God Bless Dr. James White....he is my dearly beloved brother in Christ, and soo greatly loved. I love his teachings, have learned soo much from him. 📖🌷✝️🐑
JW asks questions in ways that make it seem like he doesn't understand the other person's point, but this is just as debate tactic, not a true misunderstanding. He's a disengenuous debator.
I don't know where I learned this, but I have always understood that the first 8 chapters of Romans dealt with the Jews, and the second half dealt with the Gentiles. Looking forward to your views.
Jason, this is great! I once saw an article that was referenced on Soteriology 101's website by Eric Kemp. The Original article by someone named Kingswood Hart was one I found absolutely fascinating and convincing on this position. It might be helpful as well.
It seems like one of the overall purposes of Paul was to foster unity in the Roman church. This is because the Jews had been banished for a time from Rome and then later came back and Paul is trying to avoid having the Jews and Gentiles splinter into two churches - David Pawson's view. So you can see why different parts of Romans may be addressed to Jews and others to Gentiles.
Thank you making this series video to clearly explain Bible means to avoid Calvinism false doctrine misleading people. God bless you all your services. 😊👍🙏
Wow, you have no presuppositions at all! You head into a study with that goal in mind do you think you have any chance of a clear understanding of what you are reading? th-cam.com/video/Igmy7uBqZW8/w-d-xo.html
Looking forward to hearing your perspective on this. I found Dr. Garza and Nick Craig of John17Apologetics very helpful. I encourage people to take their time listening to these positions/re-reading these Scriptures because it can be difficult to see it if you've ever been taught the calvinist view.
@@SheepDog1974Yes, I know. I highly recommend his channel as well as Dr. Garza's. I believe Tim Mackie has similar views as well. I learned a lot from all three studying Ephesians.
Looking forward to it! It can be frustrating to actually see the differences in Scripture in terms of "who" is being addressed and then having to "prove" who is being spoken to. I'm not sure if Dr. White's view is Covenant theology, but those who believe this collapse all verses applying to Israel and make them apply to the church. Once again another presupposition.
Nobody is predestined to go to heaven or hell. Calvinists have predestination wrong. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. God wills that all men would come to repentance /knowledge of the truth.
@LivingChristian look james has a real issue with a lack of kindness, which we are called to, that seems to put people off before even hearing him out. The view you proposed is irrelevant to the conversation. If it's true of the jew it's true of the gentile. We are all saved the same way.
4:10 The first-person address is not as simple as suggested here. First-person pronouns include I, me, my, mine, we, us, ours. Second-person pronouns include you, your, yours, yourself, yourselves. Third-person pronouns include he, she, it, they, them, theirs Paul goes between first and second person pronouns throughout the book, sometimes including himself with his audience, saying "we", to saying "you", even in the same chapter.
Nice attempt to discredit. This position is not changing who Jesus is. But rather who the letter was written to which helps us see the context of the letter better and how to properly apply it to our lives. To compare this with Mormon theology is a terrible thing to even suggest.
@@GoodBerean exactly. It comes up in two areas in the Bible, yet Calvinists want to run with it as if it is some secret mystical PILLAR of the Christian faith. They would rather believe their picture of “predestination” than believe Gods words are pure when He says He wants all to repent and be saved, not wanting anyone to perish. But…I mean… this is great and wonderful news… God has given everyone hope in Jesus…what has bewitched someone to NOT want to believe that? Strange.
Hey Jason, good old friend! I hear you, but don’t take this too far, this type of scholarship is like jumping from jagged rock to jagged rock on the shore of a beach if you can picture the analogy. I’m not saying you’re totally wrong, but it wreaks of an OT issue called the Documentary Hypothesis or JEDP. You end up with extremely bizarre authorial intent, and even worse application of the text (i.e. Numbers 14:40-45 is a passage horribly misinterpreted under the extremes of this camp). Although there are probably tinges of truth to JEDP, but with salt shaker levels of truth there are truckloads of error that come out of it. Inevitably you exegete a text in a way the editor and/or author never clearly meant to express. All it takes is one passage to alter the view of entire swaths of of books in the Bible which can go the way of the dodo bird with new scholarship. JEDP is kinda hitting that right now, and many OT commentaries are essentially useless because they espouse views that seminaries don’t hold to as much anymore. I’m sensing this with this Romans view, which is partially why I think it’s a perspective that died. It is a stance that requires emphatic exegesis based on implicit context, rather than what Paul explicitly states. Regardless, I’ll be looking forward to it Jason. I hope you find some value in my comment brother. Prayers continually for you my friend!
