissors to simply because he didn't like them.

I Do not see a difference between Someone doing that with Romans chapter 9 literally and I've heard actually people do this Literally just come to Romans chapter 9 go. I don't like that and they just tear it out of their Bible gone problem solved.

It's over with it's gone. No, I want you to take again. I know it's hard. I know that Some on social media have been reaching out to me trying to get me to take a look at professor flowers as Responses to what I've already put out there, but I'm not going to do that and I'll explain why I I Think there's two ways of going about this.

I can chase professor flowers down every single Miss Apple Apple miss applied verse that he throws out Out of a contextual verse that he throws out false narrative that he throws out or I Can simply bring him to the truth?

What is the truth? The truth is what Romans 9 actually says plain on its face Using the same method that I would use reading Romans 8 or Romans 1 or Romans 3 or yes Romans 11 professor flowers but you see Again as I explained in the last Tuesday's episode You and I I think look at the scriptures in a fundamentally different manner.

I Look for the context first if I am going to reach out to Acts chapter 28 To evaluate whether or not it has value to inform me on what is Romans chapter 9. I Need to first establish the context of Romans chapter 9 and then second establish the context of Acts 28.

Does what is being discussed over here plug into what is being discussed over here. If I cannot establish that link Then this passage does not illuminate that passage but sadly Or I don't know how long Men have found it acceptable to do what you've done here.

They've found it acceptable to Proof text everything in Scripture. I have a point and I'm gonna go proof text it all over the place I can run around proof proof proof proof proof and my proof texts are bigger than your proof text.

And so therefore I went. I don't believe that's rightly dividing the word of truth, sir. It's just that simple. It's just that simple. I Want to remind you that your method is a reflection of how you view the scriptures.

Again your method is a reflection of how you view the scriptures if you will play fast and loose. And that's what you've done here fast and loose with the scriptures in order to prove your point. You believe that your point is more important than what the scriptures say directly.

If you will play play fast and loose with the scriptures the way you've done here. You in effect believe that the script your point is more important than the scriptures point. Than the Romans 9 point and That's really what this boils down to so we need to follow the simple act of contextual reading.

Fancy word for it is exegesis. We need to read out from the text. What is there not bring our Baggage and read that into the text is a Jesus simple act of contextual reading. Again as I said on Tuesday Paul's writing style is that of a lawyer.

Building his case an airtight case that he knows is in a lot of ways I started thinking about that concept. Paul really is the prosecutor. He is laying the case out. Before mankind of the sovereignty of God in salvation the sovereignty of God in it all that he does within creation and without and.

That there is a purpose in this. He takes point upon point and those points lead to the next point every bit of it as dr White points out in his presentation. We'll hear that today. The thread that he weaves through the whole narrative.

Unfortunately, professor flowers has put himself in the position of being the defense attorney. Who wants to distract from the evidence? He his job is to create doubt. Against the evidence or in the evidence and ultimately he's going to do this by presenting his own alternate theory.

What he calls the noble cause. What is the noble cause? Again, the noble cause according to professor flowers is using temporarily hardened Israel to bring redemption. So he believes as he puts it Paul's intention here in Romans 9 is using temporarily hardened Israel to bring redemption, I think we've already exposed that as a Foreign narrative not just a false narrative a foreign narrative because the hardening that takes place in Romans 9 is not the hardening that's taking place in Romans 11.

The two don't go together. Remember what I said a minute ago about whether or not this illumines this. No, Romans 11 is merely another stage of the case that Paul has made. Built on top of Romans 9. He's already established this portion and Romans 11 is him moving on and now Discussing a whole nother topic, but that is all built upon.

What has come before? We have the hijacking of terms and phrases. Like judicial hardening and others. Paul writes with precision and yet flowers is all over the place shoehorning numerous texts into his case and over the top of the plain text that is known as Romans 9 he attempts to get out in front of Paul in the previous chat section.

