Two-Part Romans | Session 1: The Ambiguous Antecedent
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 เม.ย. 2024
- Here it is, what Dr. James White has said "I have never heard that perspective on Romans ever before in my life".
This changes everything. Something very common in grammar has been missed by so many people. The fact that Paul wrote to 2 different audience groups in Romans has been missed by so many, not all, but many.
In this first session we will lay the foundation of the ambiguous antecedent and how this changes how we understand so much of the book of Romans.
Pick up a copy of the book by Dr. Brent Lay here: amzn.to/4avswBP
--------------------
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @livingchristian
--------------------
Get your copy of the Exegetical Observations Workbook here:
livingchristian.online/
Special discount on Romans right now!
--------------------
Being a good Berean starts with getting in the Word. Here are partners (affiliate links) I recommend using:
Dwell: fas.st/t/uo2nDrsB
--------------------
If you love the music I use, check out Epidemic Sound, which has saved a lot of time and they have an abundance of options, styles, genres, etc. Get a special discount using this link: share.epidemicsound.com/92li4h
--------------------
Watch the Rest of the Series:
Session 1: • Two-Part Romans | Sess...
Session 2: • Two-Part Romans Sessio...
Session 3: • Two-Part Romans Sessio...
--------------------
Please SUBSCRIBE, LIKE, SHARE, & COMMENT. Doing this helps push more Christian content on the internet to shine a light for Jesus & carry His message to the world! Don't just do this for this channel....if you have other channels that edify you and bring glory to Christ, please do the same for them! Thank you in advance for your support and love!
--------------------
For those who don't believe I was a Calvinist or understood Calvinism, please read articles when I was a Calvinist here @ Wordpress: livingchristian1.wordpress.com
--------------------
Social
X: / lcbiblecounsel
Facebook: / livingchristian101
Instagram: / livingchristian1
SUBSCRIBE to get updates!
Comment what you think!
Thanks for watching!
In His Name; for His glory,
Living Christian
I'm afraid you may have jumped to the conclusion of determining the ambiguous antecedent without considering a clearer more obvious solution.
The "you" refers not to the jews, but to the gentiles in Rome (as apart from the gentiles in other nations). This would fit perfectly with the "you also" of verse 6 as well as the "other gentiles" in verse 13.
Interpreting the "you" to be the jews would not really fit either verse 6 nor verse 13. How could the jews be counted among the gentiles called? Or how could Paul say that he will have a harvest among the jews, just as he had with "other" gentiles?
Also, Paul refers to the gentiles being "called" in verses 5 and 6.
Also, Paul explains in the letter how also the gentiles are descendents of Abraham and thus form the nation of Israel. So the beloved definition in chapter 11 also applies to them.
When looking at this passage, I start to wonder, was Rome the only location Paul had any fruit with any other Gentiles? I am having a hard time concisely asking about this. Though I am partial to the KJV-I use the MEV for most studies/readings and this seems to make it a bit clearer. Am I failing to perceive correctly when Paul defines who he is talking(writing) about in the very next verse? If I am correct, this is a major miscategorization. This being he defines in verse 14-who he is talking about in verse 13.
I do own Bengel's works in his commentaries-but will also try to take a look at the other 300-400 commentaries I have access through Logos. Obviously...no promises being made. Might buy a Kindle version of the work referenced but am a bit curious now. Also, wondering if this comes up in the various critiques between White and Breta. Am re-listening to the debate a second time.
13 Now I would not have you unaware, brothers, that I often intended to come to you (but was prevented until now), that I might have a harvest among you also, even as among the other Gentiles. 14 I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise. 15 So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. Modern English Version. Thinline Edition. Lake Mary, FL: Passio, 2014. Print.
Thank you!
Nice work! When Paul says he's writing to ALL who are in Rome, that certainly doesn't mean that he goes on to address all of the people all of the time in the whole letter. If you write a letter to your whole family, you expect your whole family to read it, but part of the letter may be addressed specifically to Mom, part to Dad, and part to my siblings, etc.
And All who are in Rome are those in the church made up of Jews and Gentiles, not just jews. He went to the synagogues because that's where the scriptures are laid up, that's it. Romans 1-8 applies to Gentiles, too.
@@KnightFel I don't think it's being said that it doesn't apply to the Gentiles.
Jason, love your content and I'm not a Calvinist, but I'm just not convinced by your argument. In 1:13 he says "that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the OTHER Gentiles". It seems clear that Paul is wanting to see fruit in the Roman gentiles just like in the other gentiles. The presence of the word "other" in v 13 seems to defeat your entire argument. Can you speak on that?
In other words (no pun intended) if Paul was writing to the Jews only in 1:13 wouldn't he simply say "I want to see fruit among you, just as among the Gentiles."? In stead he says "just as among the other Gentiles". He seems to be including his audience in with the Gentiles by using that word "other".
This is so clearly the case. This video displays terrible reading comprehension and logic.
Nothing novel here. I’ve always understood it the way you did. It’s very clear. It’s basic reading comprehension.
Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, *CALLED* to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
He just called everybody in Rome, both Jew and Gentile alike the called. Obviously not just jews are the called. It’s the exact same Greek word in verse six which she said was only Jews.
I see verse 6 as saying “in addition to myself and the apostles, as Paul mentioned in the verse 5. I don’t see this as pointing to an audience “other than the gentiles.” It’s actually the opposite, more of an inclusionary statement to the Christians in Rome: You, (just like myself and the apostles) belong to Jesus. Ie “you’ve been grafted in.”
A man's book, a set of perversions, an inflated ego. You start wrong and you end wrong. A classic presentation of eisegesis to the nth degree.
Kinda like "Confessions", "City of God", "Institutes of the Christian Religion", "Bondage of the Will", the 1689 London Baptist Confession, The Canons of Dort, or the Westminster Confession of Faith? Calvinists of all stripes read these books and confessions and use what they learn there to inform their theological positions and doctrinal beliefs. Do all of them "start wrong and end wrong"? Or is that only true when it disagrees with your particular position?
@@ericedwards8902those all start wrong and end wrong, yes
@@ericedwards8902 Not sure I follow you here. The writers of these works (at least some of them) didn't have these works to start with to inform their theological positions. They had the scriptures. The writers of these works started with the word of God, and were working to faithfully interpret the whole of scripture. The evidence for this can be found in the countless references to scripture in these works you seem to want to trample under foot. I for one find these works to be very useful. Even if you are not reformed, at least you can go to these works to gain a strong understanding of the position. I have said many times before, please bring us the Provisionist Confession of Faith, or some kind of Provisionist Systematic. It would help to bring those who don't understand the fullness of the position to a place where they can see it all. I think Jason and others are up to the task, and that it should be done.
