วีดีโอ

What about Romans 9:13 “As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”” ‭‭ How do you explain that?

@@carsonsnavely4641 I handle it in depth in my book, available here: www.youtube.com/@TheRomans9Guy The short answer is, who do you think Esau and Jacob represent here? In the flow of the counterargument to the unbelieving Jews' that he's met in his evangelism that he has been going through so far in Romans 9, Paul has been showing that what the Jews thought the OT had taught all along has been wrong, and actually reversed. Paul is now Moses, not the Rabbis. Jesus is not a false prophet, he's one of the greatest blessings of being Jewish. The Rabbis are now Sarah, not Abraham. The Jews are now represented by Ishmael, not Isaac. In verse 13 Paul completes the thought of verse 12 and says that the Jews who are objecting to Paul's message of direct Gentile inclusion into the kingdom of God, without having to proselytize and become Jewish first, and are saying that there's no way God would alter things this late, so many centuries after the promises to Abraham, that these Jews who are complaining are acting exactly like Esau, the elder twin. That their complaints about God including the Gentiles into the inheritance makes the Gentiles the Jacob of the story. And for proof, aren't these Jews rejecting Jesus? Aren't they rejecting their birthright? The fulfillment of all the promises in the embodiment of God's son? Paul is pointing out sarcastically, as he also does in verses 17, and 21-23 that if God chooses to love some people and NOT love others, then based on everyone's actions, the Gentiles would be the chosen ones and the Jews would be the UNchosen ones. Chapter 9 is a deep teaching and a steep refutation of Jewish theology. It is difficult for those not deeply familair with Jewish theology to understand. But you don't have to. Paul is very explicit in his teaching in Romans 1-5 and 10-11 on these topics. Read Rom #;22-24, 5:18, 10:11-13, and 11:32 and see his plain, overarching message. God does not play favorites. He loves all people. The Jews were wrong. Everyone is invited. Everyone is elect.

You can make a compelling exegetical case that Romans 9 is talking about NATIONS. But nations are made up of individuals. Some have argued that the passage you cited is about the VEHICLE of salvation, with less exegetical force. Jesus intercedes for "those in the covenant." But then how can He say, "I know my sheep." What R9 is arguing for above i have never come across. I'd like to see to exegesis, but the reading quite unnatural.

@@firstcrcoostburg You're right. It's not something that's been in common Christian theology over the last 1500 years. I hate that that's the case, but it is. A short version of the exegesis is in several chapters of my small self-published book, accessible form the links on my TH-cam page. There's even a free download option. I am hoping to have a larger book, solely dedicated to Romans 9, traditionally published in the near future. I understand the arguments for nations and individuals, and the issues with both. The root issue is the Doctrine of Election itself. That's where we diverge from the NT. If you read most theologians on this subject since Augustine, they start from the passages like Rom 8-9 and Eph 1 and try to work forward from there, but they shouldn't. Those passages aren't CLEARLY establishing the doctrine of election. You can infer the DofE from them, but it's not super clear. Whereas the immediately following texts, Romans 10 & 11 and Ephesians 2 & 3 clearly refute the idea of some-chosen-some-not-chosen. Historically, the majority of theologians have been blinded by their order of understanding the concepts. Well, secondarily. Primarily the blindness comes from lack of understanding of Jewish context, their theological errors that Jesus and Paul were correcting.

@@carsonsnavely4641 Well. I wrote a long explanation that seems like got deleted. A very short version is that Paul is reversing the symbology in all the OT references in this chapter. His overarching Gospel message in this book, in his other books, and as demonstrated in Acts is that God has directly invited the Gentiles to his kingdom. They no longer have to proselytize and become Jewish. This teaching was incendiary in Paul's Jewish communities and he always faced intense backlash from unbelieving Jews. In Chapter 9 he has turned his attention to those Jews' objections and is giving his counterpoints to them. Essentially, he points out that IF God chose some people and DID NOT choose others, as the Jews believe(d), then based on their actions and the accounts of the identities as commonly understood, the Jews were now the elder brothers, rejecting their birthright for next to nothing, and complaining that the inheritance had gone to the younger brothers, late in the game, through some trickery. Paul is saying, you Jews, don't you always like to say to the Gentiles when they object to your preaching of how you're the chosen people, don't you always like to say "Well, scripture says Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.."? Don't you blaspheme God's name in that way? Well, what if God did hate Esau and loved Jacob, but WHAT IF you were Esau?!?! And the Gentiles are Jacob?!?! Paul does a similar, negative hypothetical in verses 22-23. But he's expecting a "no" answer. Paul knows that God DOES NOT choose some AND NOT others. He chooses all people. He invites all people to his kingdom.

Do you have a video that explains this exegesis? I'd like to know more about this interpretation, as it seems quite an unnatural reading.

Thanks for the question and comments! I'll try hit them all in one comment! 1. Joseph definitely lied; he's a human and human's lie. We're all sinners. 2. Joseph's faking/lying was a interpretation we DIDN'T like. 3. Divination is expressly denied in Deuteronomy 18:10 and all throughout the prophets. The idea is that God's clear revealed Word is sufficient for us to discern His will and divination usurps the authority of the Scripture (I Samuel 15:23). We should not use divination to discern the will of God because we have the written Word and the Holy Spirit's illumination on it.

@@firstcrcoostburg okay thank you for answering!

