Matt Slick Bible Study - Romans 9

Just say just give me the finger. Hey, we're good. We're on we're live right now right now. Okay, I guess so all right, let me jump in we'll pray we'll get into Romans 9 and Cause a little bit of controversy here.

I know the people are not gonna like what I'm gonna say about it But that's because I'm gonna read what it actually says and teach what it actually says and then people are gonna get mad at what God Actually says that's what happens.

Usually, you know being right all the time like this is reading the scriptures really upsets people Yeah, let's see how many people throw something at me. All right, let's pray Lord Jesus thank you again for the time and the opportunity to be able to Go through your word and to teach your word and I ask Lord that by your great grace You would open our hearts and our minds to teach us to reveal to us your greatness your sovereignty of who you are and What you've accomplished in your word and through the Sun Lord teach us we ask this we ask for your guidance And we ask that you bring people to watch Who needs to watch and who people here need to be here.

We ask this Jesus your precious name. Amen. All right. All right. All right, so Getting into Romans 9 you guys see me. Okay on the cameras the full width and everything's good. All right, so I'm gonna do is Is do this now why am I doing this that's before gone through Romans 9 and I know that people are gonna be Maybe a little bit Disenchanted with the reform perspective and that's maybe why a lot of people won't be interested in this.

But I'm gonna throw something out into this also and tackle a little bit of Mullen ism Along with it. I think It might be interesting. I know that Mullen ists are taking issues with some of the things I'm saying good.

And the more I know about it the more I'm convinced that it's a problem and I'm gonna work on some stuff later on that. But nevertheless, we'll get into some some of the issues now so if you want to turn in your Bibles with me, you can turn to Romans chapter 9 and What I'll do is I will Start at verse 9.

Let's get right to the controversial part that area of Scripture where a lot of people just Well rebel. In fact when I first read this I too had problems with what it actually said. But when it says what it says if you're a true Christian and you read God's Word what you're going to try and do is Submit your heart your mind to the Word of God.

You're gonna try and say well, this is what it says Best of my ability. This is what it says and to the most of my best of my ability I'm gonna submit to what it says that's hard to do in a lot of areas.

I know that some people might be saying well Matt you're Calvinist. You don't do that. You don't submit the Word of God to what you or what you believe the Word of God you do the other way around and that's just a common Accusation made by both sides actually.

The real issue is what is the Word of God say? I've written on this on the Calvinist corner comm and I think I've had one or two Responses that I've written to as well people who tried to get in to say that this is not about individuals.

It's about nations Etc. Now I'm going to say before the onset that Romans 9 has a test in it and we'll see if you pass the test. And the test will determine if you're understanding the text better or properly and if you take the test.

Well, what's so funny? You got some people commenting already? They're commenting. They're negative. What's that? The Arminians least favorite chapter in fact, you know in the Arminian section of the Bibles and the in the bookstores Romans 9 just isn't in there and along with Ephesians 1 is kind of in a grayed out area.

And there's some other stuff that had little problems with usually hold the gravity things. But you know, they're Bibles a lot lighter, I guess. I don't know. It's easier to carry. Doesn't weigh upon them as much and you know, I said I think some of them come with ear ticklers.

Right on the edge and you can just you know okay, I know I'm making a lot of enemies here, but We're just having fun. All right. So let's just jump right in Romans 9 verse 9. It says this. For this is the word of promise at this time.

I will come and Sarah Shall have a son and not only this but there was Rebecca also when she had conceived twins by one man our father Isaac all right, so. In verse 10 here says that Rebecca's having you know, it talks about having children Jacob and Esau historically speaking Esau was the firstborn and Jacob.

But their birthright was swapped switched etc. And So it says here in verse 11. 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 shall serve the younger just as it is written Jacob. I hate it now. Let's stop here for a little bit and kind of go through this check it out for what it says for the twins.

We're not yet born now. I want you to think about something because I know that a lot of different perspectives are out there a lot of different people will have different ideas of what it means for God to elect to predestine to call to make choices about who He's going to one vessel for honorable use one for dishonorable use and that the reasons that he will do this is varied.

