Romans 9 and Radio Free Geneva

A mighty fortress is our God. A bulwark never failing.

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them. They're following men instead of the Word of God.

Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

On top of my feet. He died for all. Those who elected were selected.

For still our ancient foe does seek to work us woe. His craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate.

Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the reformers.

On earth is not his equal.

I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

Did we in moral strength confide. Our striving would be losing.

But God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.

We're not the right man on our side. The man of God's own choosing. Doomed before the womb. You ask who that may be. Christ Jesus it is he. Lord saw both his name. Read my book. From age to age the same.

And he must win the battle.

Responding to Steve Gregg’s Misrepresentation of Calvinism

And now from our underground bunker hidden deep beneath Liberty University. Where no one would think to look safe from those modern Calvinists. Dave Hunt fans and those who have read and reread George Bryson's book.

We are radio free Geneva broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say his own eternal glory.

And welcome to the dividing line special edition radio free Geneva here on the dividing line today. As I mentioned on our last program. We do need to eventually get around to responding to Steve Gregg's comments on Romans 9.

We had said we're going to do that for a long long time then put it off didn't do it. And so we're going to try to get to that today. But are going to begin with one of the phone calls the phone call we mentioned last time.

I played you the end of it where a caller named Rick said that he had listened to a number of my debates. Read a number of my books and what made that amazing was what he thinks Calvinists believe. Let me tell you something if if what Rick thinks Calvinists believe is what Calvinists believe.

I can see what I wouldn't want to believe in it. I wouldn't be a Calvinist but it's either I'm a really really really bad communicator. Or Rick is a really really really bad listener. One of the two because the questions the things he's going to say to Steve Gregg.

When Steve Gregg has to correct you on your Calvinism. At least what you think Calvinists believe. Well then you have a major problem. We're going to start there and then I'm going to be spending the rest of the program on Romans chapter 9.

Let's listen to this this program this call I'm sorry from from Rick to Steve Gregg. And you're listening to The Narrow Path. Welcome to The Narrow Path Rick.

Thanks for calling. Hello Steve. I have a different question than I started to have with James White. Is there a particular issue that you too expected to debate or. Yes.

He wants to. We're going to debate about Calvinism.

OK. Because my understanding he is a Calvinist right. That's correct. And I'm not. I guess I just want to make a comment. I'm sure after I make my comments you'll have your comments to make either contrary or an agreement to it.

But as I've studied a little bit about Calvinist and dialogue with him from time to time and with Catholics as well. Maybe it's going to be too big a grasp to try to grab them both at once. But my understanding of the Calvinist is that they do not believe that the shed blood of Christ is what saves them because they believe that they were pre-chosen by the father in heaven before they were born in their mother's womb.

And therefore they do not need the blood of Christ to wash their sins away because they're already pre-chosen. They just simply have to come to realize that during their lifetime. And the reason I lump Catholics in there too is that my understanding of Catholic theology they do not believe that the blood of Christ saves them either because they have to add works to that.

And the last of those works would be purgatory for those that need it according to their theology. I guess my comment is I believe a Christian needs to be saved by the blood of Christ to have their sins washed away in order to be reconciled to the father.

And if there's major denominations out there and belief systems such as Calvinism and Roman Catholicism that do not believe this. Then it's hard to consider those organizations to be legitimate Christian organizations.

There might be Christians within those organizations who are there by deception. But anyway I guess that pretty well finishes my comment.

Wow. You know I. Hmm. OK. Both the Catholics and the Calvinists are sitting there going what on earth is he talking about. I mean that's not even an accurate representation of Catholicism. I mean OK I'm the first one to say that that Rome's doctrine of the mass destroys the efficacy and perfection of the work of Christ.

But even then you've got to admit at least Rome says you need to have that sacrifice. I mean come on at least be honest there. But as far as the idea that well we don't need the blood of Christ because we were we were preselected.