We just looked at verses 1 through 5 by doing an end around. What's real interesting is what we're going to be looking at today later on you're actually gonna see when he gets to the point. Where he did the end around 1 through 5 he's going to take that and then try to leapfrog backwards.

Into using verse 6 as a baseball bat of doubt who bludgeon you with bludgeon the text with really he will appeal to the rules of hermeneutics and Authority. Yeah, he's done it on social media a number of times.

Look, I've got all these PhDs that like me. They think it's cool. They're their support my position. They support my method Professor flowers. Let me be clear. Apparently I wasn't yesterday because someone this morning feels that I need to engage you directly.

Accused me of doing a hit-and-run. No Dr. White engaged you directly. I'm exposing your method and I'm challenging your rules. I'm Challenging your hermeneutic, that's right me a layman sitting here challenging your hermeneutic as Dishonest and not honoring to the word of truth.

Your hermeneutic does not honor the word of truth because it has an agenda of its own. It's eisegesis and we should never do that under any Circumstances so set this set to the subject of Calvinism aside one more time for me and as We saw in dr. White's claw Review 58 seconds compared to professor flowers.

8 minutes and 46 seconds in that section versus 1 through 5. It should be no surprise to anyone that I believe that dr. White here in this debate gave a clinic in rightly dividing. He managed his time very well.

He established the context Step-by-step and he followed he didn't lead he followed the lead of the writer the inspired writer the Apostle Paul. And that's what rightly dividing is all about. The contrast could not be greater as I said Dr. White spent 58 seconds in the text and from here on out.

You're gonna see him spend about two minutes. He manages to his time very well. This seems spent about two minutes in each section. And by the way, I did divide these sections up based on The separations that I think professor flowers made as he took on bite-by-bite section by section Of the text and I used his slides on the wall pretty much as my guide to do that.

Some of it as I play it back seems a little confusing and disjointed to me even as I as I play it back. That was not on purpose. It's just simply trying to put the two presentations side-by-side one another as best I can so that as we take this part and then measure this part against it and And make a parallel there as best we can so as we continue on here, let's Let's see here.

Let me do this we're going to take a look at the section of scripture and Don't do that to me suddenly my oh Bill Gates wants to say something to me here on my computer for a moment. And I don't want him to say that so we're going to just kind of oh and I need to plug in my Sound.

Oh Yeah, thanks Bill. I appreciate that. Yeah, let's let's just go with that and We're gonna go up here the tech when you're flying solo. Let us read into your hearing the next section of verses which is Romans chapter 9 verses 6 and 7 and I'm going to go ahead and put them right up there.

Have that blown up. Let me go full screen on this Romans 9 verse 6. But it is not as though the Word of God has failed for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel. Nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants.

But through Isaac your descendants will be named so that is the the section that we are about to take a look at and I'm gonna go ahead and queue up the video and hope that this all works very well and Let's listen to professor flowers as he begins this section.

So doesn't that prove God's Word has failed as verse 6 says no, but why not. Because God's hardening he's shutting off of Israel is actually fulfilling his word. It's not causing it to fail.

Okay, I'd like you to take note of one thing here. That's really There we go. It's right there on the screen. So. But it is not as though God's Word the Word of God has failed so we're going to take this snippet of The passage of the verse and then we're going to butt it up against Romans 1132 and I the two don't go together.

But in his world, he needs to use this Doubt passage this doubt verse as a baseball bat in order to prop up his Narrative of Hardened Israel that this is all about hardened Israel. Which we've already taken a look at.

Let's continue on here.

God has a sovereign purpose in fulfilling his word through hardened Israel it is. It is as Paul concludes at the end of 1132 it says. For God has shut up all in disobedience. Why. So that he may show mercy to all.

This is God's plan to show mercy to all people. Now, how does he do that? Well by hardening Israel He's ensured the crucifixion in the engrafting of the Gentiles and notice that Individually hardened Israelites might still be saved and grafted back in according to Romans chapter 11.

