Romans  

@@kalewidman3291 checkout Soteriology 101 chanell for very in depth non-calvinist understanding of these passages.

Don’t forget *keeping your salvation.

Sure, continue to think you can negotiate with the creator of the universe who is time immortal on your salvation.

That's a philosophical argument. It's not a biblical argument. Are you who fight against the doctrines of grace even believing in the bible as highest authority? Seems that most of you believe more in your own philosophical reasoning than in God's word. Dale argued in this sermon with the Bible over and over again! You didn't reference scripture with that kind of arguing and you didn't answer his biblical arguments either. That tells a lot... That's why Dale is absolutely right with what he said in the introduction (4:09-5:09): Most non-calvinists are not careful interpreters of the word. I see it in the comments section all the time. Non-calvinists lean to be philosophers, not exegets. The problem with it is that even our thinking is by nature depraved by sin (Eph 4,17-18; Rom 12,2-3). That's why we should believe more in scripture, than in our depraved philosophical arguments. Please Stop! You don't fight against Calvin. You fight against five points that Jesus and the Apostles taught (f.e. in John 1+3+6+10+15+17; Acts 13+16+20; Romans 3+5+7+8+9+11; Ephesians 1+2+4+5). Did you ever studie these chapters carefully? If you didn't, do it! I love all of you, everyone of my non-calvinistic brothers and sisters in Christ. I just can't agree with your soteriology.

@@Jesus.is.my.saviour do you realize your biggest accusations of non-Calvinists (not being careful interpreters, or doing proper exegesis, applying extra philosophy, etc) could also be said of Calvinists? The reformed perspective is not the only perspective of scripture that can use scripture to support itself. You ought to be diligent in fully understanding opposing arguments.

@@joshuamyers34 Yes brother, you are right, at least in some sense. Of course: Calvinists use philosophical arguments too and "not all" calvinists are careful interpreters of the scriptures. I didn't say that and didn't meant it. First of all my comment was an answer to another comment of a person who wasn't refuting Dales biblical arguments and arguing with philosophical ideas instead. But let me be clear: Calvinists are "on average" better exegets, have more scripture knowledge and and use less philosophical arguments. That's just true. Like Dale said: If someone was writing 700 pages on three verses of the Bible, it was mostly a puritan (calvinist). These guys took the Bible seriously, more than others. The puritans were the best theologians ever! But also true: Some people who have a great bible knowledge are not Calvinists. I'm sure most of them they are lying to themselves because I was lying to myself, too... I was reading through romans 9 and many, many other passages and I already knew deep down that it teaches calvinism, but wasn't able to accept it for months, like many before me. Careful and honest exegets can't oversee calvinism in the Bible, because it's there! Total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace and the preservation of the saints are clearly in the Bible (and the 3rd point too, but not as clear as the others)! There are really hundreds, maybe over thousand bible verses that teach calvinism, it's really everywhere!

If you choose to follow Jesus, it means that God has already chosen you. Blessings.

@@relearntv then did I get a choice?

He literally says in the beginning of the video that it's "tongue in cheek." Also, you saying "if Calvinism were true", is like saying "if scripture were true." A Calvinist is a person who simply accepts what the Bible teaches about salvation.

How does Calvinism make salvation rest on performance, feelings, and knowledge? Can you give a reference for this claim?

Why is it sad?

Don’t do it. Calvinism is a terrible, blasphemous, maybe even evil theology based on hideous misinterpretation of a few key Bible passages.

@@TheRomans9Guy This, coming from someone who calls himself "TheRomans9Guy"? Am I missing something here? Have you actually READ Romans 9?

@@-RM- Of course. But when Romans 9 is read with zero understanding of the context, it can lead to one coming up with terrible interpretations. Especially Calvinism. It would be the same today with something like the “MAGA” slogan. If someone heard that slogan but had no idea of the context behind it they could, and most likely would, come away with horrendous misunderstanding of the actual concept behind it. That’s what has happened with Romans 9.

@@TheRomans9Guy True. We serve a different God. You serve the god of the Jews who believed yet taught faith plus works. The god of Pelagius and his semis- the Roman Catholic Church, Arminius, the Wesleyans and the vast majority of modern day “christendom”. To be honest, the same god of islam, hinduism, and all the other cults with a “synergistic” soteriology.

@@Jmoffit22 If you accuse me of worshipping a God whose rule is that his followers earn glory through works, you demonstrate you know nothing of my thoughts. And in not bashful in describing them. There isn’t any synergism is salvation. There is God’s great grace and mercy. He forgives all men all by himself, with no input from us. There is man’s humors and surrender. Man can surrender, but only because God gave him the power to do so. Then there is God’s granting of eternal life. No synergism there either.

Proof?

Please explain.

@@-RM- The short version is: Everyone Paul’s 1st century world held the belief, before Christ came, that God only loved and chose the Jews as his people, and that (this part is supremely important) that it meant the Gentiles were dog meat. Sub human. Of course, that’s a hideous thing to say, (ask someone around you to agree that your race is the master race and that all other races aren’t even humans, and see how that conversation goes) but they not only believed it, they taught it from scripture. Many of the quotes Paul pulls in Romans 9 are actually phrases that were used by Jews in defense of this holy racism theology, but Paul is flipping all of them on their heads. He’s reversing the identity roles. He’s saying, ‘ok, you Jews like to say “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated” because you think it’s God saying he hates anyone who isn’t you, well what if God does hate people, but it’s you that he hates? How would you like your holy-racism-theology if YOU’RE actually the Esau??’ That’s the short version. Paul is correcting the Jews’ doctrine of election, not establishing a new one. That’s why he says all the things he says in chapters 1-5, in places like Rom 5:18 and 11:32.

Not to mention critical passages omitted or cut off short. Most of these proof texts need greater context. People should really read Romans 8-11 consecutively to digest the whole message. I wish Dale would have read more of Jeremiah 18 when he referenced it. He cut it off just before Jeremiah tells the people to "repent" so that God doesn't shape them for a dishonorable use. This is a warning of Judgement (Judicial hardening) on those who choose disobedience.... not arbitrarily or unconditionally molded for reprobation and damnation.

@@joshuamyers34 Right. And the English translation is not incorrect, Paul is asking “what if?” in the beginning of his potter references because the Jews already believed this theology, but he’s asking what if it were true but the roles were reversed? How would you like it then?? Paul knows it’s not true to begin with, God does NOT predestined some to glory and some to wrath, but what if it were, and you Jews were the wrath vessels??

@@TheRomans9Guy well, when I read that part about God enduring vessels of wrath, I think of how God endured wicked rulers like pharoh for a time, in order that God's power and glory would be seen in the final outcome. Also the entire Bible points to the Gospel. Jesus had to endure the wrath and hatred of the Jews (from the same lump) who acted dishonorably and crucified him.

Amen

What precedes every evil work? The satanic notion that man is able to complete it. Think about it. Ability 👀

@@Jmoffit22 What precedes every miracle Jesus performed? The satanic notion that Jesus was able to perform it. Think about it. Your logic is terrible.

What about this sermon misrepresents God's character?

@@relearntv the implications of this determinist philosophical systematic misrepresent God's Character by: 1. making God to be the author of evil, reprobating most of humanity to hell without them having any ability to do anything about it, and for no apparent reason. 2. Making God and Christ appear to be deceptive, dishonest, and duplicitous... telling people to "seek the Lord" and to "believe" in him, and not wanting any to perish but all to come to salvation etc, when clearly that is not his desires under this systematic.