Wow. He says he's dialogued with Calvinists. I don't know he's talked with but hopefully someone anybody anybody he did talk to should have said Sir you need to understand the difference. The fact that God ordains the ends and the means the means by which a person is is redeemed from their sins and given forgiveness is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of particular redemption is that Christ does not fail to save any of those for whom he dies that we are savingly united to him. And therefore our death is his death. And there is this this relationship that exists there.

The idea that somehow I mean you just can't come to these conclusions by actually reading reform stuff. You've got to be reading what somebody else is saying you've got to be going on second third hand information to come to that conclusion.

And interestingly enough Steve Gregg does a fairly decent job in pointing that out.

Let me respond to that. Then if you had another question we can go to that. OK I agree with you of course that that we are saved by the blood of Christ and if not by the blood of Christ then we're not saved at all.

I'm not sure that the Calvinists and Catholics disagree with that in principle. In fact I think they would agree with it but they have a different way of looking at it than I do. And obviously than you do in saying that the Calvinist does not need to be saved by the blood of Christ because they were pre elected.

I think they would say that's not a correct representation of their viewpoint. What they would say is that yes they were elected they were chosen before they were born to be saved. But they were chosen to be saved by the blood of Christ.

Exactly. And in other words the blood of Christ is the effectual cause of their justification. And it is the blood of Christ alone that washes away their sins. I'm sure that every Calvinist believes that.

But they just believe a little differently than I do that every individual who is saved was saved is saved as a result of God's sovereign decision to save some and not others. And therefore that Christ's blood they would say was shed not for everybody but only for those that were elect.

Those that were chosen before to be saved. So that's where the doctrine of limited atonement comes in for the Calvinists. They do believe the blood of Christ saves the elect. But they have a different view than I do about the nature of election and predestination.

But it would not be quite accurate to say that they don't believe in the blood of Christ being necessary for salvation. I'm pretty sure that they would say even in the Old Testament people were only saved by the blood of Christ which had not yet been shed.

But it was by virtue of the fact that God knew that Christ would shed his blood for all humanity including those who lived before he came. That God forgave them. And as far as Catholics are concerned their view is a little different from ours also.

And I'm not sure that I can answer for them as well. I've had certainly more conversations with Calvinists and I've been closer to them in my theology than to Roman Catholics. But I believe the Roman Catholic view would be that the blood of Christ cleanses sin and that it purifies us so that we can do good works.

That it enables us to have a clean heart or whatever that enables us to do good works. And that we have to do those good works.

At this point obviously I'll just point out that the means by which the forgiveness of the shed blood of Christ through the Mass is obtained. The concept of the Mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice should be what's being brought up here.

But he himself said, and it's not really my area so you can't expect an overly full response to that point.

But they don't believe that the works are done without God's assistance. In other words they do believe the blood of Christ plays a part certainly. But they also believe that works play a part in their justification.

Which I don't agree that works play a part in justification. I believe works do play a part in our Christian life. But I don't believe they play a part in our justification. And I think that Catholics believe that the blood of Christ and good works play that role.

Which of course those of us who are Protestants we feel like that's not an adequate way of stating it.

I'm not really catching the fact that Rome here confounds or confuses justification and sanctification saying that they're the same thing.

But they would even say that the good works that save are works that are cleansed by the blood of Christ. And that are enabled by the power of God in us. So that in a sense they're still giving the glory to God.

Though they have a different way of seeing the relationship of works and faith to that.

I have to admit I'll drop the Roman Catholic part because this is way too big a box to keep talking about both of them. On the Calvinist side of the issue it just seems to me that it's an awful fine tight rope for that theology to walk.

To indicate that the blood is only applied to those that were pre-elected. And because at some point in their theology my understanding of it is that people can go their whole life. Be 80 years old and they haven't realized yet that they're one of the elected and can possibly even die.

And then they find out.

Where do people get this? Where do they get this? I mean you don't get this from reading the books written by anyone presenting this. Someone in the channel suggested they get it from PalTalk. Now that would be a...