It might be wise to make a 1 part video first where you do something more than just hinting about this theory. 🤷🏻♂️ I’m not trying to be dismissive but I don’t know that this theory is worth 10 videos worth of my time. I know you’ve received a lot of pushback on this topic and I’m not trying to be discouraging. Thank you for standing for a Biblical view of the Atonement in the debate.
The new idea is that the first eight capters of Romans is addressed exclusively to the Jews, so predestination applies only to the Jewish remnant, this approach fails because predestination is woven into the whole bible not just Romans 1-8.
“Church history” = Roman Catholics (RC) who believe in Replacement Theology (RT), so, of course, they would not see national Israel in those chapters; they claim they are the new/spiritual Israel. Good for you for paying attention to the pronouns! Don’t make assumptions. Let the scriptures define the pronouns. 🔥 And you’re absolutely right. This is not a new thought. Bible believers, unpersuaded by RC, RT, and Calvinism, have interpreted it this way. Gotta take off those Augustinian glasses. How to let the Bible define/ explain itself… Romans 8:28-30 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Who are these people that God foreknew, predestinated, called, justified, and glorified? Well, the list starts with “foreknow,” so let’s start there. A word search reveals, again, very nearby, in the same book, by the same author, how the word was used. Paul says in Romans 11:1-2 “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” Yes, that describes the Hebrew people, not us. There’s still too much Roman Catholicism in Protestantism, and now SBC churches (since they’ve become Protestant), and indep/non-denom churches. They take everything in the NT for themselves (rooted in RC Replacement Theology) instead of letting the Bible speak. It’s no wonder Jews have such a hard time with Christianity. We’ve erroneously stolen, co-opted all their covenants and promises for ourselves. New covenant. That’s another one. Read Jer 32:31-34? It explicitly says who that covenant is for, and it ain’t us. Read that and tell me that applies today. There’s no way.
PLEASE help me understand.... If you call your self Calvinist because of what John Calvin said or believe or you call yourself Lutherine because of what Martin Luther said or believe THEN why dont we call ourself Paulist because of What paul said or Johnist because of What John said... 1000% of me Says refering to yourself as a calvinist or lutherin or arminium or what ever is worshipping man. And again if it is because they were the early church fgathers or their stance of breaking free from the Roman catholic or whatever then my point is why dont we call ourself Paulist or Johnist or any Bible writer with a "ist" or "ism" after their name... If you are a christian their is nothing wrong with agreeing with what Calvin said as is there is nothing wrong with what Paul sais... SO PLEASE STOP CALLING OR REFERING TO YOURSELF AFTER A MAN.... Stay Christian as CHRIST is the Focus and not Martin or Calvin !!!!!
It's so funny that reformed people, which technically I am a part of even though I'm neither calvinist nor Lutheran (Provisionistic Molinists count as reformed), always claim sola scriptura, and yet always ALWAYS refer back to the fallible incorrect men that comprise the church from the beginning. Who is more man centered? The one who believes in men of history who could have interpreted things incorrectly, or the one that looks at the text itself? They call themselves reformed then act exactly like our Catholic cousins that refer to sacred tradition and church teaching. Hypocrites!
Jason, I really enjoy your content, but this "new" lost view was actually proposed by @John17apologetics.... You should have him on your channel and give credit where credit is due.
@SheepDog1974 J17apologetics has a similar view, but not exactly the same. I hold more of what Dr Brent Lay holds to and what I discovered from his book that I reference. I am part of a conversation thread with J17, happy to have him on sometime. He has encouraged me to have Dr Al Garza on my channel, which is a future plan!
![POLYCAT - ข้อความรูปยิ้ม [Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lBhIgPGCgbI/mqdefault.jpg)
God Bless Dr. James White....he is my dearly beloved brother in Christ, and soo greatly loved. I love his teachings, have learned soo much from him. 📖🌷✝️🐑
Bought the book. Great resource.
JW asks questions in ways that make it seem like he doesn't understand the other person's point, but this is just as debate tactic, not a true misunderstanding. He's a disengenuous debator.
Gobbletygook and giberish are not coherent.
I don't know where I learned this, but I have always understood that the first 8 chapters of Romans dealt with the Jews, and the second half dealt with the Gentiles. Looking forward to your views.
I purchased the book and am going through it. I'm looking forward to your series! Thank you for all you're doing!
Looking forward to this.
Jason, this is great! I once saw an article that was referenced on Soteriology 101's website by Eric Kemp. The Original article by someone named Kingswood Hart was one I found absolutely fascinating and convincing on this position. It might be helpful as well.
Great suggestion, seems very helpful.
It seems like one of the overall purposes of Paul was to foster unity in the Roman church. This is because the Jews had been banished for a time from Rome and then later came back and Paul is trying to avoid having the Jews and Gentiles splinter into two churches - David Pawson's view. So you can see why different parts of Romans may be addressed to Jews and others to Gentiles.