People have offered different explanations particularly in this issue in this section of Scripture. So what I want to do is talk about the issue here of the twins were not yet born now. Not yet born had not done anything good or bad.

Now, of course not yet born and had not done anything good or bad. So we've got to think about this what's going on here. They hadn't been born and there's nothing good or bad about them that they had done.

Has nothing to do with that now. To the to those who believe that God looks into the future. No. It's a future exhaustively knows the counterfactuals to say that he knows what they would have done in different circumstances and all this kind of stuff.

Does this support that? But the twins were not yet born 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. Let me expand on this a little bit.

To make my point. Well, the twins were not yet born and no Counterfactual knowledge about them was known because nothing about them had been decreed and had not done anything good or back bad. Because there wasn't any good or bad sense at all.

Just nothing. So it's not about what he would know that they would do and nothing and they of course had been born yet. But it's the whole context of not being born is what the context is. So future context here is included in there.

So So that God's purpose according to his choice would stand not because of works not because of anything they would do. Now works decisions words anything choices not because of that but because of him who calls.

I think this is a strong verse against the idea that God looks into the future in any way capacity and decides to act or Make decisions based upon what people would do in a foreseen circumstance whether libertarian free will Calvinistic total depravity Compatibilist free will whatever you want to call it Pelagianism semi Pelagianism Counterfactuals free knowledge, whatever you want to call it.

Not because of works not because of anything foreseen not because of anything. They hadn't even born yet. Is it not because of works the works have to relate to things that they would have done in other words God saying there's nothing nothing, so I'm gonna bring something up here.

I want to talk about. Because I don't know if I'm gonna be I do not know if I'll be able to articulate this as well as I would like to articulate this because I think there's some issues here that are important and.

So I'm gonna just try and say it see if it comes out right. I've been doing a lot of research on Mullin ism and The issue of God decreeing based upon foreseen events of Choices that people are going to make under different circumstances, which presupposes a libertarian free will prevenient grace.

So There's a problem here. I just got to get this out. It's not because of him who works not because of what is seen not because what is foreseen. Here's a question. I Was reading my notes about this earlier and the light went on.

Is it possible that in anybody's perspective? Where God will know what people will do under different circumstances and then decides to act or choose. What will occur based on the circumstances? Is that circumventing the cross?

That's a question. Is it circumventing the cross? Because no act that anybody can do can be considered good Without it being filtered through the blood of Christ. Now that's an important point. So does God look into the future so to speak with that term?

I say that very loosely look into the future. Molinus don't like a term not gonna define it what it means now not that he's looking down a quarter of time and seeing ramifications. Because they say all knowledge is instantaneous, but our minions give me the same argument.

If God is looking into various times in the future when he's going to see under different situations. What people will do under different things? Then is he doing that through the blood of the cross that was then future or is he not or is he what the question?

I'm asking is what is God seeing? Is he seeing potential decisions of people? That might become Christian or will become Christian or won't become Christian and it's in his knowledge. But he's not filtering their decisions through the blood of Christ and they're not sanctified through the work of Christ.

It's just a question don't if I'm asking it, right? But it's around this issue that I want to spend some time doing some research and some some thinking about and writing some statements out. I know that a lot of people are going to say and I know I can think of potential responses to them.

To the to the comments, which I wouldn't mind to hear and I have my reasons for that. But nevertheless They will need to assert that God sees what they will do in Christ. But if he's gonna assert. If God's gonna choose somebody to do something not based what they're gonna do in Christ.

Then why would he choose to do that? If Libertarian free will is the issue about why moral responsibility is true. It doesn't make any sense. And I can get in some more details I'm not gonna get in that right now because I want to have a discussion on it with some other people later.

Nevertheless it was said to her the older will serve the younger just as it is written Jacob. I love but Esau I hated what's going on here in the text is God is making his choice not based upon any foreseen acts wills choices decisions of man.

And he is simply making the choice on his own. It does not depend upon the man who wills or the man who runs. That's what the Bible says later on here in this chapter. The older will serve the younger just as it is written Jacob.