Please whatever you do never ever ever think that something you hear in PalTalk actually has any correspondence to reality. Until you actually check that out. But the whole idea I mean the entire thrust of Reformed theology.

It's God's purpose to conform the elect to the image of Christ to his own glory. So here he's going. I think Calvinists believe that you can never be conformed to the image of Christ your whole life. As if that's what God would do.

It's absolutely amazing.

They were one of the elected. And to me it's kind of an escape route that you could live your whole life. And now once again I'm sure you'll give me your thoughts on whether that's a very accurate depiction of what I'm saying.

Yes thankfully. Of what they believe. But they can go their whole life and they would never know Christ. Never know the cleansing of his blood. Never enter into a personal relationship with him and know the joy of serving God.

And sharing that joy with other people. Because somewhere along the way they just never realized they were one of the elect.

Wow. Let me just say the Calvinists that I'm acquainted with and that I've talked to would not believe what you're suggesting they believe. They might say that an infant who dies and is elect will be saved without ever having had the opportunity to hear and understand the gospel.

They would still believe he was cleansed by the blood of Christ. Although he never heard of Christ. It would still not be a salvation without the blood of Christ. Because the blood of Christ has been shed.

As they would say for the elect. And therefore even the infant who would die and was elect and was saved was still saved by the blood of Christ that was shed for him. But I don't know of any Calvinist that would say a man could live his life in ignorance of God and die in ignorance of Christ and still be one of the elect.

Because one of the doctrines of Calvinism besides election is the doctrine of irresistible grace. And another is the perseverance of the saints. And the irresistible grace doctrine would teach that if you are one of the elect then God will irresistibly draw you to himself.

Which simply means he will guarantee that you will become a believer. And your becoming a believer is what shows that you are elect. And if you did not become a believer in your life then that would be one of the proofs that you were not elect.

And then of course they also believe in the perseverance of the saints where if you're one of the elect you'll not only be drawn to God but you'll never fall away. So the Calvinists that I've known and I've of course debated several and have many conversations with others.

They would not necessarily say that a person could be elect and live and die in ignorance of Christ. Unless they were babies perhaps.

There you go. Okay well thank you for your comments today Steve. Sure.

And then it went to what I played last program. You know the sad thing is that is the kind of completely erroneous view that many people think we're actually promoting. And if they heard that. The problem is if this man heard this from someone he trusts.

He heard it from the pulpit. He heard it from someone who calls themselves a pastor or something. They're going to trust that. And when they hear like what I'm saying. I mean this man says he's read books and listened to my debates.

How can someone listen to what I'm saying read what I'm saying and actually come to those conclusions. How if they have that as their filter. Then they're going to hear me saying that whether I actually say it or not or say anything even close to that or not. Is a completely different issue.

But utterly utterly and completely beyond my possible comprehension to begin to understand. How amazing. Absolutely amazing. Well like I said I was thankful that Steve Gregg responded pretty well in saying no.

Now see I would have been the blunt guy. I would have said dude you have no idea what you're talking about. He's going well you know most of the Calvinists I've talked to have a different view. No all the Calvinists that you would talk to would go.

What are you talking about that particular situation. And that's why I I'm the big meanie and other people are very nice. But I appreciate Steve Gregg's doing that. But obviously that doesn't follow that Steve Gregg has always you know accurately represented the reform position.

And we did a number of Radio Free Geneva's a few months ago documenting those things. I don't know how many we did in that one week. But I in fact as I recall I recorded a number of them that we that we just posted and played and stuff like that.

So there's quite a number of them. Anyway one of the things that I said I would do during the course of that. And we got sidetracked by travel and everything else. You come back and you know Frank Beckwith has become Roman Catholicism like that.

You end up sort of skipping out on things and not purposefully but just simply the way it is. We were going to discuss Romans Chapter 9. We never got around to that. As I mentioned just his comments on that.

I've got one section that's 10 minutes long one section that's four minutes long. It's got about 15 minutes worth of his commentary on that. However obviously I don't it would not be wise for me to start with his comments and I'm left just simply responding.