@@sevencrickets9258 my point is that these are not the Scriptures, just as the book Jason references in his video aren't the Scriptures. My further point is that just as those works I pointed to start with a set of doctrinal propositions, so does the book that Jason referred to. All of them reference Scripture to prove/support their views. But again, none of them ARE the Scriptures so neither side can point to their non-scriptural preferred works as something special that keeps them from "start(ing) wrong and end(ing) wrong."
As for a Provisionist confession of faith, why would there be one? Provisionism does not pretend to be a systematic theological system, but a specific set of soteriological beliefs. It isn’t a denomination or church movement. And Jason holds shared soteriological positions with Provisionism but does not claim to be a leader, as it were, within this position so I highly doubt that he would be at all interested in trying create some systematic or profession of faith.
@@sevencrickets9258 one further point, I never tried to trample anything under foot. Read my comment carefully and you will see that I cast no aspersions on those works, but used them examples of "A man's book" to challenge the OP. He/she seemed be insinuating that by referencing a book on his subject that it would inevitability lead to Jason 'ending wrong'. I said nothing disparaging and certainly not anything that would trample on those works.
Against my better judgement I went ahead and ordered the book.
You is referring to the saints in Rome. Paul constantly pushes back against Jew/Gentile division the Church. All Scripture is written for all Christians.
Thank you for the effort and preparation that goes into producing this kind of content! You’re meaningfully adding to the online conversation!
The end of Romans 1, verse 5 tells us who Paul is talking about: the Gentiles/the nations. Verse 6 builds on this, in that Paul is including "you who are called" in this group.
Example: "I have received a commission to carry out training among all the astronauts, including you who were qualified to belong to the brotherhood." Who am I talking about and to? Astronauts. "Including" is a word that connects the previous group to the very next group, meaning that the second group is part of the first group.
Therefore, the "you who are called" in verse 6 are part of the Gentiles/the nations from verse 5.
Verse 13 uses the phrase "the rest of the Gentiles." This is a phrase of inclusion, rather than a phrase that separates this group from the previous group, the "you also." It means that "you also" is part of the group "the rest of the Gentiles."
Jason, you even used this same construction yourself when you said, "I'm so excited to get through the rest of these sessions." (29:59) It means this session is part of the same group as "the rest of these sessions." It's not a video belonging to a completely different group that stands apart, but is included in the rest of the sessions. It is the same with "the rest of the Gentiles"; It's a phrase of inclusion, not of separation, not a distinction of difference, but an inclusive statement of sameness.
Example: "I have often planned to come to you in order to see good results among you as among the rest of the oil drillers." Who is my audience? Oil drillers.
At 29:27, you eisegeted the phrases "the Jewish believers" & "that I have yet to evangelize." They're not in the text at all. (You pointed out that the ESV & the NIV add the word "and" at 19:09, which makes the addition of an entire phrase inconsistent.)
He did this in the debate with James White, and White corrected him on it and he's still doing. It Breda, Flowers and other Provisionists make a complete mess of Romans.
That's not James White's rebutal.
You are claiming Romans is only to the Gentiles. JW asked him rhetorically, in the very clip cited here, if maybe the book might be to the church in Rome... which consisted of jews and gentiles.
All of the modern scholarly takes on Romans agree that Paul is addressing a mixed church and is addressing issues specifically between these 2 communities. It's the dominant conservative view that at the time Paul wrote Romans, jews were already returning.
I agree here, well put together argument
@@ravissary79He isn’t claiming Romans is only to the Gentiles, at least not in that post, and I don’t claim that either. Paul certainly knows there would be believing Jews in his audience. But Paul does have the Gentiles mostly in mind for the first 8 chapters. He mostly addresses them directly. Sometimes he moves to addressing the believing or unbelieving Jews and he gives us sign posts when he does so. As in Rom 1:17, 9:3, and maybe 7:1
On rereading Romans 1, it looks most like the context of "among the other Gentiles" is that Paul has been prevented from visiting the believers in Rome (Jew & Gentile), and not as though he is excluding the Gentiles from his discourse at this point. I would apply the same logic to any other verses that depend on Romans 1:6 or 15.
I teach a bible study, and have for about 5 years or so. We did all of Genesis, Exodus, then Matthew and Acts... but i was avoiding Romans, not because of calvinism or because its confusing, but because it's a challenging book to do justice to my standards while meeting their needs as a very diverse 101 group... but i just started and it's been very exciting!
But i honestly didn't interact with this interpretation, and i want to do it justice.
I want to know, with as great a level of certainty, whether this is the most functional interpretation.
Please check out the book entitled Jacob and Esau Two Nations and the Inheritance. I can send a free draft if desired. I guarantee you will absolutely love it
@@contemplate-Matt.G you've convinced me to finally bite the bullet and buy your book.
@@ravissary79 Fantastic. If you want the basic premise first, watch part one and two of "not another Romans 9 video". However, after I show what Jacob and Esau is really about, there are many explanations of allusions to the New Covenant in the Old Testament that people are completely missing.
I'll be waiting for a response from onne if the most intelligent people I've encountered online or anywhere. This book is not "scholarly" per se.... it's more revelatory.
What convinced you?
@@ravissary79 Your message was deleted. It's on kindle
@@ravissary79 Apparently, it's against YT rules to promote a book. If you click on those three crosses, you'll find a link
20:26 This is just bad hermeneutics. Just because here in Chapter 11 Paul uses an adjective "beloved" to refer to Israel in this passage does not mean you can take "beloved" to mean Israel/the Jews every time the word "beloved" appears in the Book of Romans. Your argument falls apart in Romans 16 vs. 8, 9, & 12 where Paul refers to 3 Christians as being "beloved" - except none of the 3 are Jewish. They're all Greek names, so not Jews.
❤❤❤
Who are the Israel of God?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
{Galatians 3:28-29}
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, *which is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit* and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
{Romans 2:28-29}
Wherefore remember, that ye being IN TIME PAST Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the COMMONWEALTH of ISRAEL, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
BUT now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh *by the blood of Christ*
For he is our peace, who hath made both [Jew and Gentile] one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments [not the ten commandments] contained in ordinances; for to make in himself *of twain* ONE NEW MAN, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile BOTH unto God in ONE BODY by the cross, *having slain the enmity thereby*
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but *fellowcitizens* with the saints, and of the household of God;
[The commnwealth of Israel ... Jeshurun]
{Ephesians 2:11-19}
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
But *in every nation* he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
{Acts 10:34-35}
Again...
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God.
{Romans 2:10-11}
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For *they are not all Israel* which are of Israel:
*Neither because they are the seed of Abraham* are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but *the children of the promise* are counted for the seed.
