Video

29:00 I disagree. Chapter 11 is more Paul’s actual argument. Chapter 9 is his rebuttal of errant Jewish theology. It’s not in informative, but it’s a side issue not a main point.

13:30 There’s no issue explaining 1-5. After explaining all of the blessings that have come to the Gentiles in chapter 8, Paul turns to answering the unbelieving Jews that would have been seething at his message in 8, and Paul now defends his argument against them in chapter 9. Pauls first words are in defense of his character. He recounts that he does not hate his own people. He is not a “Gentile-lover.” He concurs that the Jews have all the enumerated blessings. However, contained within verses 1-5 are two striking statements that get missed by Gentile readers. In verse 3, Paul relates himself to Moses. What’s striking about this is that Moses led his people, the Jews, out of slavery from the reviled Egyptian Pharaoh in probably the best loved story of the Jews. But in the current context, if Paul is Moses, “his people” would now actually be the Gentiles! This would have been a severe statement in the Jews’ eyes. What’s more, the Jewish leaders who were arguing that the Gentiles could NOT be let into God’s kingdom would then, by allegory, be the Pharaoh’s of the story!!! What an insult! Secondly, in verse 5 Paul adds one extra blessing that the Jews would have also seethed at: the Messiah. They did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. They know they played a part in his crucifixion. So for Paul to add Jesus into the list of blessings would have driven the Jews mad!

13:30 There’s no issue explaining 1-5. After explaining all of the blessings that have come to the Gentiles in chapter 8, Paul turns to answering the unbelieving Jews that would have been seething at his message in 8, and Paul now defends his argument against them in chapter 9. Pauls first words are in defense of his character. He recounts that he does not hate his own people. He is not a “Gentile-lover.” He concurs that the Jews have all the enumerated blessings. However, contained within verses 1-5 are two striking statements that get missed by Gentile readers. In verse 3, Paul relates himself to Moses. What’s striking about this is that Moses led his people, the Jews, out of slavery from the reviled Egyptian Pharaoh in probably the best loved story of the Jews. But in the current context, if Paul is Moses, “his people” would now actually be the Gentiles! This would have been a severe statement in the Jews’ eyes. What’s more, the Jewish leaders who were arguing that the Gentiles could NOT be let into God’s kingdom would then, by allegory, be the Pharaoh’s of the story!!! What an insult! Secondly, in verse 5 Paul adds one extra blessing that the Jews would have also seethed at: the Messiah. They did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. They know they played a part in his crucifixion. So for Paul to add Jesus into the list of blessings would have driven the Jews mad!

So, verse 6 is Paul’s first foray into countering the unbelieving Jews’ arguments here in chapter 9. Paul’s message is that the Gentiles are not unelect, as the Jews taught, but they also are elect. The Jews hated that teaching and among their chief arguments was the objection that the Gentiles could never be invited by God directly, Yahweh is the God of the Jews and if a Gentile we’re to be called/invited by God it would mean the Gentile would need to become a part of Israel, become a Jew in order to partake in God’s invitation. The argument is that God is only for the Jews so the Gentiles must become Jewish. Paul’s first counter argument here in verse 6 is, ‘if you Jews think God only is for Israel and not the nations, do you not know your own history? Are you yourselves even one of God’s Jews? Who are you to say that God cannot choose the Gentiles also, because if it really were the case that God was only for the Jews then it wouldn’t include any of you, all of you have rejected his Son and so have rejected God, and the OT teaches all Jews who reject God are themselves cast out!’

31:59 In Romans 8 Paul is concluding his message of Gentile inclusion by announcing Al of the amazing blessings that have now come to the Gentiles directly. The same blessings that the Jews already had through their forefathers. And when Paul preached this in the past he knew this was the most incendiary thing he taught. It elicited the most violent responses from his Jewish audiences. And that’s what spurs him as he turns to Romans 9.

