How Myron Golden gets Romans 9 Wrong | Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101

JOIN US LIVE as we discuss the Provisionist interpretation of Romans 9 in contrast to the Calvinistic teaching presented by Pastor Myron.

Or @soteriology101 on Twitter

Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!

Thanks for watching.

#Leighton Flowers #Predestination #Calvinism #Provisionism #Calvinist #Salvation

[gailpurcell]

I have been learning so much by listening to Dr. Flowers. I wish we could find a church that taught as well.

[soccerman]

If double predestination was Paul’s major argument in Romans 9, wouldn’t his conclusion be, “What shall we say then? That God chooses some for heaven and others for hell, and no one can complain because that’s God sovereign choice.” And yet his conclusion is that Gentiles obtained righteousness by faith without pursuing it but Israel did not because they pursued it by works, not faith. Or is Paul concluding that Gentiles were effectually chosen for heaven and Israel was effectually chosen for hell?

[gtaylor]

Masterfully done. Glory to God! May he continue to use you both for his Kingdom! It is by his Spirit and giving discernment that you both are able to teach sound doctrine and even unteach false doctrine! I pray for those who the adversary is trying to deceive!

[jay]

Leighton. I am in vocational education and ministry so I’m telling you I understand your passion here. HOWEVER, Richard is also an expert. Give him some more time. I love you and your work and you frame up these awesome discussions but we need some more from Richard in this case. Grace and love from KY.

[nathanhellrung]

Calvinists claim that Calvinism comes from Paul’s apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament texts but they cannot show through any meaningful exegesis or by using a consistent hermeneutic that Paul is changing the meaning of the Old Testament texts he quotes from. This is why we must study and be good Bereans because if not we will continue to be led astray by bad theology and false doctrines.

[DavidWilliams-cmow]

Myrons comparison of world in John 3:16 to 1 John 2:15 makes absolutely no sense. In the gospel of John it is obviously meaning mankind, in 1 John it means the material and physical world. The same Greek word can refer to the physical world and the inhabitants of the world, depending on context. Stop the nonsense, Calvinists.

[sydney.g.sloangammagee]

Hey Leighton, I'm loving this . . . more like a bible study, crucial to understand how Scripture is dependant upon Scripture, to explain & properly follow historical progression throughout.

Richard is wonderful - excellent to not just discredit erroneous doctrine, but to follow it to proper conclusion.
The more people available to help us learn this correctly, the better.

Thank you!!!!

BTW - I have heard Jack Hibbs properly explain Romans . . . but because it is indeed complicated & proper understanding of it is dependant upon knowing the history, it is refreshing to know "others" come to the same conclusion.
Jack really doesn't target any specific "false religion" - he just purposely teaches what the Scripture says & proves it from supporting scripture - if you learn it RIGHT, there is no room for error.

[newcreationcoachingllc]

Appreciate Richard's teaching. Good stuff!

[sharonlouise]

Great teaching! I love your guest. The big fail of Calvinism is historical context. Also, salvation has always been by faith which is why Abraham is always held up by Paul. Paul's audience of "Jews" would have shredded him to pieces if he was giving a "new" or Pauline understanding of the text. The Jews knew their Scripture and it appears that Paul is moving carefully through the Scriptures to get to his grand point.

[rsdaarud]

Thank you, Brothers! Bottom line principle of understanding God's action is to realize He is absolute pure love! Nothing in His economy comes from a non-love state. John 3:16

[dannynavarro]

Not only do you not let your guest speak, but you interrupt your guest and derail hit point. Now I have to find your guest's website, look for the pdf to understand his point. Very frustrating, you do this often! For the record, I think you are great, I've purchased. your books, but this an ongoing issue.

[JohnSmith-zoir]

One thing I don't like about these philosophy guys, is that they try to intellectualise scripture. They almost always end up humanising God and deifying man. This is dangerous ground.