All of which goes to show what point? God's Word hasn't failed but it goes further than that at this time in history. God hasn't hardened every Israelite. He is reserved for himself a remnant as dr White pointed out.

A remnant to do what just to be irresistibly saved. No to fulfill his promise by bringing the word to the world. Listen, not every descendant of Israel is chosen to do what God elected Israel to do or as Paul put it for they are not All Israel who are descended from Israel.

Not every individual Israelite is chosen to carry out the purpose for which God elected the nation of Israel. Not every Israelite is chosen to be a prophet a priest a king or the lineage of Christ.

Not all of them are chosen. There we go. Okay, we'll back that up chairs here in just a moment the Focus is now fully moved to Romans chapter 11. We're using snippets from Romans 9 6 to Highlight Romans chapter 11.

So if there is illumination going on the focus is actually over in 11 and we're using snippets from 6 to interpret 11 but again, as I said earlier, these are out of context, this is out of context and.

But if you put them together you make a contextual case for his Foreign construct which isn't a part of the text at all in either place. So Let me get back to where we should have been here. 1623 is where we wanted to stop there.

And we'll get it, right. There we'll just pick up from here at 1616 and let him continue on.

Israel not every individual Israelite is chosen to carry out the purpose for which God elected the nation of Israel. Not every Israelite is chosen to be a prophet a priest a king or in the lineage of Christ.

Not all of them are chosen to be apostles to carry the word and have the authority. You see not every Israelite is chosen to fulfill the promise that God originally made to Abraham. And what was that promise to bless all the families of the earth through his seed?

You see there's a false perception at this day in time of the Israelites. What's that false perception one? They assumed that they were born the authorities of God's Word. We speak God's Word and they also assume that they're born children of God by being a child of Abraham.

That makes me a child of God. I'm guaranteed salvation. And Paul's response to that way of thinking is to say no. No, not every Israelite is chosen to be an authority to carry the Word of God. Not everyone's elected for that purpose in verse 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants.

You see Calvinist take these two verses to mean that only some of Abraham's descendants are born elected to be effectually saved. Okay, stop right there.

Did you listen to what he just said? We have a straw man being propped up right here again. He's already smuggled the Hardened Israel construct into this text as he continues to beat that drum. Hardened Israel hardened Israel hardened Israel.

It is a rabbit completely outside the text. Now take note of what he just said. Calvinists take these two verses verses 6 and 7 To mean that only some of Abraham's descendants are born elected to be effectually saved.

I'm gonna repeat that Calvinists take these two verses to mean that only some of Abraham's sex descendants are born Elected to be effectually saved. When we come to dr. White's portion of this as he covers it I want you to keep that statement in mind and ask yourself if dr. White says that or if he merely goes through the texts and explains what it says right there and is this a fair description of What we find in dr. White's presentation.

Also, keep in mind professor flowers has already at this point, even though I'm putting flowers first in this discussion in it for this case Professor flowers has actually already heard dr. White on this topic.

So he's already heard him it what we're about to hear when we get there. So let's continue on here.

No, Paul saying no descendant is going to be effectually saved on the basis that they are descendant. You are not irresistibly saved because of who your granddaddy is. You are saved based not on your nationality, but on grace through faith.

It's always been that way.

Okay. Now I want to point out something here in the interest of fairness. I think my evaluation of the Opening statements is at this point right here. We actually find the two debaters as close to the text Together as we're going to find.

Yes, dr. White is we already know dr. White simply following the text step-by-step all the way through but as far as the Tangled web that is already been laid out for us by professor flowers to lead us off to this hardened Israel.

Thinking he does come to the point to where he's dealing with the issue of descendant Israel. But there are issues that he leaves out of this. So while they may be close at this point in time It's not gonna last very long.

See it is all about faith versus works. Those who are striving to earn righteousness versus those who trust in the promise of God and his imputed righteousness. Which is exactly why Paul goes on to give a history lesson.