I want to first of all present an exegesis of the text and then listen to what he has to say. So that you can compare those two for yourself and see for yourself who is handling the text more accurately more thoroughly more consistently.

Just before I went on the air I got an email from George Bryson. And you know for quite some time we've been going back and forth. You know I had said on when I had posted a portion the John 6 portion on YouTube of us going back and forth.

I said here's why George Bryson doesn't want to debate. Well he's very upset about that. What do you mean I don't want to debate. And as I said his big problem has been this issue of cross-examination.

He feels that was handled all wrong and so on and so forth. Well you know I point out Proverbs 18. The first one to state his case sounds right until another comes and cross-examines him. That's the exact terminology used in the New English translation at that point.

So you know I say if there's no cross-examination it ain't a debate. And so you know he still wants to try to put something together. But my insistence has been well that's fine. But cross-examination will always be a part of it.

And it's not going to just be one of these. Well you have 30 seconds to ask a question and I have two minutes to respond. And what that means is you have 30 seconds to ask a question. I have two minutes to talk about something completely other than your question.

And then you've got one minute to point out that I just talked about something completely different than your question. And then I get 30 seconds to talk about something else. That's how that always ends up working out.

And that doesn't do the audience any good and therefore really doesn't do anybody any good. And so we need to address those things. But Romans chapter 9 is truly one of the key texts in regards to this issue.

It's recognized by Steve Gregg as it is one of the key texts of the entire debate. And obviously there is one primary methodology utilized by non-reformed individuals to explain Romans chapter 9. And that is that Romans chapter 9 has nothing to do with individual salvation.

It's only about nations. It is about national privilege and national calling. That is the viewpoint of classical Arminianism and of those who in essence argue against reformed theology. I would like to go through Romans chapter 9 with you in the time that we have left together today.

And then as we have opportunity in the next program, we will listen to Mr. Gregg's understanding. You can compare the two. I'll of course respond to his understanding as well in the next program. But let's look at Romans chapter 9 and let's start off with the context and specifically beginning in verse 1.

Paul says, I'm telling the truth in Christ. I remember back up. Hold on a second. Apologize. Romans chapter 9, again, chapter and verse division is not a part of the original text of scripture. And so what have we just had?

We've just had the golden chain of redemption, Romans chapter 8. And in fact it might be well to go back and to remind ourselves of what has come before. 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 whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed. The image of his sons, that he would be the firstborn among many brethren.

I just stopped long enough to challenge in the minds of anyone who thinks this term foreknew as a verb is the same thing as the noun. To simply have foreknowledge that you are wrong. And that you need to look at the text of scripture and realize this is an active verb.

This is something God is doing. And every time God is a subject and this is the verb in the New Testament, the object is personal. It's never actions. To simply say God knew who was going to believe, there is no example of that statement in the New Testament.

It's not there. It's not an untrue statement, but it doesn't answer anything. And it doesn't tell us what it means for God to foreknow someone. It says God foreknew Christ. Does that mean just God had knowledge of what Christ would do?

No, this is an active verb. It's something that God does. So for those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed. 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. Here's the golden chain. God's the one doing every single verb. Foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified.

God does each one. It is the exact same audience in each one. Those whom he foreknew, he does all the other things that result in their glorification. It is a certainty. And it is all to God's glory. Now we know, for example, that one of those things is justification.

And we know that the Bible says we're justified by grace. We're justified by the blood of Christ. And we're justified by faith. So obviously, the means by which these things then come into play, they come into our experience, are included in God's sovereign capacity and power to do these things.

And so having said this, then verse 31, what then shall we say to these things if God is for us, who is against us? Notice those terms that are used there, us. Follow the pronouns. Follow the pronouns.

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? If the us here is all humanity, you're going to be forced into a position of absolute universalism here.

