Arminians on Romans 9 | Doug Wilson

In this episode of Ask Doug, pastor Douglas Wilson discusses the Arminian view on Romans 9 compared to the Reformed/Calvinist view.

[CanonPress]

Check out Doug's book on Calvinism, "Easy Chairs, Hard Words" here:

[jodyhart]

I often said that I was predestined to be an Arminian. But about six years ago (I am now 62) whine reading Romans 9, I could no longer cling to my feeble attempt at claiming my own decision in my salvation. In all honesty since the Holy Spirit convicted me, I now see God’s infinite love and sovereignty shining brighter from the pages of Scripture. I do not like this aspect of God’s sovereignty (predestination) but it has opened my eyes to see Scripture in a whole new light.

[bpstuff]

Not all Israel is Israel.

Very much like the difference between the "visible church" and the "truly saved"

[Victory]

Very good! When the national argument was presented to me once, I responded, "that is like saying it is possible to bake an apple pie without baking any of the individual apples"

[bradhouston]

This was good. I am only a recent Reformed thinker and it feels a lot to me that in the past, I would probably have read some of these sections almost like a kid with my fingers in my ears. Like the part of my brain that even came close to thinking that the text says what it says and therefore there is a challenging side to God that I have to accept, would just get booted back in line by the “God is all love” “God loves everyone” NICE GOD part of my brain.

Now I accept that God is love, righteous, just, Holy etc...but he also allows/wills for bad things to happen.
It’s quite mind blowing but so much more seems to make sense now!

[mkshffr]

One of many passages that really whacked me upside the head was Jn 10:26 and surrounding...

But ye believe not: for ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. - John 10:26 GNV

It hit me that He did not say you are not my sheep because you don't believe but rather you don't believe because you are not of my sheep. Pow!

Of course no one text is a stand alone proof but I began to see that same kind of theme repeated all through the scripture.

[CaseyCovenant]

Please release a revised and updated edition of Easy Chairs Hard Words! :)

[derekpierce]

MacArthurs commentary on Romans is excellent

[Victory]

Lol! I was at war over Calvanism, hating it. I was at Logos School and overheard Doug mention he had to become will for it to be true. God used his comment to another person to repeatedly poke me in the heart repeatedly. I realized even if the Calvanists were mistaken they were far more obedient as they were willing for this awful doctrine to be true. Then I broke before the Lord dropped to my knees and prayed, "If this is true, you can make me love it more than I hate it". And, He did :-)

[billyr]

This is very good. Because all those people out there trying to say Romans 9 is all about Israel are correct. But that doesn't mean it's not about salvation and of individuals as well.

[notasheep]

I sure thought the problem Paul is trying to explain is why not all Israel is Israel. And how there is elect individuals inside of Israel. Hence Jacob and Esau...

[adindubose]

Would Douglas Wilson be open to debating Leighton Flowers on this chapter or John 6?

[rayortiz]

finally a reformed person who agrees with me! i thought the text was obvious but it seems that most reformed guys put a wall around chapter 9 and ignore the flow of argumentation

[farmerpete]

Doug explained my experience exactly. 👏🏽

[whitebeardInn]

I love Doug, he is such a godly person and I truly believe he only wants to preach Jesus and nothing more. He loves God and is willing to be blunt and even offensive in his defense of the gospel. I watch all of his videos. But... I disagree with him in this area. I'm in my 60's and have studied the Bible my whole adult life, I have an advanced degree in theology (for what that's worth). I've been a member of Calvinist churches and Arminian churches. The Arminian way of looking at salvation has so much more biblical support it's amazing that anyone who has read the Bible can be a Calvinist. I've found that Calvinist do not take the simple reading of the Bible. They eisegete Calvinistic meaning into the text instead of taking the text for its simple and straightforward meaning.

[icheko]

This video provided a very good point for me. If you want to find out the truth be open to follow where the text will lead. And if you want to be a calvanist read commentators of the Bible.

It's unfortunate that people will listen to commentary and accept it more then what the word says.

Especially those people that like to say don't make a dogma out of a single text and look at context but only accept that view when it doesn't pertain their view point.

FYI not Arminian nor calvinist.
I think both sides are looking at the exact same coin and arguing about what they each see but these two theories in their simplest forms possibly speak about the same thing

1 side is the unequivocal authority and initiative of God to help humanity find salvation thru faith, and the steadfast promise of God that NO ONE will take you forcefully from His hands.

And the 2nd side the responsibility of the person to charish the freedom given to him by Christ and finish the race that was started and remain faithful to the end while God will do His work and melt and shape you into the vessel He wants you to be in His Kingdom.

No one will separate you from God, expect you chose to walk away from Him on your own account. He forces no one.

The forces Paul is talking about that won't seperate us are all mostly external forces not the internal ones.

That's why Jesus says a house split in itself can not stand. As soon as those outside forces of evil come into you again and take control of you thru sin you are now a divided house.

That's why Jesus always said you must take up your cross, denie self, you must Die so that you might live.

[kentyoung]

Two things:

First, his airplane analogy (1:24) needs to be fleshed out a bit. "The Bible nowhere says that God predestined that this man die in a fiery plane crash. God only predestined that the plane would crash, not that the passengers would... These corporate entities are made up of individuals." This assumes that God also predestined who would be on which plane, which, of course, is the point of contention. This is called the fallacy of "begging the question."

Secondly, he assumes, a (wrong) Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9:6 without discussion (3:00). He assumes that "it is not as though the word of God has failed" means "it is not as though God was trying to effectively save all Israel and couldn't." In other words, going back to the plane analogy, he assumes that the destination of the plane, what Israel was elected for, is effectual salvation. It isn't. Israel was elected to bring the word of God, meaning the Law, the promises, the covenenants, and most importantly, the Christ, to the world. This plan, this "word of God" has not failed. The plane is still on its way and will still land safely at its destination. Its just that many who think they are in it, are actually in the other plane, the plane that is opposing this plan, and is destined to crash in the ocean.

The main point Paul makes in Romans 9 is that the physical descendants of Israel, most of them anyway, have ceased to be in the correct plane. They are now in the "Esau" plane, because they are opposing God's purpose in electing Israel. It's true, he still uses them to accomplish his purpose, but he uses them as a potter uses a pre-hardened lump of clay, as a dishonorable vessel (ie. using hardened Jewish leaders to hand Jesus over for crucifixion). God is also allowed, says Paul, to withhold judgement ("He bore with great patience") on rebels, to accomplish his purposes. The objector had said, "Why does he find fault? For who has resisted his will?" In other words, "If God is using me for his purpose, then I must be faultless!" Paul's explanation, far from being, "God elects to damnation and you're not allowed to ask why!" is really, "God is being patient with you and using your hardened condition for his purposes. He has every right to do so." Going back to the plane analogy, it is comforting to know that, for individuals "take off" isn't until we die or the Lord returns. Paul admonishes his fellow Jews, "switch planes, before it's too late!" Thankfully he goes on to explain that the bulk of his nation will, one day, switch planes, coming back into being vessels of honor. (Romans 11:26, 2 Tim 2:20, 21)

[wildbill]

While loving Jacob and hating Esau may very well pertain corporately to the nations of Israel and Edom, it also pertains to the individual persons of Jacob and Esau themselves. The entire story of Jacob in the old testament shows God's love toward Jacob and not Esau and the analogy is based on the individuals before being applied to the nations.

[lacklusterami]

Isn't the question "Does God decide who gets on what airplane?"

[bkbennett]

Late to the party, but I sure appreciate Doug Wilson. God saves each soul, and no one tailgates into heaven (no matter what nation they are a part of).