{Romans 9:6-8}
Now we, [Galatians] brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
{Galatians 4:28-29}
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and
upon *the Israel of God*
{Galatians 6:15-16}
And they [the Jew] also, *if they abide not still in unbelief* shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in *again*
{Romans 11:23}
For ye are all the children of God *by faith in Christ Jesus*
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
{Galatians 3:26-27}
Never read Mr. Lay's book, but this isn't some strange idea to me. I haven't always had the terminology to explain it, but I have always believed that Paul was speaking to the Jewish Christians in some parts of the book and then the Gentile Christians in other parts. I think the idea came to me because I had never been exposed to Calvinism proper and had been taught to read the various books of the Bible starting from a point where I had to understand the historical context, the original author, and the original audience. And I understood that this book was not written TO me as part of the audience, but FOR me to understand the faith and apply the words to my life. Thanks for putting this together and presenting it to us.
Amen
Certainly Paul turns and addresses Jews at places in the letter to the Romans. But Breda is employing awful reading comprehension in asserting that Paul is speaking specifically to Jews at the very places where Paul has the Gentiles almost solely in mind.
Thank you Jason! I love your study of the pronouns and how they expound the scriptures before us. Many times I look at key Words and pronouns, for the rules in the English language are profound and yet insightful.
Disregard the naysayers in these comments. Their minds are closed only because they have chosen to set in stone their truth (relative truth) instead of having a meaning discussion to ABSOLUTE TRUTH. They think they have God and the Bible all figured out. PRIDE in abundance.
Once again Thank You and God Bless you.
Isn't the "you" referring to the person the youth pastor is talking to who is also one of the parents? If so the "you" in Romans 1:13 should be the Gentiles... please explain if you disagree. Thank you.
You are correct. The you in the youth pastor example is one of the parents. Also note when John Piper says, “I’ve read the rest of the book.” We know he means Romans, that the opening of chapter 1 is part of the rest of the book. “The rest of” is a connecting phrase, meaning that which comes before is part of that which comes after.
Jason also uses this construction when he says around 29:59 that he’s excited to share the rest of the sessions with us. It means this video, Session 1, is part of the same group as those sessions yet to come, “the rest of” being that connecting phrase.
I've been asking people that have no idea about this topic those questions to see what they think and so far everyone says the same thing. True, true, false, false.
@@ryanp17Absolutely right. Just basic reading comprehension.
@@TheRomans9Guy Pray for Jason, as this matter is bringing Christians of various soteriological commitments together to let him know of these basic grammatical errors.
@@reformedpilgrim Right? And I’m trying to reach out to him personally.
Much to consider here. Thank you for your work thus far.
I appreciate your work on this brother. This does pose a question in my mind that if you could answer would be helpful to me. Are you saying that when Paul uses the word "beloved" or "called" or "saints" that he always uses it in reference to the Jews or are you saying that within the context of the book of Romans that this is how Paul is using those words? I'm actually thinking about 1 Corinthians where Paul uses the words "beloved," "called" and "saints." Thank you!
It’s based on the context and how the author uses the words within the letter.
@@LivingChristian Thanks for the clarification. I was concerned that because these terms are used in Romans to address the Jews that you would say they also address the Jews only when we see them elsewhere in the New Testament. I agree that the context within each letter determines "who" is being addressed.
Jason, please reach out to me. Let’s go through this together, slowly. What you’re presenting here is some of the worst reading comprehension I think I’ve ever seen. I don’t want to pick it apart here in public. Let’s go over this together please.
I haven't listened to this video yet or read R9's book, but I'd like to hear a video discussion about this. I think many others would like to as well.
Pretty obvious, isn’t it? even to you?
Absolutely love a logical and rational explanation of Gods goodness to all people not just the elect
21:55-24:00 - I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by the Piper sermon clip. Piper doesn't mention Jews once in that entire soundclip. Piper is saying that Romans was addressed to "the beloved of God in Rome" exclusively not all those in Rome. Of course that's obvious. Not everyone in Rome was a Christian. It was written to the Christians in the church in Rome. Again, nowhere in that clip does Piper say that "the beloved of God in Rome" are Jews. Only you're saying that. Piper is implying correctly that it's all Christians in Rome not just Roman citizens in general. Which is apparent in the text.
Brother, I so wish I could agree with your interpretation of Romans 1:7: “All those in Rome, who are loved by God and called to be saints (or replacing the word and with a comma) This “ALL” could definitely be referring to all Jewish believers and Gentile believers in Rome. Both groups clearly fit both criteria; therefore, the letter clearly is to both groups as explicitly stated.
Verse 6 also explicitly states, beyond any shadow of an ambiguous antecedent, that he is addressing “you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.” The antecedent of you is not ambiguous but instead defined in the same sentence. Keeping the two sentences together You in Rome is plural and means all you who are loved by God and are called to belong to Jesus are the recipients of this letter. If that verse 6 did not intend to include Gentile believers, he would have written as much in that sentence.
Your take at 21:25 doesn’t make sense to me. How can the term beloved in Romans 11:28 mean believers when it says they are enemies of the gospel?
I am really excited you are doing this series; however I doubt it will affect JW much at all since it doesn't fit his presuppositions. The very first chapter shows Paul making references to the OT of Israel's history which is also a key that the Jews would have been familiar with whereas the Gentiles would not.
Great content
Jason - I appreciate your careful walk through this passage. The evidence you are providing reveals a deep desire to be careful with God’s Word. Thank you!
I am trying to follow your logic beginning around the 20:00 mark. In Romans 11:28, you said that the ‘beloved’ = believing Jews. But wouldn’t the antecedent be the ‘they’ that ‘from the standpoint of the Gospel are enemies for your sake’? How can believing Jews be enemies of the gospel?
I am thinking God’s chosen people are the Israelites, believing and unbelieving. For the sake of the fathers, God will never forsake them. This is not to say all Jews will become believers; they must have faith in God’s Messiah. Paul seems to be saying to the Jewish believers that they were disobedient but have been shown mercy therefore the believing Jews must also show mercy to their unbelieving brethren.
Not sure it makes much difference to your overall theory but I got stuck when you said ‘beloved’ in v. 28 = believing Jews and I really don’t think it does.
Thoughts?
At 28:00 you argue that the “you” Paul has come to preach to in 1:15 must be the Jews because in 1:14 he says that he has preached to both Greek and barbarian.
You say that Greek and barbarism covers the whole gentile world therefore the “you” here in Rome must be the Jews.
I’m not strongly opposed to this. Clearly, Paul is addressing Jews at Rome.
But I don’t hang much on this because Paul is speaking to both Jews and Gentiles at Rome. And here in 14 and 15 he could also be saying that he has preached to Greek Gentiles and non-cultured Gentiles (barbarians), so he is pleased to speak to Roman Gentiles now too-as they would not see themselves as Greeks, nor as uncultured Gentiles, but as Romans. So, Paul is pleased to address them as an Apostle to the Gentiles, and he is pleased to speak to the Jews also who have recently returned to Rome from exile under Claudius.