You will not be able to affirm the existence of those who are saved and those who will be lost. Who is the us in Romans chapter 8 verse 33? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God's elect. God is the one who justifies.

Justifies who? Justifies the elect. Who is it that's justified in the golden chain? Foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified. Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus, he who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also does what?

Intercedes for us. The work of atonement and intercession, they're both the singular work of the high priest, those for whom Christ dies, he also intercedes for them. And so I ask all of those who are just absolutely wedded to this idea that Jesus' death must be for every single individual, does that then mean that Jesus stands before the throne of the Father interceding on the behalf of every individual who will be in hell for eternity?

And if that is the case, does that mean that his intercession is fruitless? That can't be the case because Hebrews 7 says that it's his intercession that makes him able to save the uttermost. So is there a disagreement in the Godhead to where the son wants to save someone and the father does not?

Certainly not. So this is a singular work of God. It is a perfect work of God. He intercedes for us. It's the same us all the way through. This is God's elect. Who will then separate us from the love of Christ?

If you're going to make this us someone other than the elect of God, then you have the specter of God loving the non-elect throughout eternity, savingly. He wants to save them, but he is going to be eternally frustrated.

The eternally frustrated God. The eternally unhappy God. Is that truly what we see being presented in the Scriptures? I don't believe that it is. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Just as it is written, For your sake we are being put to death all day long. We are considered as sheep to be slaughtered. But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through him who loved us. And that obviously is a redemptive love that is being referred to there.

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 will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Jesus Christ our Lord.

So there is the context. Here is the Cathedral of Christian Revelation in Romans chapter 8. And as soon as he says this, it becomes very, very clear that the Apostle Paul knows that as soon as he makes these overarching statements of God's victory in Christ, and the elect in Christ, and the perfection of the salvation, that immediately one of the first objections that's going to be raised is,.

But Paul, don't you realize that if what you're saying is true, and we look around us and we see the vast majority of the Jewish people reject your message, they reject Jesus as Messiah, does that not mean that God's word has failed?

And so in Romans chapter 9 we begin,. 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 of 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 prefer the NIV or New King James at that point, who is God overall blessed forever. I think it's a reference to the deity of Christ, but we're not going to spend our time on that. Today, he here enumerates the great benefits that have been given to the Jewish people.

And he says that he could wish himself to be accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh. And people immediately go, well obviously Paul could not have believed that God is sovereign over all things, and that God has a plan.

If he could then say these words, well that only shows that you're assuming something that's incorrect. And that is, since we don't know the identity of the elect, we are not called to function on the basis of that knowledge, that it is our desire to see people bow the knee before Christ.

And we can have just as strong a fervor for the proclamation of the gospel, and the calling of people to bow the knee to Christ, as anyone who thinks that it's just up to man. There is no reason, there is no logical or rational reason to say, that to believe what Paul is going to say in the rest of Romans 9, or what he just got done saying in Romans 8, destroys your evangelistic fervor.

It can be abused in that way, but it does not of necessity follow that it must be that way. So, he says all these things about the Jews, and here then comes the key, and I would challenge anyone who wants to try to turn Romans chapter 9, into something that's just about nations, and national privilege, and things like that.

You must answer a simple question. You must answer what the relationship between the later text, that you are going to limit to nothing but nations, with no personal application. You must explain why this entire section begins with verse 6, and the issue that it raises.

What does verse 6 say? For it is not as though the word of God has failed. Remember? He raises these objections. Paul was an apologist at heart. He recognized the need for the defense of the faith. He even said that he was set for the defense of the faith.

And he knows what people are going to say to his preaching, and they're going to say, Paul, if what you're saying is true, then the word of God has failed. Because the majority of your fellow Jews don't believe this message.

The Messiah has come, and they don't accept him. And so he says,. But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel. Now there is the key. I suggest to you that all of the attempts, and there are so many, and they take so many varied forms, to make the rest of Romans 9, to separate as far as possible from anything to do with personal salvation, cannot show a consistency between this statement and the rest of the chapter.