Sounds like an Indepth project. We look forward to exploring it along side you. Sending prayers of wisdom!
Thank you so much!!! ☺️ Love you guys!
@@GoodBereanJason ,Jeff durbin on yesterdays apologia show 59 min mark dealt with Leighton. Do you have a response?
@@GoodBereanJason before you release this ,send it to Dr. White for approval. Yield to your elder!
I really wish you would just tell us the main point you're making because it's driving me crazy.
Thank you making this series video to clearly explain Bible means to avoid Calvinism false doctrine misleading people.
God bless you all your services. 😊👍🙏
Wow, you have no presuppositions at all! You head into a study with that goal in mind do you think you have any chance of a clear understanding of what you are reading?
th-cam.com/video/Igmy7uBqZW8/w-d-xo.html
Hey Jason this is definitely how I saw it to God is doing something with you guys definitely 💯
Yeah, I'm thinking apostasy. What a joke.
Looking forward to hearing your perspective on this. I found Dr. Garza and Nick Craig of John17Apologetics very helpful. I encourage people to take their time listening to these positions/re-reading these Scriptures because it can be difficult to see it if you've ever been taught the calvinist view.
This "new" view that Jason is referring to was actually introduced by Nick John17apologetics. Give him a listen and subscribe.
@@SheepDog1974Yes, I know. I highly recommend his channel as well as Dr. Garza's. I believe Tim Mackie has similar views as well. I learned a lot from all three studying Ephesians.
Jason, can you please answer the question I asked you a few posts down on Romans 11 that completely destroys the free will argument.
Well, if it's a big project I guess that means you're going to need some help with it
Looking forward to it! It can be frustrating to actually see the differences in Scripture in terms of "who" is being addressed and then having to "prove" who is being spoken to. I'm not sure if Dr. White's view is Covenant theology, but those who believe this collapse all verses applying to Israel and make them apply to the church. Once again another presupposition.
I obviously see you want to get rid of Romans 8 pedestination for gentiles.
Nobody is predestined to go to heaven or hell. Calvinists have predestination wrong. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. God wills that all men would come to repentance /knowledge of the truth.
@@oshea2300I agree 100 percent. Yes, believers are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, not lost people to be saved.
Why must you re invent the wheel?
Not reinventing the wheel. Just showing the greater details of the wheel that many have not looked at before.
@LivingChristian look james has a real issue with a lack of kindness, which we are called to, that seems to put people off before even hearing him out. The view you proposed is irrelevant to the conversation. If it's true of the jew it's true of the gentile. We are all saved the same way.
4:10 The first-person address is not as simple as suggested here.
First-person pronouns include I, me, my, mine, we, us, ours.
Second-person pronouns include you, your, yours, yourself, yourselves.
Third-person pronouns include he, she, it, they, them, theirs
Paul goes between first and second person pronouns throughout the book, sometimes including himself with his audience, saying "we", to saying "you", even in the same chapter.
The Mormons also through there was a "Lost Perspective"
Nice attempt to discredit. This position is not changing who Jesus is. But rather who the letter was written to which helps us see the context of the letter better and how to properly apply it to our lives. To compare this with Mormon theology is a terrible thing to even suggest.
What a deceptive dishonest fabrication of a suggestion/correlation.
Predestination is everywhere in the new testament, a novel interpretation of Romans doesn't change anything.
Predestination is everywhere? Literally only 2x in Roman’s and 2x in Ephesians. Just FYI
It’s everywhere that Calvinists eisegete the text.
@@GoodBerean
I didn't mean the word but the concept.
@LivingChristian It's clear that where it is mentioned in Romans and Ephesians, it is predestined to justification.
@@GoodBerean exactly. It comes up in two areas in the Bible, yet Calvinists want to run with it as if it is some secret mystical PILLAR of the Christian faith. They would rather believe their picture of “predestination” than believe Gods words are pure when He says He wants all to repent and be saved, not wanting anyone to perish. But…I mean… this is great and wonderful news… God has given everyone hope in Jesus…what has bewitched someone to NOT want to believe that? Strange.
Hey Jason, good old friend! I hear you, but don’t take this too far, this type of scholarship is like jumping from jagged rock to jagged rock on the shore of a beach if you can picture the analogy.
I’m not saying you’re totally wrong, but it wreaks of an OT issue called the Documentary Hypothesis or JEDP. You end up with extremely bizarre authorial intent, and even worse application of the text (i.e. Numbers 14:40-45 is a passage horribly misinterpreted under the extremes of this camp).