Okay, the Apostle Paul is going to give us a history lesson, but I want you to look at a little something. And pause right there. Let's go full screen with that. You see what's up on the wall. Abraham's descendants according to professor flowers a slide ends Romans 9 7 but When we look here.

Right there. He completely left that off. He completely leaves but through Isaac your descendants will be named. To be honest, I can't exactly figure out why he left that off. My first inclination was it was just a cut-and-paste error for the slide.

But then I looked. It's a Tap back to it. There's a period at the end of that. Look at Bible works comma. Not a period but through Isaac your descendants will be named the most generous Explanation that I can make here is The professor flowers thought that it might derail you.

From the point that he just made. He's trying to make a narrow point. He's been Arguing these hard lines between Israel law and Gentiles grace as he constructs this new narrative and verses 6 7 trying to establish no link regarding his descendants that the promises about the gospel.

When the promise is Jesus by the way. But he's trying to see some broad Generalities here and the problem is if he lets you see that I think it might cause you to go looking right back at the text again.

It draws your eyes. Wait a minute. What. Oh. And suddenly you're reading the text again and not following along with him. That's to be honest the most Generous Motivation I can come up with for doing that.

And if you don't believe me look again, he put a period on the end of that unquote period unquote. Okay, let's continue on the history lesson. Oops, and then we have the history lesson now. We're about to go into James's presentation here and this one lasts almost well, you know back to the hello.

Yeah, let's do that. The tech has been good to me. Hmm. I'm really hoping to play it praying that YouTube is actually live. We'll see but we're gonna play James's segment, which is exactly two minutes long and then compare it with Professor flowers is depiction above again.

I want to remind you back into your hearing. He says Calvinists take these two verses to mean that only some of Abraham's descendants are born elected to be effectually saved and if you're gonna decry that which isn't I don't think actually a fair description, but if you're going to decry that the concept of Isaac there Through Isaac your descendants will be named.

That's the promise. Hmm, I think it undermines where you're trying to go with this, but we'll see let's listen to dr. White as he now brings us Romans 9 verses 6 7.

This then brings us to the key of this evening's discussion and I believe that that this will be borne out by the discussion that we have. Verses 6 7 determine how we must understand the rest of the discussion in chapter 9.

Because obviously what is going on here is the Apostle Paul has encountered objections to his teaching many many times before. Look at all the things you've said in chapter 8 about all that God has done and yet Paul You're a small minority of Jews.

The small minority of Jews are accepting their own Messiah the great majority including the leaders are rejecting this movement. So so Paul are you not saying that the promises of God? Are you not saying that the very Word of God has has fallen flat on its face has come to no effect and that's the exact objection he responds to and His answer is no you need to understand.

They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel and then he's going to give example after example after example of how God Has in his sovereign freedom guided the path of the promise and the blessing within the descendants of Israel as God has seen fit to do so and He has rejected some of those who are the offspring of Abraham.

But he has accepted others and it's all of his own Freedom it has nothing to do with anything that they did it was not well. You know we've got that we've got the good Israelites over here, and the bad Israelites over there.

And so I rejected them, but there these have been good enough. No that is not what Paul is talking about. He gives this example after example after example, so he starts. Within the very family of Abraham itself he talks about Isaac, and he says well.

You know it could have been it could have been Ishmael, but no God says in Isaac shall your seed be called.

Okay, so we're gonna stop right there. That's dr. Weitz exegesis of Romans 9 6 through 7 and. Again, here's what's interesting. When we compare what James just said with what professor flowers said previously.

There's a problem. Paul's focus is on the children of the promise or the blessing and that's through Isaac so as dr. White points out. The promise is through Isaac. That's descendant, but it's also my faith.

There's a faith there. But it's also particular and prophetic. Professor flowers wants to focus on the prophetic, but he wants to ignore the particular. Let me explain what I mean. God is going to be described here as having a purpose.

In all of this as dr. White said he weaves this purpose this blessing through the family line there is a descendant factor here and that particularity comes from God's purpose in Election it's described that way that it might stand.