I love but Esau hated. So what a lot of people will say is no the reason that God loved one and hated another because he saw what they would Do but the Bible specifically says in verse 11 not because of works not because of what they would do.

But because of him who calls it was said this is an exact issue of the sovereignty of God. Now, here's a test. Let's see if you pass this test for the text. If you don't raise up an objection at this point, you don't understand what's going on.

If you are understanding Jacob and Esau just to be nations and so he raised up one nation another nation and that they have these problems in these nations and Individuals are the ones who retain their perfectly free will and they're the ones who make choices.

Then there's no reason to complain because it's all up to their free will choices anyway. But if that's not the case and it is individuals that God is ordaining for whatever purpose he desires. Then you raise the objection you go.

It's not fair because Moralistically speaking what most people will say is that in order for someone to be morally responsible for something they have to be able to choose between a or not a Able to choose X or not choose X and be free to be able to do that.

We have problems with that kind of definition anyway. But if not able to do that Then how is it that they can be responsible because God didn't ordain it. They That they have the ability to choose. That's the common objection raised against this text and I want to say to them so stinking what if you don't like that.

Where's it say in the Bible that your reasoning has to be the right standard by which God himself is judged. We'll get into the text a little bit more about that and I'll talk about moral responsibility and God's for donation a little bit.

But notice what goes on here in verse 14. What shall we say then there is no injustice with God is there may it never be now? Why would Paul ask that question. He's asking the question because he's anticipating the objection to what he's teaching if he's teaching that.

It's just nations who are being spoken of Jacob as a nation Esau as a nation and individuals within those nations make their own free will choices. There's no need at all to say. Well, that's not fair.

He has a right to do with what he wants with nations, right? Raise them up, but people in those nations do different things. But you would object people most people do when they say no, I don't want to serve a God like that.

I don't want to serve a God who will pick one Jacob. I love and he so I hate it. Not because of anything that they would do. People Christians I've had Christians say they don't want to serve a God like that.

They don't want to serve the God of Scripture that's what it comes down to and They're mamby-pamby teaching that they're getting in churches and they're getting the breastfeed me kind of thing. It's just bad.

That's what they're getting. It's weak and then they're not sticking with the Word of God and what it says. So verse 15 for he says to Moses I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I'll have compassion on whom I have Compassion the word home there in the Greek is in the singular.

Now that could be plural or singular in the Greek. I Have compassion on all those I want to have compassion or you can say it's like saying I can have compassion on individual. I want to have compassion and that's what's going on here on whom on the singular individual the single.

That's a singular form on whom I will have compassion. Nothing in the text suggests that God's mercy upon any individual is based upon anything in any foreseen context. Nothing in any way says anything is foreseen By God to know what they might do in different situations and that's why he chooses.

This works very much against that idea. Now if anyone wants to say that he doesn't like what that says well good. Then you're understanding what Paul's teaching because he raises the objections. And Paul says in verse 16.

So then it does not depend upon the man who wills or the man who runs but upon God who has mercy. Notice the man. Now we know this includes individual women as well. It does not depend upon the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy.

Is it really just individual groups? I'm assuming groups of people or individuals themselves. The man who runs the man. That a group of people or that one individual the man. Doesn't say the man doesn't say the people doesn't say the group doesn't say the nation.

It says it does not depend upon the man who wills or the man who runs but upon God who has mercy. What does not depend on the man's will? What is it that doesn't depend on him on his will? Look for what previously con in the context.

God's mercy upon whom he'll have mercy. And his compassion on whom he'll have compassion that does not depend on anything in the individual. It's completely God's sovereign and free grace that's what's being said as Difficult as that might be to understand it means he didn't know you anything.

He doesn't owe you anything and he chose you because of what's in him not because of what's in you. He didn't look on the corridor of time whatever that might mean and see what potential you could have if you were in your wisdom choose God and.

Then he based his decisions on you. No, he says it does not depend upon the man who wills or the man who runs but upon God who has mercy. This is what Paul the Apostles teaching a lot of people want to.

Objective said I refuse to believe that then refuse to believe it. Demonstrate your total depravity to be true and so doing rejecting the Word of God. But that's what it says here. So verse 16 does not depend upon the man who wills or the man who runs but upon God who has mercy.