17:08 Its not about election. Unless you understand that Paul is teaching that God elects everyone. If you understand that, then fine, Paul is correcting the Jews’ errant doctrine of election that taught God only elected some people, themselves, and he is fixing it by teaching that there are actually no unelect people. Then in that way, yes, it’s about election. But that’s still a stretch.

16:55 Romans 9 is Paul’s responses to the objections he has received from (furious? murderous?) unbelieving Jews throughout his ministry.

13:29 One issue with this, admittedly very concise, summation is its glaring absence of Paul’s major theme that the Gentiles have now been included into God’s kingdom invitation. And directly invited.

Those who believe Egg + Sperm = Not a Viable Life (YET)…. If thats true, then why the need to abort? It’s either LIFE or it’s not.

We recently did a sermon series and a podcast series on Worship breaking down Leafblad's definition. We miss you brother. Thanks for the shoutouts! Good work!

Greetings from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺 I have to agree with your assessment of our Lutheran brothers. I love their almost fanatical adherence to law gospel distinction. I will check out your recommendations also. Keep up the great work. Andrew.

My understanding is that Judaism is based on the Old Testament which did not have or feature Jesus specifically. That the new testament centers around Jesus to make the religion more appealing/nicer.

Can't hear anything from the debate you're playing.

48:04 the extrapolations here seem to be quite wild.

45:31 people argue the gospel of John is written to the whole world?

44:23. Weird question. To become members of the new covenant and disciples of Jesus. This was always God’s plan; to have people in his son. Now they can follow him and fulfill the plan to bring the gospel to the world.

43:37 respectfully the father is the son is not trinitarianism, if you’re affirming that view. .

42:16 that doesn’t tell you why these specific people were not granted to come. That needs to be explained as well. One can’t just assume T of TULIP here as the reason.

In Romans 11 Paul says very clearly Israel didn’t not stumble so as to fall. The hardening in part on Israel is not permanent. I don’t know why anyone would say God didn’t harden Israel overall. Paul says that virtually if not actually explicitly. One could disagree on the reasons why but that he did it should not be in dispute.

37:50 Jesus is talking to a particular people group. To universalize this is an assumption that needs to be proven just like the assumption or position that he is only speaking to this crowd does.

35:27 this argument isnt going to work for a Calvinist, man. What makes one chosen and another not? You have no grounds to make that objection, given Calvinism.

34:17 If you don’t understand why they couldn’t believe you have missed Leighton’s whole thesis. I think it was very clear in his presentation what he was arguing. I would encourage you to go look at it again or dialogue with him or someone who shares his view to get what it is.

30:25 what an unfair analysis. To come to Jesus you had to have not rejected the father and his revelation beforehand. This isn’t some weird thesis, it’s exactly what Jesus says in John 5:31-47, which Leighton brought up. The father and the son are not the same.

25:15 Total depravity is not God blinding you in response to your actions. It is inborn depravity on all cases.

23:42 That is exactly the point. That’s why the assumptions around T matter as to the interpretation of John 6:44.

19:55 we can’t hear Leighton at all.

15:08 most provisionists wouldn’t grant one can’t believe without a supernatural work of God to make you able.

13:55 misrepresents your view of Calvinism. It’s important to remember that each person has their own view of these things.

12:15 we can’t hear Leighton here.

9:44 you can’t grant the presuppositions though, on either side. That is the point. If you do you would have an intractable difference between the two sides. The whole debate really, I think, rests on the assumption or position of the cause of the inability of those to come to Jesus. Leighton and james have different explanations for that which lead directly to differing conclusions. That is why both sides really need to argue from text and relevant context for what the reason for that inability was. I think James just sees “unable” and assumed inability due to T(which Leighton pointed out). That definitely cannot just be assumed though, especially in a debate on John 6 particularly.

I can appreciate and respect anyone saying what Calvin did was wrong and wicked. I appreciate that genuinely. God bless you. That reflects zero on any professed Calvinist, unless they go around and actively defend it as good and right.

I’m just starting the video. Do you examine whites positive case? He is the one arguing in the affirmative, after all.