Romans 9. 10 & 11, with cross references, this is not a “verse study” @PeterC as Nate already showed us.
Shalom.
J.
I would do a comedic “Whoa” here, but I feel sometimes you may take offense. Not sure if you know this, but you are using a classic conversational move here. You are shifting from the specific details of the olive tree metaphor to the macro-narrative of Romans 9–11, accusing me of isolated “verse picking.”
The irony is that taking Romans 9, 10, and 11 as one continuous, grand argument actually strengthens my point. Those three chapters form a single, focused arc answering one specific question: If Jesus is the Messiah, why has ethnic Israel rejected Him, and has God failed His promises to them?
I agree 100% that Romans 9, 10, and 11 must be read as one unified, seamless argument. In fact, looking at the entire macro-narrative makes the Dispensational case even stronger.
Romans 9 or the pasy. Paul starts with deep sorrow for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” or ethnic Israel. He establishes God’s sovereign choice in maintaining a physical remnant, proving God’s word hasn’t failed them.
Romans 10 depicts the present. Paul explains Israel’s current stumble. Seeking righteousness by works rather than faith in Christ.
While Romans 11 is the future. Paul asks the ultimate question framing this whole section: “Has God rejected His people?” His answer is an emphatic “No!” He shows that their current hardening is partial and temporary until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, leading to the ultimate restoration of national Israel.
If “Israel” across these three chapters morphs from Paul’s literal flesh-and-blood kinsmen in Chapter 9 into the Gentile-inclusive Church in Chapter 11, the entire three-chapter argument loses its logic. Paul isn’t playing word games; he’s defending God’s faithfulness to the very ethnic people He covenanted with.
However, I can see where this has drifted from Free Will, although you do have that warning.
“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God… provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” Romans 11:22
Which is what I think started this.
Peter
1 Like
No accusation at all. You’ve already started your own thread on Romans 11. It seems evident to me that you haven’t really engaged with the sound, biblical hermeneutics Nate Sala presented. If you had, I don’t think you’d be making the same arguments here. Let’s keep this thread focused on the topic at hand.
Shalom.
J.
I’m not sure where the whole Romans 11 thing came from. Can you explain that to me?
Actually originally Johann, I thought I was quoting Peter. But later realized it was you…lol. So i just left it. But my tone was more playful actually toward Peter because we likely align a bit closer on some theological points – which is probably why he liked it.
Johann i would ask you to consider the other recent things i said about you. The ones with great promise whether we ever side with one another. Please consider that “my heart” toward you. As for the Reformed Faith, well I would not say I am trying to debunk. I would say, I don’t agree with it and don’t think it is biblical. But I understand those that do. Because of it taking the rockstar center stage mode as it has in America it concerns me.
As for your rebuttal, well, I understand what you are saying. But it is just that as I shared there were examples of good soil. So to some extent Jesus teaching would mean He expected some hearts in His day to have good soil. But pound for pound, i tend to see that teaching as more related to Jesus covenant with the Jews. Not that it is not a helpful warning today. It most certainly can be. But i would just see it epicentrically as belonging to the initial offer to the Jews. Seeing it this way would in essence seem to want to debunk reformed thought. So yeah. That is not my aim. I mentioned in a post I think we tend to throw everything in a blender. In my journey i think there is wisdom is seeing the Israeli differences. We don’t have to have long drawn out dissertations every time my views contrast greatly. I am just saying here for clarity of differences. If that makes sense brother?
Yeah i mentioned it actually Peter because i thought you were saying it. So it was prepped for how we converse. But then i realized it was Johann, and just left it. But yeah I only said what i said because of the mention. I had nothing to do with the Romans 11 discussion. Blessings.
I thought the Romans 11 discussion was something you were having with Peter. I was not aware that was meant for me. It was not after my posts. And it did not make reference to them. Maybe i missed something?