It's God's sovereign choice to bless or not to bless who to love and not to love. It does not Depend in any way on the person. That's hard. Which means he cannot base his decisions on what you might do under different situations.

Counterfactuals. Verse 17 for the scripture says the Pharaoh for this very purpose I raised you up to demonstrate my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So God raised him up for that purpose.

To display his power through him. Verse 18, so then he has mercy on whom? Singular in the Greek he desires and he hardens whom? Singular in the Greek whom he desires you'll say to me then. Why does he still finds fault for who?

Singular again resist as well. Hey, wait a minute. Verse 18. He has mercy on whom he desires. He hardens whom he desires. Then you people gonna say well, then why does God find fault with them because they had no choice.

And the answer that God gives is on the contrary. Who are you a man who enters back to God? The thing molded won't say to the molder. Why does it make me like this? So what's God's answer? Shut up and sit down.

Now this is an important point here because what a lot of people try and do at this point is solve a problem. What they see is a problem of God's for a nation man's free will his decrees man's decisions.

Responsibility moral this and moral that and they try and get in they. They use a lot of philosophy a lot of ideas a lot of Reasonings to try and and answer this when God just says basically shut up and sit down.

Who are you? Who are you to say back? This isn't right because what people do is they'll say it isn't right. So what I'm going to do is show you how to make it, right? That's what they're essentially doing.

I've encountered this so many times over the years in Romans 9. I Don't like what it says. I'm going to show you how a different way to understand it will be. When you do that, it's nations. For example, then the objection falls away.

Then the complaints fall away the very complaints that Paul the Apostle is raising. Here's the test if you don't ask the same basic questions and raise the same basic objections in the text. When he does then you don't understand the text and if you don't understand the text You need to study it until you get to the point where you're scratching your head and go.

Well, that's that doesn't seem to be quite right as quite it seemed to be fair what he's actually saying here. That's when you know. You've got it. And if you've got it You got to believe it and don't try and rationalize it away to make it feel better for you.

Because you want God to be the blonde here blue-eyed Caucasian surfer, dude Nightgown standing at the door of your heart waiting for the unbeliever and the wisdom of his sin to try and pick him. God says on the contrary.

Who are you? Oh man singular Answers back to God the thing singular molded will not say to the molder. Why did you make me like this? Will it? Or does not the Potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use.

Now this is really interesting. Doesn't God have the right to do that people will say to me. It's just hypothetical. It doesn't mean he's doing it. He just has the right to do it. He's not really doing it.

That's what they say. Doesn't really do that. It's just hypothetical. And that's what I usually say something like well, I don't know and I can see what you're saying. It's just hypothetical. But you know, I do believe that the God makes Even the wicked for the day of destruction.

I think that they all know he doesn't and I just quoted Proverbs 16 for to them God does do this. As much as I don't like it. It's what this text says. I learned years ago to Submit to what the Word of God says when I was at Concordia University a Lutheran College LCMS College back in the late 80s and Rod Rosenblatt a well-known professor in that that That camp the Lutheran camp Taught me a lot of theology.

He recommended I go to a Presbyterian seminary but He was a good man a good good teacher and we were in class when he told me told the class In a theology class that God predestined people. He elected them.

I stood up and I said no he didn't. It's up to our free choice up to our ability to do this. I did I just challenged him right there in class. He's very gracious and He said well Matt. I'll tell you what.

Why don't you go read and he gave me some chapters To read just go on your own. Just go read and then let's talk later. That's how he responded to me. I said, okay, that's fair. I sat down and wrote down the chapters.

You want me to go read two weeks later? I stood up in class again. I said two weeks ago. I But But I need to take that back now and apologize. You were right. That's what the scripture says. It says you're right.

It took me a couple of days to finally get to the point of accepting it. But that's what it says. He said All right. Then he just kept teaching about something else. I Believe what if you make a mistake in public take care of it in public.

Okay, and In order for me to get to that point where I was accepting what the doctrines of predestination election really were I had to Re-evaluate my own heart my own understanding before God. I Had to sit there and say what am I going to submit to what?