Both readings seem possible. I think you are hanging too much significance on these possible readings.
Who Paul’s main audience is doesn’t affect the meaning of called in Romans 8-9. The “called” are the remnant of Israel and the Gentile believers in Jesus “also.” The context in those places tell us as much.
Brother, as an elderly Christian I have learned that when we think we have discovered something novel in exegesis that counters everything understood by the church for 1900 years, we need to take a deep breath. What you are proposing turns over orthodox Christian beliefs and counters the clear reading of scripture. I lovingly urge you to guard against pride. The gospel is not not unclear as to sin and salvation, that is, it does not require speculation. I am praying that you will seek clarification. Becoming a popular content producer on TH-cam can have a negative effect-I can give you false confidence, if not pride. Guard against it.
Brother, as a middle aged Christian. We must must not fear the communication of different interpretations on the basis that they are not what we have been taught. It is well known that Calvinists must read Romans through the eyes of John Calvin or else the doctrine of Calvinism is weakened.
Prepare your own soil. Bear your own fruit. Allow the land owner to harvest the field as He chooses or else you may cut down the wheat with the weeds.
If this earnest searcher is in error, allow God's Holy Spirit to perform His work in this believer.
Pray that, if He is in error, that God will show Him mercy and that The Holy Spirit will open His eyes. Pray that, if you are in error, that God will show you mercy, and that His Holy Spirit will open your Eyes.
There’s absolutely nothing new in this. The way he’s presenting it seems like a new revelation, but this is the thoughts of the earliest church, which by the way, did not start under Calvin. This gentleman is showing how Calvin and his followers have clearly failed to grasp the simple meaning of the text. It’s not a new revelation at all.
@@jasonlewis5350please show me anyone prior to the year 2000 that taught this.
WOW! 😮❤
"you also" in vs 6 is in contrast to those who had received grace and "apostleship" in vs 5....the apostles. Paul ALWAYS contrasts the apostles from the Church with "we" and "us" vs' "you".. Ephesians 1, Romans, and especially 1Cor 4.
Excellent!
It seems a lot of this rests on your interpretation of verse 1:13 With the “you” that Paul both planned to come to and have fruit amongst refers to Jews. But Paul says just as among the “other” gentiles. So surely a plain reading demands that the “you” in that verse refers to gentiles, so that he can have fruit like with “other” gentiles. Other gentiles would clearly show that the distinction is two different groups of gentiles, it would be as though he’s calling Jews gentiles from your interpretation. I’m sure you’re aware of that, hence you insert the words “that he hasn’t evangelized yet”, after other gentiles to attempt to change the clear language. If he says other gentiles, the first group must also be gentiles. Not that this nonsense Jew gentile distinction has any weight. Why raise up the wall that has been removed between Jew and gentile in Christ?
So, "all" doesn't mean "all"? i.e. Romans 1:7.
Isn't that the same argument used against those who are Calvinists who say the same thing in specific verses with "all"?
“All”does mean “all” but the context of Romans chapters 1-11, reveals a specificity that he is saying “all” meaning including, you too, Jewish Christians” He is very clearly reminding Jewish Christians that the things that make them Jewish(bloodline, and having Torah)doesn’t make them righteous before God. They only reveal their same need for Jesus. Their ancestors were idolators and the law just increased their sin. Being a gentile Christian at this time period is worlds apart from being born in a modern Western world that has been celebrating Christmas and Easter as national holidays for centuries. I think people fail to realize how different the early church in Rome where Christianity is still just emerging from its Jewish roots and not as severed as it is today. Christians today fight over differences over gentile Christian doctrine not Jew and gentile doctrine. We just misappropriate Jewishness into our own experience.
Even if one is not a calvinist, I’m not sure the identification of the ambiguous antecedent “you” with the Jews matters (Rom. 1:13b).
Let us grant that those called are the Jews. Is it not clear in that context that Paul is placing both Jew and Gentile under sin, and that he is also including both as “called.”
And if it were not clear Romans 9:24 says it explicitly. Both Jew and Gentile are in the category of “the called.”
At 25:20, you say the gentiles are not included in the called ones by emphasizing the word “among” but it’s not clear what you are trying to distinguish. Paul is distributing the calling among the Jews and among the Gentiles. That is what he is saying. It’s very clear. Your alternative im explanation makes no sense.
So even if you are correct about the ambiguous antecedent being the Jews only, it’s clear that the book is written to both and that the Gentiles are being included in the call of the Jew to be the one redeemed people of God.
So I just don’t see your argument-to limit the Romans 9 call to only the Jews-as successful.
The call is for Jew and Gentiles ALSO.
Am I missing something?
At 28:00 you argue that the “you” Paul has come to preach to in 1:15 must be the Jews because in 1:14 he says that he has preached to both Greek and barbarian. You say that Greek and barbarism covers the whole gentile world therefore the “you” here in Rome must be the Jews.
I’m not strongly opposed to this. Clearly, Paul is addressing Jews at Rome.
But I don’t hang much on this because Paul is speaking to both Jews and Gentiles at Rome. And here in 14 and 15 he could also be saying that he has preached to Greek Gentiles and non-cultured Gentiles, so he is pleased to speak to Roman Gentiles now too-as they would see themselves not as Greeks, nor us uncultured Gentiles, but as Romans. Paul is pleased to address them as an Apostle to the Gentiles, and he is pleased to speak to the Jews also who have recently returned from exile under Claudius.
Both readings seem possible. I think you are hanging too much significance on these possible readings.
Who Paul’s main audience is doesn’t affect the meaning of called in Romans 8-9. The “called” are the remnant of Israel and the Gentile believers in Jesus “also.” The context in those places tell us as much.
When looking at this passage, I start to wonder, was Rome the only location Paul had any fruit with any other Gentiles? I am having a hard time concisely asking about this. Though I am partial to the KJV-I use the MEV for most studies/readings and this seems to make it a bit clearer. Am I failing to perceive correctly when Paul defines who he is talking(writing) about in the very next verse? If I am correct, this is a major miscategorization. This being he defines in verse 14-who he is talking about in verse 13.
I do own Bengel's works in his commentaries-but will also try to take a look at the other 300-400 commentaries I have access through Logos. Obviously...no promises being made. Might buy a Kindle version of the work referenced but am a bit curious now. Also, wondering if this comes up in the various critiques between White and Breta. Am re-listening to the debate a second time.
13 Now I would not have you unaware, brothers, that I often intended to come to you (but was prevented until now), that I might have a harvest among you also, even as among the other Gentiles. 14 I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise. 15 So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. Modern English Version. Thinline Edition. Lake Mary, FL: Passio, 2014. Print.