We're going to get to that but you see. For professor flowers. He can't let you go there. He can only look at the prophetic if he looks at the particular he falls into Paul's argument which he will soon be arguing directly against.

So the bottom line here is he's got to avoid its basis being in God's promise. Okay, so we're gonna go ahead and move on and we are like I said. Taking a faster approach than we did last time around and there's a reason for that and we're going to look at Romans 8 9 through or 8 through 13 Romans 9 verses 8 through 13 and and see.

We're gonna start with professor flowers and see how he approaches it. Let's first read it into your hearing that is. Back up the truck here a little bit. Context context context right and boy, I'm just bumping things.

All right, but through Isaac your descendants will be named that is. It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God. But the children of the promise who are regarded as descendants. Or this is the word of the promise at this time.

I will come and Sarah shall have a son and. Not only this but there is was Rebecca also when she had conceived twins by one man our father Isaac Forth 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 of works. But because of him who calls it is said to her that the older will serve the younger. Just that is just as it is written Jacob.

I loved but Esau I hated. Okay, and let's go ahead and switch back over and go ahead and play this segment those who are striving to earn righteousness.

Versus those who trust in the promise of God and his imputed righteousness. Which is exactly why Paul goes on to give a history lesson Using Ishmael in contrast with Isaac and Esau in contrast with Jacob.

Now Let's just stop for a second and talk about Ishmael and Esau. Is Paul literally meaning to say that God hated Ishmael and Esau. Since before the creation of the world and they have no hope of salvation whatsoever.

No, I think if you read the Old Testament, no, I think if you will go run away to the Old Testament and Let's not let Paul make his own argument. Is Paul meaning to say that God hated Ishmael and Esau?

No. The text we have in front of us Doesn't even address that it's the next Section that addresses that so once again, we have professor flowers Getting out in front of it. And if you don't really understand what I mean when I say getting out in front of it I'll I'll give you an example I tell my son as I raised him when you have issues in school that you can see I didn't do that.

Well on that test or I didn't do well that well here. I tell him go to your teacher Get out in front of it before it becomes a big problem before it becomes a festering thing. So it's a defensive mesh measure.

You're supposed to get out in front of the thing so that you can minimize its damage. So in this case Once again, he's getting out in front of the text that is coming past the section that's actually up on the screen and he's going out after that and the interesting thing is I find as as Professor flowers talks about Paul's intention to talk.

But did Paul mean this did Paul mean that it's almost like he's channeling. No, he's not channeling. I know that but you know It's somehow he has this ability to read Paul's mind and what he actually had to say is not what he meant to say.

He really didn't mean that at all. Let's go right away to the Old Testament and we can establish these things but if we read the text and We look at verses 9 through 13 Through 13 right there We see the full measure of what Paul is saying for this is the word of the promise at this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son and not only this but there was a Rebecca also I read all this for you, but he asks the question does Paul mean to say this?

Well folks You tell me It's right there on your screen you tell me if that isn't what Paul meant and He is this is a twofold argument and dr White will point this out as he gets into this and when it says his turn the Argument one example one.

He's made his argument. Now. His example is the older will serve the younger. Second example is Jacob. I loved Esau. I hated these are two examples of The point he's trying to make James will get into these things.

Okay, let's go ahead and continue.

The Old Testament accounts you'll see that Abraham's prayer to bless Ishmael and take care of Ishmael was granted in Genesis 17 and Regarding Esau God specifically told Israel look at the screen. It says Deuteronomy 23 7 do not despise an Edomite for they are your brother.

God's not a hypocrite. He's not gonna tell them not to hate him if he hates him himself.

Okay. Now this one I got to dig into. As I said earlier, I can't you can't chase down Every stray verse that are thrown around in these situations. I my area of Experience in alphabetic ministries and apologetics has been in the area of Mormonism in witnessing to Mormons.