My feelings to the Word of God or the Word of God to my feelings. That's what it came down to for me and I knew right away. I only had one choice. God's Word is supreme. My heart is not if I don't like it that problems on me.

That's what it said. I owned it and then I apologized to him in class and In order to do that, I had to you know, eat my words and I did no problem. But it taught me a lesson back then. What does the word say?

What does it say? Not what I what do I want it to say? What does it say? That's the issue. What does the word here say? Verse 18, so he has mercy on whom on the individual he desires and he hardens whom the individual He desires you will say to me then.

Well, why does he still find fault? He hardens them and then he judges them for being hardened. That's not fair. They raise the objection and that's what it is right here. So then why do you still find fault who resists his will?

And the answer on the contrary who are you oh man who enters back to God and that's the problem. That's occurring in the Christian Church today, particularly in this kind of a topic. They're answering back to God and saying that I taught about this last week.

I don't want to serve a God like that. They're answering back to God the thing molded is saying to the molder. Why did you make me like this? You don't have the right to do as you want with your creation.

I'm gonna tell you what has to be and I won't serve a God that would predestine. I won't serve a God that would elect. I don't serve a God that would choose. It's up to me in my wisdom. That's what's going on and Romans 9 flatly stands in the face of that kind of arrogance that kind of pride.

That's how it is. Now people don't like it. But oh, well, I don't like it, but that's what it says. I don't enjoy going through this as saying see I Know what this says. I'm not fond of what it says, but so what it's what it says now Verse 21 or does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use another for common use the word vessel here.

It's used in different ways. It's the word a Greek word skelos. It's used in different senses. It can mean Household instruments and things like that but also is. What's it in reference to people? It's always of individuals x915.

Go for he is a chosen instrument a chosen vessel skelos again of mine. This is in reference to Paul the Apostle. That he is a chosen instrument a chosen vessel of mine. To bear my name before the Gentiles and the kings of Israel.

First Thessalonians 4 for that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor talking about. Your own body or your own wife depending on interpretation there of first Thessalonians 4 for.

Again in speaking individuals in first Peter 3 7 you husbands likewise live. Likewise live with your wives in an understanding way is with a weaker vessel since she's a woman. How about Romans 16 13 greet Rufus a chosen man Eclectus in them in the Lord Chosen also his mother and mine.

2nd John 2 1 and 13 the elder to the chosen lady. And her children whom I love and not only I but also those who know the truth. And the children of a chosen sister. So we see here. That God uses the term chosen or skimming the word vessel of individuals.

That's how he uses the term when speaking of people of individuals. If I remember my research I don't ever recall any place where the word vessel is in the plural sense in regard to people. So we look at how God uses the term.

Does not 921. Does not the Potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common-use. One vessel one person one individual. For common use and another for honorable use or reversed in there.

Or does not the Potter God have the right over the clay us to make them from the same lump. One vessel one individual for honorable use and another for common use. Does God have the right to do that? Yes, he does.

And if anybody says no He doesn't because it up to our free will to choose and you're a heretic. Because the scriptures clearly says as a God says. And if you disagree with that you're going against a clearly taught revealed Word of God.

Verse 22 what if God although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. And He did so to make known The riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory now.

Number 22, what if God although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known endured with much patience vessels. Okay vessels of wrath prepare for destruction. These are individual people.

Individuals prepare for destruction. There's a word vessels in a plural sense used of individuals. So he is saying here that he has the right to make vessels of wrath. Individuals for the purpose of destruction.

Proverbs 16 for God makes all things even the wicked for the day of evil for the day of destruction. Now I know that if people are resisting this it's my natural tendency to resist it because it's not fair.

It's not fair. It's not fair that God would predestine people to damnation. They say it's not fair. Well, what is fair? What's fair is that they have the free will choice to be able to make their own decision.

But that presupposes libertarian free will that somehow something called prevenient grace re-enabled somebody. Somehow to be able to choose God inside of their own sinfulness in order to believe in God.

And that's the answer that makes people feel better about this text and other texts like this. Because then it's back up to man's responsibility we'll get into Ford nation man's responsibility here a little bit more detail.