I think while addressing Roman Jewish Christians are very much the called among the gentiles, as this is a common way of thibking about the duaspora... the jews scattered among the nations, the epicenter of which is Rome.
However, elsewhere Paul clearly is shifting to talking about his call to the Gentiles... those who heard the call and are now joining spiritual Israel: the Church.
To me it makes sense to think of a blended idebtity as resilving into 1 uncomfortable whole... and he's addressing that oddly uncomfortable union the Roman Church experienced because of the rivelrous disharmony amongst the Xians and Jews leading to their expulsion.
I get most of what you say Jason. However I did not get how the "us" in Rom 9:24 can refer to Paul and the Jews since it says "but also from among the Gentiles". Has God called Jews from among the Gentiles? Christ love! ✝️
even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
- Romans 9:24
I will expound upon that when we get to Romans 9
Amazing!
This is an eye opener.
*NOTHING AMBIGUOUS HERE:*
Please note, the same "you" is referenced continually and consistently without change of referent, and not ONE single time in chapter one is _"the you just the Jew."_
The "you" is to ALL in Rome-the entire referent the whole way through.
No ambiguity verse by verse:
*ROMANS 1*
among whom *you* also are the called of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:6 NKJ) ----->> _Is the you is JUST the Jew?!!_ No, the called in Rome as "also" other cities.
To all *who* are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints (Rom. 1:7 NKJ) -->> _Is the you is JUST the Jew?!!_ No, to all in Rome.
that *your* faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. (Rom. 1:8 NKJ) --->> _Is the you is JUST the Jew?!!_ No, the church in Rome's faith.
I make mention of *you* always in my prayers, (Rom. 1:9 NKJ) -------------->> _Is the you is JUST the Jew?!!_ Paul does not only prays for the Jews!
I may find a way in the will of God to come to *you.* (Rom. 1:10 NKJ) ----->> _The you is JUST the Jew?!!_ Is Paul coming JUST to Jews?
to see *you,* that I may impart to *you* some spiritual gift, so that *you* may be established (Rom. 1:11 NKJ) ->> Paul only wants to see and establish the Jews?!
that I may be encouraged together with *you* (Rom. 1:12 NKJ) ----->> Paul only wants to be encouraged with the Jews?
Now I do not want *you* to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to *you* (Rom. 1:13 NKJ) ->> Paul only wanted Jews aware he was coming just for them?!
AND NOW *drum roll*... for the so-called "ambiguous" pronoun "you" that we have NO IDEA who it might refer to:
that I might have some fruit among *you* also, just as among the other Gentiles. (Rom. 1:13 NKJ)
Who is....????
So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to *you who are in Rome* also. (Rom. 1:15 NKJ)
It is not "Gentiles _and also_ Rome," here, it is "other Gentiles" and "also you in Rome," reinforced again from verse 7 just to make sure we all keep track.
There is no super secret revelation that thousands of years and saints have somehow missed here in Romans 1 that will amaze you and unlock the book like never before.
And remember if Paul thought his audience clearly knew _"the you is just the Jew,"_ he would not then specifically reference them as "Now I speak to you who are Jews."
*The YOU is not just the JEW.*
This video displays awful reading comprehension and logic. Just awful.
7:51 bookmark
I am going to take a wild guess and say you made the classic mistake of rejecting Calvinism, and then getting sucked into it current opponent in our society, which is equally wrong, that being Free Grace Dispensationalism? That would be the driving factor in having to separate Paul’s writings, as a large portion of them do not fit the false teaching of a different/completed Paulian gospel.
Hey @jeffreybomba I did not make that mistake. I am not a classic free grace dispensationalist. I do adhere to man’s ability to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation and that man contributes nothing to his salvation, but I do not adhere to eternal security. I do take the Bible literally unless it defines otherwise or is clear there is use of metaphoric or hyperbolic language or figures of speech. I don’t believe in dispensations but do believe Israel and the church are separate. I also don’t believe in a pre-trib rapture as many dispensationalists do. Other areas are up to more study to certify what I believe the text says.
@@LivingChristian thank you for all you are doing brother in Christ!
Wanted to say I was so glad to read here that you don't believe in a pre-trib rapture! I also don't !
Typo at 20:45 "godliness" should be "ungodliness" - no charge. ;)
I need an editor 😂
27:40 - this is one of the strangest distortions of Scripture I've seen in a while. Paul is simply saying that he's been all over Asia Minor and even as far as Greece, and now he wishes to come to "you that are at Rome also" - that is, to the city of Rome. You can't insert "Jews" where the Bible doesn't say it based upon your distorted view of the word "beloved" that so clearly is not universally referring to the Jews.
I love this! When I first left Calvinism, it was by listening to Romans all the way through and noticing stuff like this.
Here are places I see Paul unequivocally, directly speaking to Jews:
2:14-22
2:25
3:9
3:29
4:1
7:1
7:4
8:2
8:4
Now here is where I think I may find some disagreement. Because I agree that Romans 1-8 is largely to Jews, perhaps even unbelieving Jews who need to be convinced, but I think that he blends his audience from Romans 9 to 11, then I think Paul briefly address Gentiles only from 11:13 to at least 11:32. 12 could be for Gentiles or both. 13-16 I think is exhortations for both Jew and Gentile believers, e.g. 13:8 is clearly an appeal to Jewish believers.
This is nonsense. You make nice videos, but you handle the Word like Joseph Smith. You are in significant error and borderline false teacher. Your supposed rediscovering "lost knowledge" or understanding should give you serious pause. This is near cultish
Hey 👋 I appreciate your concern and applaud you for making sure there is good discernment for others as they engage and listen. I want the same for all people who listen.
I am sharing what I see and encouraging others to do the work themselves to validate. I always encourage people not to just assume someone else’s theology about to be a good Berean.
The information I shared in this video is focusing on the grammatical nature of the pronoun “you” and who the audience is that Paul is speaking to. This is basic exegesis 101. Some people agree. Some don’t. There’s more to expound upon. The “significant error” you mention I am in may be a result of believing the current hermeneutic you use for the Scriptures and if you happen to watch the rest of the series and have a more comprehensive understanding of how I do hermeneutics then you may see things differently, or at the very least know what I am doing better. My initial thought from comments like this is two fold:
1. Do you think my intentions are only to find ways to disprove Calvinism? If so, you are wrong in the approach that I am taking, and the motive in which I am doing the series. Everything I am doing is for the purpose of sharing what I truly believe the scriptures are saying using a strong hermeneutical process and proper exegesis taught by the same guy that many reformed brothers and sisters look up to.