Also, there is another option which I have never seen as being considered by these "philosophers" and that is that two things can be true at once.

The Calvinists have predestination spot on and it most certainly harmonises with salvation by the fact that we are saved by grace and not by works lest we should boast. Free choice is "works" and therefore boasting in that choice, is glorifying man's intellect. "Oh, I made the right choice". That's humanising God and deifying man.

At the same time we do have free choice to sin or not sin. Or, to drink Coke or Pepsi and I don't think Calvinists would disagree with that free will choice.

So, the harmonising of those scriptures is yes, we do have free will, but it only exists outside of salvation. Two seemingly opposing things can be true at the same time and still harmonise.

The third "group of scriptures" are made up of the "whosoever should believe" (will be saved) scriptures and "to save all mankind" scriptures.

The "whosoever shall believe" scriptures are "all" the predestined elect or chosen ones who are called by Christ and submit to His call (not by responding by free will choice) to His call. God foreknew who the "whosoever will believes" would be.

Submission is not a free will choice. Ask any UFC fighter. They submit because a power greater than them brings them to their knees so to speak.

When Christ called me, a power greater than myself called the Holy Spirit, literally brought me to my knees in submission. That was not a free will human choice that I made. It was God's grace enacted by the Holy Spirit. A power great than I called the Holy Spirit made me submit. It was the best person I have ever submitted to.

The "all of mankinds" group are the non-elect. And the "all of mankind" scripture is God's desire, not a literal absolute.

The elect are saved. The non-elect according to Revelation will be judged on the day of Judgement according to their deeds. God desires that "all" of mankind will be saved, but also foreknew there would be those who reject Him.

God foreknew the risk of "free will" and therefore made provision for that by having chosen ones (the elect) and then made provision for "all of mankind" by judging them on the Day of Judgement according to their deeds, as stated in Revelation.

That harmonises free will, "saving grace" versus free will works based "choice salvation", salvation for "all" is "all" the elect and "all" the non-elect. Two things can be true at once and still harmonise.

[grantsmith]

Remember that Herod was an Edomite King through the line of Esau, and Jesus was the King through the line of David (through Jacob). Which Kingly lineage did God nurture to bring salvation? Not the house of the strong man.

[LawlessNate]

This long form content is fantastic, don't get me wrong, but if you want this to get to a wider audience then *in addition to* this longer form content you might consider also releasing a hyper-streamlined version of this reasoning that's only a few minutes long. I'm talking about some serious fat-trimming. Someone might be able to restate the major bullet points of this 1 hour 27 long minute video on 2 or 3 minutes. With some fancy editing the same information would be packaged into a format that many, *many* times more people would find digestible.

[LawlessNate]

1:33:00 another issue with his reasoning is he's essentially suggesting that by "world" in John 3:16 John is not referring to the people of the world but the physical world itself. If you try to follow the rest of the verse with this logic then the understanding of the verse falls into being nonsense. After all, that would mean that God sent his son to die not for sinners, but rather for the physical world. That would mean Jesus didn't die for the elect, but rather Jesus died for the locations Toronto, Austria, Africa, etc. Clearly the context of John 3:16 has "world" referring to the people of the world.

[masonmull]

Where can I find that PDF file at I love it

[thebrownfamily]

Is there a way to get this pdf that Richard read from?

[jacobwittmer]

The title should more aptly be put, the Provisionist understanding of Romans 9 rather than what Myron got wrong

[christophersmith]

Do you have a link to the Megan phelps interview so I can watch it in full? Thanks

[AlexanderosD]

By the Calvinist usage of "love/hate" in the Jacob vs Esau situation,
Then Isaac is more loving than God in that setting.
"Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his venison, but Rebekah loved Jacob."
According to the Calvinist standard, Isaac loved Esau a reprobate that God did not love.
Is Isaac's love greater than God's love Calvinists?
And what of Paul's love for Israelites, if God reprobated them and does not love them?