Because think about it. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel. The only way to understand that is of individuals. It can't be of nations. It's not saying they are not all nations of Israel who are descended from the one nation of Israel.

It doesn't make any sense. It is very clear that he's addressing individuals who are descended from Israel. And he's going to talk about Isaac. He's going to talk about Esau, Jacob. These are individuals.

And he's answering the question, Look, when you talk about the promises to Israel, you need to recognize that from the very beginning, God has been free in the matter of those to whom he gives his promises.

And he's going to take the Old Testament scriptures, and he's going to use them to demonstrate, Look, I am not out of harmony with those scriptures. What I am preaching is in harmony, because this freedom that God shows, now being shown in taking the gospel to the Gentiles, and those who are predestined to eternal life believe.

He is gathering a people, making them all one in Christ Jesus. This freedom that I say God has to save Jews and Gentiles in Christ Jesus is a freedom he has claimed from the beginning, and which is illustrated over and over and over again in your own scriptures.

And so you don't have the foundation to object to me, this is Paul speaking, on the basis of the promises given to Israel, for you need to recognize that 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.

God had the freedom to define to whom the promises would be given, and it's not just a genetic relationship. And the only way to understand any of these things is to recognize that we are talking about the promises relevant to salvation, not just something about national privilege and national service and issues along these lines.

And if you say that, if you go to, we'll see it's nations in her womb and things like this, and he quotes from something that was about nations in Malachi 4. There is a simple principle of exegesis. You start at the beginning and go to the end.

If you have to jump down the context someplace, create your foundation and then read it back, and it ends up making mincemeat, mashed potatoes out of what comes before, so there's no consistency, there's no flow, then we've run into another indicator of one of your traditions.

Yes, when you have to use a completely different methodology of exegesis, that means we've run into one of your traditions, and you are not actually subjecting yourself to the Word of God at that point.

So, we continue on with verse 8. That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. That's God's freedom. Could God have done it differently?

I suppose so, but that's not the point. His point is, we've always recognized this to be the case, that it's not just the children of the flesh who are the children of God. Yes, there are all sorts of Jews who reject what I'm proclaiming in Christ, but that doesn't mean that the promises were for them.

The promises have always been for that elect remnant anyway. And you want examples of this? Well, let me give you some examples of this, and he gives a number of examples for us in the next few verses.

For this is the word of promise. At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. This is in regards to Isaac, of course, and not only this, but there was Rebecca also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac.

Now listen carefully here. Listen to what's said. For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad. Now, see, the people are going to say, and Mr. Craig is going to say, these are nations.

And yes, both were fathers of nations. That does come later. But that's not the point the apostle makes. And if your application makes the apostle's application senseless and useless, then you are not adequately handling the text.

Notice what it says. For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad. Who had not done anything good or bad? The twins. As nations? No. As individuals. His point is he is going to take away any ground of boasting on the part of man.

And what is the time frame to which he's referring here? To the period of the pregnancy of two historical individuals. 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 of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, the older will serve the younger.

So the point that he's making here, and he's belaboring the point. You notice how he's belaboring it? He says, they had not done anything good or bad, so that it was not because of works. So you've got twice.

They hadn't done anything good or bad, not because of works, not because of actions, not because of what they did. But on the other hand, God's purpose according to His choice would stand, because of Him who calls.

So he repeats himself in essence. He almost stutters, to make sure that we understand the contrast he's drawing here. It's a contrast we're going to see later. The contrast is between what men do, what men accomplish, over against God's free purpose, to do as He chooses with His creation.

Now if you find the very same concepts being repeated, 5, 8, 10, 12 verses down the road, that probably means this whole section hangs together as one. If you don't see that, then you might want to ask yourself the question, why does my interpretation have multiple parts of Romans 9 that have nothing to do with each other?

If your interpretation cannot give us a consistent interpretation here, I would suggest it's because it's wrong. It's not allowing the Apostle to speak. So you have these two contrasts. What man does, what God does.