2. If you are reformed, Are you concerned that I’m not doing proper exegesis? Are you concerned because this goes against what you believe to be the truth? And are you willing to listen to a position different than yours? And are you able to evaluate the evidence with an open mind & discernment without running to your current presuppositions of a systematic? Are you willing to submit to the truth even if the truth means what you hold to currently is not true?
The comment of this being a cult is really fascinating and shocking as there is no change in the gospel presentation. There is no change in who Jesus is. There’s no change in the great commission call we have. what’s at stake is who Paul is talking to and how we apply those insights to our lives today as Christians.
@@LivingChristian I am the person questioning and trying to find out if what I think and feel is true is really true and your idea sounds interesting to me because its different but when you started asking the true or false question and just said they were all true, in my head I said true, true, false, false. then you just glossed over the "fact" that they are all true. Maybe if you could explain why the "you" is an ambiguous antecedent when the following words "as well as the rest of the Gentiles" seems to clear up any ambiguousness. idk i just can't keep listening if i feel the opening premise doesn't make sense, is false or under explained. Thank you and I hope you can expand on this.
I am amazed how disrespectful and belittling fellow believers can be to one another on these chats. Even if you do agree with his interpretation, it doesn’t give you the permission to be rude. Remember that he is a blood bought child of God who is deeply loved by our Heavenly Father. So let’s do all things in love and keep our conversations full of grace. (Col 4:6)
Yes and amen. This is very sad to see.
I think you meant “don’t” agree?
@@LivingChristian I’m not attacking you personally, I am proud that you’re standing up against Calvinism. But you and I should work through this passage together. You’re stumbling through these words and not getting the meaning correct.
@@TheRomans9Guy I appreciate the concern. I plan to give a more proper response to these concerns after I get a few more sessions out there as it will provide more clarity and better understanding to offer your thoughts and concerns…but I have hope that after these next few sessions the concerns will go away. More to come, stay tuned…
@@LivingChristian I know that a lot of people here are arguing with you and pulling you to other quotes, outside of what you covered here to try to make their points. And you responded that you’ll cover those in subsequent episodes. I’m not doing that. I’m only looking at what you’ve covered here. Are you sure you don’t want to go over these together before you keep going down this path?
There are two distinct groups of the "called"....those called in general who can reject the call, and those called "according to a purpose"...the apostles, who were literally chosen. "According to a purpose" appears in Eph 1 and rom 8, the same two places "predestinated" appears. It was the apostles who were predestinated unto a purpose.
You're taking passages that refer directly to the apostles, and applying them to national Israel.
Yes, we need to debunk Calvinism...but we have to acknowledge the predestination of the apostles and see Paul's differentiating them from the rest of the Church. Read Jn 17. 6-19 is referring to those "given" to Jesus....the apostles as defined in chapter 6. Then vs 20 opens the prayer to anyone else who will "believe their words".....two groups of believers; one chosen/ given, and an infinitely greater one that believes their message.
Rom 8 is parallel to Eph 1. Post greeting, vs' 3-12 speak only about the apostles..."Us" and "we". Vs 12 defines them as "we who were the first to hope in Christ". Vs 13 switches to "you"...the Gentile Ephesians who were sealed after believing the apostles words.
Tell old JW, that the golden chain of redemption applies only to the apostles. They were the ones "killed all day long" for the benefit of the Church and "counted as sheep for the slaughter" for the sake of the church that were living good at the time (1Cor 4)
Not sure if my other comment posted, but I had a typo, and was about to change "Romans 1:5" to say "Romans 1:6 or 15".
In case it got lost, let me try to reiterate... on rereading Romans 1, it seems most likely that Paul has been prevented from visiting the believers in Rome (Jew & Gentile), and not that he is excluding the Gentiles when he says "you also are among those Gentiles who are called" or "also to you".
I would apply this logic as well to any other verses which are referencing this understanding of Romans 1:6 or 15 in coming to the conclusion that Paul is speaking only to Jews.
There are some points in Romans where it is clear that Paul is speaking more specifically to Jews. This doesn't appear to be one of them.
And, as you say, if you start in the wrong place, you can measure all the angles perfectly and still end up wrong.
And I don't say this to be argumentative. I am carefully listening to your points, and then going to Scripture to see whether they stand or fall. I have no horse in this race.
Jason, may you continue to be blessed as you study God's Word. :)
Ah, the original comment was unexpectedly in another comment thread. Whoops!
Why did you delete my comment?
Pretty mine were deleted too. I’m not even a Calvinist. But this…this just isn’t a good reading of 1:6,13 and 9:24.
He launched the video twice. When the Members-Only video became free for all to watch, it did so without a premier. Jason didn't know this would be the case, and wanted his audience to have the opportunity to live-chat with him in a premier setting. He relaunched the video later in the evening, and made the first video unavailable (whether deleting it or setting it to private or unlisted, I don't know). Edit: it's still available, but for Members only.
@@jameswillison1527consult Greek Church Fathers for a good understanding of Romans. They have a better understanding of the language and historical context
Mine too. Unsubscribing
Hello all, I did not delete any comments. I launched this video at 9PM last night and the members only version launched at 3PM earlier the same day.
TH-cam didn’t notify the majority of my subscribers at the video when it launched. So I set up a new live launch for 9 PM last night so that everyone would be notified that the video posted and dropped.
Once that video launched, I hid the other members only video version which had the same content. If you commented on that video, you will not see your comments any longer. If you are referring to any comments you’ve made to this video that launched at 9 PM last night. I did not delete any comments. I never delete anyone’s comments.
Not following this. If something needs this complicated an explanation, using 9 different versions of the Bible, I am suspect.
It is a very common practice to compare Bible translations when studying.
21:23 - Paul is affirming nothing of the sort...only if you ignore the use of "beloved" in half the other places in Romans and the rest of Paul's writing where he uses it 22 other times not referring to Jews.
At 16:45, you make an opinion statement that is not at all indicated by the text. You say “the Jews in vs. 6…” There are no Jews mentioned in vs. 6. “The called” simply refers to all saved people. Roman’s 8 vs. 28 & 30 again simply speak of saved people.
For context, I am staunchly not a Calvinist.
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Ro 9:22-24.
I address this verse in the video, but more so when we get to chapter 9
@@LivingChristian Jason, with all the love I have in my heart, this is a very misguided venture you are on. By any scholarly standard, your arguments are a failure. You will look back one day and realize how moronic and sophomoric your argument in this series was.
At 15:35 you make your 1st obvious error.
No one questions who Paul was primarily called to minister: the Gentiles. But the “you also” doesn’t necessitate that the audience be non-Gentile.
It’d be like if I said to a patch of weeds in my lawn “It is my mission to pull all the weeds, and now I turn my attention to you also.” I’m not saying the patch of weeds I’m talking to aren’t weeds - I’m simply lumping them in with all the other weeds in my yard that I’ve come to pull.