Thanks for listening. I'm a partial preterist myself, so I think we'd find quite a bit of agreement. I agree with (what seems to me to be) the consensus view that John received this revelation in 95AD. That makes the full preterist view difficult to square, as 19:05 argues.

​@@firstcrcoostburg You are a partial preterist?, but its the same as my uncle (this actually happened in real life), he was saying he was a paritial preterest to differentiate himself as not being a premillennial dispensationalist, from what I can tell hes a historic premillennial. I'm not a hyper or full preterist, I beleive in 1 Corinthians 15. The dating you get for Revelation is the establishment view which is from outside the view of the bible. There is a reason why I was looking for an Amill view of Revelation 17. It nails the date and you backed it up. Nero is the 6th. The other great passage that proves all this is what Jesus saying "I truely say to you, THIS GENERATION", in the Olivet Discourse. A generation is 20 to 40 years in the bible. Another verse is in Mathew 10, which is not the Olivet Discourse, I'm quoting Jesus "TRULY I TELL YOU , you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.".

@danmannz Just for clarification, so I understand you correctly, you're understanding the "this generation" to be one's who experienced the destruction of the temple in 70AD?

Correct.@@firstcrcoostburg. I'm still trying to understand Amill, there are partial preterists out there. But how far do you want to go? What is the coming of the son of man mean to you? it is near and so is the kingdom. if you read the new testiment it really does mean that its about to happen. My view its Daniel 7. Jesus refers to himself as the 'son of man' from this passage; 80 times this is mentioned In the New Testiment and he refers to the kingdom 88 times. If the beast of Revelations adds up to 666 in the Greek (Nero's name), If you do the same to Christ name it adds up to 888. The number 8 in the bible means new beginning, meaning a new order or creation, born again and resurrection. All this decreation language The lord riding and coming on a swift cloud, and darkening the moon, sun and the stars. This is judgement language on a nation or a city state talking about a huge power change. There are verses just look this talking about what happend to Egypt and Babylon. Jerusalem was next! The great Babylon!

@danmannz We agree to an extent here. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is responding to two questions: "When will this [the destruction of the temple] happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" The disciples view of the temple was such that for it to be destroyed MUST mean the end of the world! Jesus takes care to separate these questions. Yes, the temple would be destroyed in their generation. These are only the BEGINNINGS of the pains of this age, though. The coming of the Son of Man is described as "after."

We're using the NIV (the old one).

All things made new, not all new things.

If I'm not mistaken, roman catholicism takes an amillenial position like we do. Hey, a place of agreement! Nice!

@@firstcrcoostburg Yes that's right, Catholics are generally postmillennial in the sense that we believe Christ returns after the millennium. After the first world war many people believed in a golden age of human progress without war and some Catholic theologians adopted an earthly view of the millennium partly due to that hope. This optimistism died with the start of the second world war of course. I favor the amillennial position you explained in this video. I know the reformed are quite well studied on this topic because I've read Sam Storm's and Kim Riddlebarger's books. I'm glad there's at least a few things we can agree on lol 😆

😂

Fred! You are a great encourager!

Kind words. Where did you pastor?

We use the NIV 1984, but we'll be transitioning to the ESV.

Thanks!

Seems like we're pretty closely aligned here, and you're asking great questions. There's a lot of questions in your comment, so I'll start by pointing you to our free study guide on the book: firstcrcoostburg.org/resources

@@firstcrcoostburg Based on Hebrews 9:10, the time of the Reformation was at Calvary when the Old Covenant was made "obsolete" by the New Covenant. (Heb. 8:6-13) I have never found the term "New Covenant" in the man-made confessions of Reformed Covenant Theology, even though it is found in the Bible. New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay. ============================ Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit) Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. (Acts 10:38) The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church? The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again) Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) === Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water/ every time they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant (ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation. (GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things. (KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357 (NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. (NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established. (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .

We hope it blessed you! Where is Tinton Falls?

Christopher Hitchens has made this argument in plenty of debates. I'll put forward his debates with William Lane Craig and Frank Turek for a longer form discussion on the point you raised (more comprehensive than TH-cam comments will get). And you nailed it: we're presuppositionalists.

Another alternative.... there is no god

I'd find Rob's deist explanation more compelling than the atheist one. The atheist answers for existence, meaning, and morality are lackluster. But again, your admittedly chatting with a presuppositionalist.

It is abundantly clear that God is real when you read about king Solomon in the Bible. The Bible says that Solomon built temples for his pagan wives and that he was given the “seal of Solomon” for doing so. Before it was called the “seal of Solomon” it was called the “star of Remphan”. Known to be a sign of Saturn worship because the planet Saturn has a hexagram pattern on its north axis. The hexagram is where the term “putting a hex” on someone comes from. That’s witchcraft. The book of Enoch says the fallen angels taught mankind about space and the stars. How would people four - five thousand years ago, know about a hexagram star pattern on the north axis of the planet Saturn if there was no God or fallen angels? That same hexagram flies on the flag of Israel today known as the “Star of David”. Satan has placed a hex on the state of Israel.

@@firstcrcoostburg Presups..like Van Til? And yet, you are probably not a presup on issues like drinking water? You don’t presuppose any water is good and someone needs to demonstrate that it is not before you choose not to drink it, do you? If the rest of life you require things to be demonstrated as true before you believe it, why do you give the God of the Universe a pass?

Oostburg, Wisconsin USA!

No

Correction noted!