Although there are probably tinges of truth to JEDP, but with salt shaker levels of truth there are truckloads of error that come out of it. Inevitably you exegete a text in a way the editor and/or author never clearly meant to express. All it takes is one passage to alter the view of entire swaths of of books in the Bible which can go the way of the dodo bird with new scholarship. JEDP is kinda hitting that right now, and many OT commentaries are essentially useless because they espouse views that seminaries don’t hold to as much anymore. I’m sensing this with this Romans view, which is partially why I think it’s a perspective that died. It is a stance that requires emphatic exegesis based on implicit context, rather than what Paul explicitly states.
Regardless, I’ll be looking forward to it Jason. I hope you find some value in my comment brother. Prayers continually for you my friend!
It might be wise to make a 1 part video first where you do something more than just hinting about this theory. 🤷🏻♂️
I’m not trying to be dismissive but I don’t know that this theory is worth 10 videos worth of my time.
I know you’ve received a lot of pushback on this topic and I’m not trying to be discouraging.
Thank you for standing for a Biblical view of the Atonement in the debate.
The new idea is that the first eight capters of Romans is addressed exclusively to the Jews, so predestination applies only to the Jewish remnant, this approach fails because predestination is woven into the whole bible not just Romans 1-8.
“Church history” = Roman Catholics (RC) who believe in Replacement Theology (RT), so, of course, they would not see national Israel in those chapters; they claim they are the new/spiritual Israel. Good for you for paying attention to the pronouns! Don’t make assumptions. Let the scriptures define the pronouns. 🔥 And you’re absolutely right. This is not a new thought. Bible believers, unpersuaded by RC, RT, and Calvinism, have interpreted it this way. Gotta take off those Augustinian glasses.
How to let the Bible define/ explain itself…
Romans 8:28-30 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
Who are these people that God foreknew, predestinated, called, justified, and glorified? Well, the list starts with “foreknow,” so let’s start there. A word search reveals, again, very nearby, in the same book, by the same author, how the word was used.
Paul says in Romans 11:1-2 “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.”
Yes, that describes the Hebrew people, not us.
There’s still too much Roman Catholicism in Protestantism, and now SBC churches (since they’ve become Protestant), and indep/non-denom churches. They take everything in the NT for themselves (rooted in RC Replacement Theology) instead of letting the Bible speak. It’s no wonder Jews have such a hard time with Christianity. We’ve erroneously stolen, co-opted all their covenants and promises for ourselves.
New covenant. That’s another one. Read Jer 32:31-34? It explicitly says who that covenant is for, and it ain’t us. Read that and tell me that applies today. There’s no way.
PLEASE help me understand.... If you call your self Calvinist because of what John Calvin said or believe or you call yourself Lutherine because of what Martin Luther said or believe THEN why dont we call ourself Paulist because of What paul said or Johnist because of What John said... 1000% of me Says refering to yourself as a calvinist or lutherin or arminium or what ever is worshipping man. And again if it is because they were the early church fgathers or their stance of breaking free from the Roman catholic or whatever then my point is why dont we call ourself Paulist or Johnist or any Bible writer with a "ist" or "ism" after their name... If you are a christian their is nothing wrong with agreeing with what Calvin said as is there is nothing wrong with what Paul sais... SO PLEASE STOP CALLING OR REFERING TO YOURSELF AFTER A MAN.... Stay Christian as CHRIST is the Focus and not Martin or Calvin !!!!!
It's so funny that reformed people, which technically I am a part of even though I'm neither calvinist nor Lutheran (Provisionistic Molinists count as reformed), always claim sola scriptura, and yet always ALWAYS refer back to the fallible incorrect men that comprise the church from the beginning. Who is more man centered? The one who believes in men of history who could have interpreted things incorrectly, or the one that looks at the text itself?
They call themselves reformed then act exactly like our Catholic cousins that refer to sacred tradition and church teaching. Hypocrites!
A ten part video series to attempt to justify that absolute nonsense you came out with at the debate. Time well spent 👍
Very optimistic of you to say!
Wow... The Calvin soldiers are out in droves today.
The editing is a little more suited for a murder mystery than a Christian debate.
I can't say that I agree
Jason, I really enjoy your content, but this "new" lost view was actually proposed by @John17apologetics.... You should have him on your channel and give credit where credit is due.
@SheepDog1974 J17apologetics has a similar view, but not exactly the same. I hold more of what Dr Brent Lay holds to and what I discovered from his book that I reference. I am part of a conversation thread with J17, happy to have him on sometime. He has encouraged me to have Dr Al Garza on my channel, which is a future plan!
@@GoodBerean wonderful. I am looking forward to your 10 part series 🙏