Also your earlier assertion that we can all agree that there is an ambiguous antecedent in vs. 13 - I just don’t see it. The “you” refers to the letter’s audience, which chapter 16 makes abundantly clear are the Roman Christians (which would have been predominantly Gentile), and that is confirmed by vs. 13 saying “even as among other Gentiles.”
Again to use my somewhat silly lawn illustration, if I said, “I now come to you, even as I have pulled other weeds,” you would naturally infer that I’m speaking to more weeds that I’ve come to pull.
I find nothing ambiguous in the pronouns and their antecedents in vs. 13.
The premise is flawed because the antecedent is NOT ambiguous. The YOU refers clearly to “All those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints”. It could not be any clearer. And that’s why none of the church fathers ever had to address it. There is no ambiguity.
Well done. Paul’s use of pronouns is key to understanding all of his writings.
yo this new batman movie looks siiiick, bro
This makes sense.
Jason, please commit to more study before continuing this series. You are out of step with the entirety of modern scholarship and the history of interpretation in the Church on these passages.
But that’s not even the reason to stop. The reason to stop isn’t because of historicity or the authority of previous theologians, the reason to stop is because abuse this reading comprehension is abominable. He’s just putting in full display he can’t read and understand sentence structure. It’s embarrassing.
24:30 - the evidence is far from substantial. You've presented absolutely none thus far. Just bad hermeneutics and your preconceptions.
Because you are clearly quoting these reformed theologians out of context when they are relating 'the beloved' to 'the elect', it would lead one to wonder what else are you being deceptive about.
So…for example, the Piper part was meant to show that Piper saw the beloved of God was the same audience. He arrived at who the beloved are as a different group than I do. But my point was that he saw them as the same audience throughout. Same with Johann Bengal. I’m showing that they noticed the beloved and called are the same group. That is the point I’m making. In my second video I clarified that they don’t see the group as only the Jews. I wasn’t trying to say they saw the same thing as I do. My point was they were seeing the connection throughout but they arrived at a different conclusion as who the group is.
@@LivingChristian Yes, I understood what you were implying. but using an a clip or part of a statement form someone that would probably call your view borderline heresy, seems to weaken any other arguments you may have. Why not find some theologians that might at least be close to your views?
@@johnh6487 Why not? Because Brent Lay completely made up this reading of Romans in 2013. There aren't theologians backing Lay up because he claimed it was his own revelation, a discovery he made on his own, after reading Romans for the 28th consecutive time.
@@reformedpilgrim Thank you for your zealous response. 😁
I steer away from new revelation territory. Having spoken with Brent, he explains it was new to him. It was a revelation to him. Similarly, growing up in the assemblies of God church when I was introduced to Calvinism, it was a revelation to me… It was new to me. I searched the Scriptures, I watched debates, and because I was not properly trained in how to do exegesis, I believed the hermeneutic and systematic theology of Calvinism. Having now, 11 years later, leaving Calvinism and discovering that the way that one interprets the Bible to make the Bible say what Calvinists say it means I once again went through a very hard time as it is hard to admit you may be wrong. If you listen to people that have walked away from cults, their impressions are similar…. they don’t know how they could have believed what they believed, but there were a group of people around that all believed it and loved them, but it took them time to evaluate what was being taught with the Bible to truly understand that they were not in anything that the Bible was actually teaching. That’s why I always encourage my listeners to not take my word but to go and be good Bereans. At the simplest level, focusing on taking Piper “out of context” is a distraction away from the evidence presented. Paul either wrote in first person to the Jews (ch1-8) and then to Gentiles (ch9-16) or he didn’t. I’m affirming, you’re denying. You’re entitled to your opinion. I respect you as a person, but ask you to do the study yourself. Asking the question is my Calvinistic presuppositions putting me in a place that does not allow me to accept this? I had to ask the very same questions with the text of Scripture and put them away to submit to whatever the text is saying. Scriptural authority and authorial intent is above all what we should seek!
Your entire argument falls apart and is even shown to be dishonest around the 32:20 mark. Many reasons could be shown but I will give a few.
(1) The phrase κλητοῖς ἁγίοις (called to be saints), which, in connection with ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ (loved by God), you claim is used exclusively of Jewish Christians. But Paul uses the exact phrase κλητοῖς ἁγίοις elsewhere to speak of all Christians, both Jew and Gentile ( 1 Cor 1:2, 24).
(2). You use a quote from J. Bengal where he states the the beloved are believing Israelites, but you selectively chose to not mention the rest of what he says about v7:
"The expression, the beloved of God, he particularly applies to the believing Israelites, ch. 11:28; called to be saints, to believers of the Gentiles. The Israelites are holy by descent from their fathers, Acts 20:32, note. Comp. with annot. on ver. 1 of this chapter; but believers of the Gentiles are said to be sanctified or called saints, holy by calling, as Paul interprets it [‘sanctified’], 1 Cor. 1:2. We have here a double title, and I have referred the first part to the Israelites, the second to the Gentiles."
(J. Bengal, Gnomon of the New Testament, vol. 3, Pg 8.)
Bengal disagrees with you about who Paul is writing to and you still dishonestly quoted only part of him to support your argument.
(3). The conclusion drawn from the Piper excerpt is just shameful. Piper there is emphasizing the personal nature of election and being God's beloved and chosen. He is in no way agreeing with you. At this point, what you are doing is an embarrassment to any rational person that loves fairness and sound biblical argumentation.
(4). If you would have checked the relevant lexical sources and exegetical guides, you would have seen that οὕτως in 1:15 is an adverb being used inferentially. It draws an inference from what precedes (BDAG 742c; Moo 62 n. 55). The translation "thus" would be appropriate. Therefore, in conjunction with v 14, what Paul is doing is making clear his eagerness to visit Rome and preach the gospel there because his apostleship to the Gentiles which were also in Rome.
More could be pointed out, but I will let others point out further the shotty research and "exegesis" done in this video. If I were you, I would remove the video and apologize.
Thank you for the thorough response. I only have time to address the point on the Bengal commentary.
Yes, you are correct that he views verse 7 as to include the Gentiles as well. My point was connecting the idea that beloved and called are the same people group. Bengal and Piper see it as both Jew and Gentile. I am making the case that it is only the Jews. This will be explored further as we proceeded in the future sessions.
The entire context of Romans needs considered as well as the historical and literal context which we have yet to do. So stay patient with me as a lot of the questions that you and others are bringing out will be answered as we proceed!
@@LivingChristian The point is, you purposefully misused a source for your point, without being honest about his difference with you. That is not how Christian scholarly argumentation is done. That and my other points remain as refuting you until proven otherwise.