It is where I started out. It was the thing that we were doing when I first became a member in 1986 87 and It's these are the people that we're out there witnessing to and it is very commonplace. For them to be putting up all these different verses that they think supports their heresy.

The idea that God was once a man lived on another planet. Well, let's go look at God's finger writing on the wall. Let's go look at you know, God having hands and and all these different examples. Hey Jacob wrestled with God.

He has to have a body of flesh and bones, right? We can chase these things down right and left or we can go to the scriptures that teach directly on the nature and being of God and we can explain those things and show them the truth of.

Where we derive these things from and the fact that they're simply plucking those verses out of context. Becomes apparent in the process of doing it. But in this particular situation Deuteronomy 23 verse 7.

Uh, let's see here I'm gonna write Over here to Deuteronomy. I thought I had this in the box there, but we're gonna look at verse 23 verse 7. There's Deuteronomy 23 for you folks. How about that first one, huh?

No one is who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. Fun, huh? This is the law. Being delivered. These are the rules. These people can enter the assembly of the Lord and this is why.

But look down at verse 4 last half of verse verse 4. Those people hired you against. Against hired against you Balaam the son of Beor and Path or of Mesopotamia to curse you. Nevertheless the Lord your God was not willing to listen to Balaam.

But the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the Lord your God loves you. You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days. Let's move this up a little bit so we can see this a little better.

Now we come to the verse that professor flowers just plucked out of its context for us and shoved into the Romans 9 argument. You Shall not detest an Edomite for he is your brother. So he just made that comparison of God doesn't hate the Edomite.

Edomites. He's not a hypocrite. So he didn't hate him then and he doesn't hate him now. You know, it's interesting to me the professor flowers went here. Because if we look at the context of Romans 9 while he's talking about Jacob and Esau.

He also uses Pharaoh as his example of God bringing jaw. Wait a minute. Judicial hardening. Oh, there it is about. Let's read the rest of verse 7 here. You shall not detest an Egyptian because you were an alien in his land.

Well professor flowers if you're gonna put the first part into Romans 9, don't you have to carry the second part? Things didn't work out. So well for the Egyptians remember, you know, that is that the parting of the sea and Israel escaping through it and all that the hardening and If you doubt me.

You know, I'm sure that the Egyptians were all really thrilled that their firstborn children died that night. Hmm if you're gonna use this you need to check out the context. Instead of running around all over scriptured grabbing anything and everything that you think will support your case.

It's not the right way to rightly divide the word of truth. So let's go ahead and go back and Where are we here? We're right there. So don't despise the Edomite. Hmm not not such a great example after all professor flowers.

Remember what God's original promise was to Abraham I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you. That's a conditional promise. I will bless those who bless you and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

So God promised to bless Abraham. Now let me ask you does that mean. God is going to condemn seven of Abraham's son and most of his Grandsons and not choose them to carry the seed because he's. That's not a blessing.

You got to look at the promise. He says he will bless those who bless you. Couldn't Ishmael and others the other brothers who are not chosen to carry the lineage. Couldn't they still believe and support that promise and thus be saved because they bless the lineage.

They bless the promise. Here's the point. It's what is the point professor flowers? We're now playing what's known as the conundrum game. We're going to throw out all these possibilities and what ifs and what if and what if and we're going to create scenarios and Present those scenarios against the text.

The problem is none of what he just discussed is addressed in the text. So despite the one scenario that the Apostle Paul offer offers up that might be said against him Professor flowers before he actually does that very thing creates a number of other scenarios.

Every bit of which ignores the fact that the line of the promise is through Isaac and that promise Is about the Messiah the coming of the Messiah. But he knows that. So if he knows that why is he arguing this.

Because he's got an agenda. And he'll grab anything and everything he can hold on to to shove it together and hold it up. Remember the play-doh. Playing with play-doh. That's what's going on here. Let's continue on.

And this is the part of the cross-examination as the Bible was trying to get to. The distinction must be made Between those chosen by God to bring his word and those chosen to be saved as a result of believing that word.