The general consensus is as I've been going through this chapter for years. Teaching it for years different ways for years different objections. It always comes down to basically no, it's not individuals.

It's nations and God would never do this kind of a thing to individuals. They have to build and make their own choice. That's nice humanistic philosophy. It's humanism. Humanistic philosophy is what it is.

People say well Matt, you know what you're. You're going way too far. No. What it says so this is what a creature should do. A Creature should should say your will be done. Not my will be done. Jesus said your will be done.

Not my will be done in Luke 22 42 God has for ordination. We have responsibility. We have the ability to make decisions. We have wills. Now, let me run some stuff by you. Would you agree with me on this point?

Nothing in the future occurs by chance. Because God works all things in accordance with his will. Ephesians 111 nothing in Actuality nothing in the world can occur by chance. All things work after the counsel of will of God's will.

There are no accidents in God's kingdom in God's knowledge. There's no chance Where God has to wait to see what's going to happen? That's not how it works if there were such things as chance and randomness.

Then that would mean the Christian God is not the true God. It also mean we couldn't trust God. Because if there's randomness in the universe, how can we trust God to be supreme over all of it? Now the open theists have some interesting ways of trying to deal with that.

We're going to do that now. But what I see unfortunately in my My letter my later years here is a rise of humanism in the Christian Church. Humanism is man-centeredness the ability the desire the want for man to be the one who's in control in charge at least in certain areas of his own realm and That he does not bow the knee or the heart or his own will to that of God.

That's the way of the secular realm and it's creeping into the church and it has been ever since Genesis 3. Human free will even at its greatest level Cannot be by chance. Nor can it be by complete self-determination if it's by complete self-determination.

Then how could God know what they're going to do? How could God know their choices? Because if he knows what they're going to choose as one argument goes. Then they're not free to make a counter choice if God is the one who knows what they're going to choose.

So they're not free at that time to make a counter choice, so therefore they're not free. So in order for them to be free. The implication is they have to be able to make a choice. That's not foreknown by God.

Otherwise, they won't be able to counter choose when the event foreknown occurs. It's one of the criticisms. Of course, it's unbiblical. But that's one of the logic issues that some people like to raise and I'll show you that for denation and Human free will are compatible.

That's compatible as free will I Show you we know that God knows all things first. John 3 20. Now why does God know what will occur. Is it because he's a good guesser. Is it because that the future is a film strip and what he can do is walk down the path?

Oh, that's just gonna happen here. Not like that at all. It does he is he just a brilliant extrapolator. To extrapolate means to take things and draw conclusions and work them out into the future. Does he extrapolate?

No. The reason he knows things will happen for sure is because he's ordained that they will happen. Nothing can occur without God's will. Whether decretive prescriptive permissive, whatever it is God's will if it doesn't occur because God did not will that it occur even the death of my son 23 years ago hollow prosencephaly a birth defect.

He died in my arms literally. This happened by the will of God. Now when I say that a lot of people don't listen. And they'll say Oh God purposely will that that happen. I didn't say that. Different kinds of wills within God's realm and I like to appeal to in theology.

The decretive will where he absolutely desires and causes something to occur. That should be like there's light. The prescriptive will God prescribes certain moral conditions. Don't lie. Don't steal. That's a prescriptive will then there's a permissive will where he permits people to go against his prescriptive will.

But it's his will to allow them to go to his against his prescriptive will. So it's his will to allow me to sin. It's his will to allow you to sin. It's his will to allow you to rebel against his word.

If you're an atheist, it's his will to allow it. You can't do this unless it's within the will of God in that broad sense, you see. So nothing occurs in the universe by chance. There is no chance in the Christian worldview.

There is no chance everything. Even the casting of the lot. I forgot the verse is by the decree of God. Yeah, there it is. Proverbs 1633. The lot is cast into the lap, but it's every decision is from the Lord.

There is no chance Proverbs 1633 tells us you can cast that lot. The decision is from God. Now we can get in some heavy Discussions here, but we're not going to. So God knows all things that will occur because God has ordained that they will occur either by a decretive prescriptive or permissive will.