@@Dillun34 I understand your concern. Please know it was not to be arbitrary or hide the details. This is the first of 10 videos. As a brother in Christ, please offer me the grace to believe me when I say that I am not purposeful to hide anything or bend the truth in any way.
you are blind trying to lead the blind
How so? Please explain to me how.
@@LivingChristian you take easy to understand scriptures and try to complicate them .that is what the arminian denominations do when you move away from the easy to understand scriptures and bring in complications that is when deception comes in
@@chrisarmstrong3200 God so loved the world that He sent His Son to save it. Pretty simple. The Calvinists say world is a particular group of people arbitrarily chosen that God preselected before eternity past…and I’m the one twisting the simple reading of Scripture? I’m also not Arminian just FYI
@@LivingChristian read romans chapter 9
@@chrisarmstrong3200 I have. I have a video in it. It’s actually very easy to understand once you know why Paul is bringing out the OT passages he does and understanding the original context of those OT passages.
17:25, sorry no, I don’t see it. It might be clear in your mind, but you have not thus far is the last 17 minutes logically and persuasively made your case. You pulled the Jews out of thin air suddenly only a minute ago, without them being mentioned whatsoever in any of the texts you’ve read thus far.
Again for context: I do not hold it a covenant theology.
You went off the rails when you claimed "the called" in Romans 8:28 refers only to the Jews and not the Gentiles. You seem to pick and choose only the verses supporting your thesis and ignoring others. Here are two that show Gentiles are also part of the "called" of Romans 8:28-30.
Rom. 1:5 Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.
Rom. 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
This really throws a wrench in your division of Romans at chapter 8. Furthermore chapter 9 is aimed at the Jews' contention that it is unfair for the Jews to be made into a vessel of wrath rather than the Gentiles. A better approach is to view the letter to both Jews and Gentiles. He does address one group individually in some cases but you can't make a clear division at chapter 8. Romans 8:28-30 is relevant to both Jews and Gentiles.
I was Arminian for 40 years. Then God removed my stupidity. I have been Calvinist for 16 years now and will NEVER go back to the lie of Arminianism. It is sad to see this delusional and deluding video.
Calvinist have a character that is so unlike Christ. The proof is in this comment section.
"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men-extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector'."
@@reformedpilgrim
You must be born again. People will know you by your fruits, good or rotten.
@@larrybedouin2921 Absolutely, you must be born again. No doubt. Is it your position that Calvinists aren't saved?
At 17:55, yes you debunk yourself. I’m not sure why when you were reading all the “called” verses you left this one out which defines “the called” for us as “saints” - that is simply saved people.
18:15, yes all Christians are considered beloved - it’s a endearing, but generic term for Christians that Paul uses 30 times in his epistles, 22 of those times outside of the Book of Romans, in his writings to Gentile churches.
You have a theological tunnel vision, based upon your own preconceptions.
WOW!, This is a Joseph Smith interpretation of Romans here. Repent of your obvious heresy Jason! Romans chapters 1-8 is not talking only about Jews, it’s obvious Paul is speaking to both Jews and Gentiles! The below verse is clear that, The book of Romans is addressing ALL who are in Rome that are true believers of Christ inside the church in Rome,that would be both Jews and Gentiles. To Gentiles by majority, since it’s a Gentile City!
Romans 1:7 NKJV
To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Joseph Smith? Can you provide a direct quote?
Just wait till the next 2 sessions as there is much more evidence to share…
@@LivingChristian You say that when Paul addresses the Beloved of God that its just Jewish believers he is referring to. According to Colossians 3:11-12 that Paul is clearly addressing both Jews and Gentiles as Beloved and Elect.
And you say that those who are “called” as only being Jews. When in 1 Corinthians 1:23-31 is clearly saying both Jews and Gentiles are “called”.
@Chad-no3uz in Romans this is true.
@@LivingChristian Sorry. It’s not true.
@@LivingChristian Here is an example in Romans of Gentiles being “called” and being called Beloved.
Romans 9:24-25 NKJV
even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? [25] As He says also in Hosea: "I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved."
Just go with Calvin's admitted best exegete, Saint John Chrysostom. He was a Greek Church Father, martyr, and one of the greatest preachers to ever live. Too bad you protestants in the west have left the Church Fathers and their wisdom.
You are stuck in the 8th century bud. You want church father theology, they are all over the map 😂
@@improvementestimate7458 how many different protestant denominations are there? When was the "Gospel" discovered?
@@improvementestimate7458 are you a superior exegete?
@@vitaignis5594 what a ridiculous question. The fact that you ask, this shows your skinny comprehension of facts and history. 2.) “when were the gospels discovered” is also ridiculous question again if you knew the truth about these matters, you wouldn’t ask such childish questions. You’re kind always amazes me. I’m never surprised. I will exit this conversation now, God bless
@@improvementestimate7458 when is sound theology "discovered"? The questions are very simple. If you think Church Fathers, canonized saints, all over the place, you clearly have closed your eyes to all of the modern denominations. If the Church Fathers were so clueless to the point they were all over the map, why would even the reformers cite them as authorities for support?
Is this a joke?
No, but if it is a new revealed truth, it could be your worst theological nightmare !.
It is incomprehensible that someone would redefine Romans chapters 1-8. This is easily the most ridiculous concept ever conceived. I will always be dumber for watching this.
Wow, what beautiful encouragement by a supposed brother in Christ. Shameful.
It’s not that it’s a ridiculous concept as much as it’s terrible reading comprehension. In the discipline of reading comprehension it’s actually a very useful idea, when dealing with difficult texts, to back away from the text, think of all the different angles the author could be coming from, and then going back to the text to test out each theory.
But the theory that maybe Paul was writing to the Jews specifically in Romans 1 - 8 fails in the first paragraph of the book.
@@gGXGUITARit’s not discouragement of a brother, it’s a rejection of a horrible piece of reading comprehension.
Well maybe, it is however also inconceivable that after arguably around 4000 years of history covered in the preceding books of the Bible that near the end of this history it is revealed to the reader that the destines of individuals are fixed, & therefore making the contents of all previously read (& all that ever will be) irrelevant, in that the reader cannot affect their destined outcome regardless of what is written or read.
@@user-fk2ur9cv7h Except nothing in the NT actually teaches that, so why even bring it up?
This is a perspective no one on the history of Christianity has ever offered. Chopping the book of Romans into two parts, one for the Jews (ch1-8) and one for the gentiles (9-12) mangles the message and defeats one of the central purposes which is to show that Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. Plus, it flies in the face of the book itself which is address “to all who are in Rome, called to be saints”. It is ahistorical and was only invented to try to get around Romans 8:28-30. Sorry man, weak stuff. You missed the mark and cannot back any of this up.
Hello, and thank you for your comment. I plan to back up my comment in session 4 when I start walking through the text. Second 1-3 are preliminary. Stay tuned