I agree your Westminster take is how it was expressed historically. I just believe there are ways to see the word that don’t require “so much” of the appeal to mystery as affording takes like the Westminster approach. So organically because of my study I would see it very differently. I’d ask you not to conflate my independent studies with all things i am not seeing reformed thought correctly. That is a typical trope and “go to” for reformeds i’ve noticed over the years. I know you think it is true concerning me. But outside of me…it is known in non-reformed circles that an argument style and tactic used often is “you don’t understand reformed thought.” I’d ask you to consider not staying on those waters. Because it is kind of off putting to be so neck deep in it all for decades and then all that ignored by someone who has not even met me personally. Please consider that brother. It is possible that what i have seen in the word instead of reformed approaches could be accurate. I know there is no world like that in your estimation. But my views biblically come out of hard and difficult research to better understand the word. It does not mean that everything i study in the word of God is only half cocked because i don’t understand reformed thought. If that makes sense. Blessings.
Brother @TCC, please feel free to continue this discussion with @PeterC in his Romans 11 thread. You two can have a proper theological discussion there. What I find surprising is that you’ve written reams of posts and countless analogies, yet there’s very little actual engagement with the biblical text itself. I’d much rather see a careful exposition of Scripture than another analogy or illustration. Let’s allow the Scriptures to drive the discussion.
Thanks.
J.
So the parable of the 4 soils is applicable only for the Jews, Got it.
Is it only about Israel?
No.
Although Jesus is addressing Israel, the principle transcends Israel.
After the resurrection, the apostles preach the same gospel throughout the world.
The same kinds of responses occur:
Some reject immediately (Acts 13:45–46).
Some believe temporarily and fall away (Acts 8:13, 20–23 is often discussed in this regard).
Some are consumed by worldly desires (1 Tim. 6:9–10).
Others persevere and bear fruit (Acts 16:14–15; Col. 1:5–6).
Nothing in Jesus’ explanation limits the soils to ethnic Jews.
Shalom.
J.
1 Like
So here is the part you did not quote. The very next sentence. So that your contrasting claim has more standing. If you are interested brother in not talking past each other, I am not saying that it would or could not apply to the church. And I said that. But what interests you more than my point of consideration is that it should not be considered a point at all. And then we have conversation built upon those premises.
In golf, when we T off and it is just a hair fraction off the ball can land tens of yards outside the intended launch direction line. If we want to not talk past each other, it would be helpful not to let theological stances override indented discussion points. I just think these points are too MASSIVE to just fly the seat of theological pants by:
- The soils was under “the kingdom is at hand” gospel timeframe
- The soils came in parabolic form like some 5 minutes later just after Jewish leadership called Jesus demonic
- Israel still had to decide as a nation people to receive her king (outside of the wicked leadership)
- Jews wondering why Israel was not priming for a new kingdom hugely glaring
- What literally people were not rejecting is Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead. That is not what would make people not fearless–yet we treat it as though that is what it was about – on the merits we cannot allow that extremely obvious difference to exist–but it is LITERALLY different–what was measured in hearts was not the church gospel…that is large enough for questions AT LEAST – more than just dismissive hand waving as if it did not matter…wow
These are extremely massive historical realities we tend to just blend and sweep together effortlessly and dismiss it easily even though full context of statements someone, like myself, might make, “it could extend to the church,” are ignored completely in order to be better heard.
I just think that is so centered on a view it can’t see the discussion value because of ideologic potential possession. Deciding to have ears to hear not and eyes to see not how something is being discussed in order to hold one’s theology intact. Just sayin. Sorry but THAT GOSPEL was not the one the church got. We never were offered an immediate kingdom like Israel was. I know its hard to process maybe. But we didn’t. I’m just saying to be so swayed by ideology the mind can’t grasp how much of a grand canyon gape that potentially is to not see “reasonable” distinctions is not sober exegesis. Its just not. By any standard. Blessings.
Thanks for this Johann. And I had no idea you were in South Africa…pretty cool.
I would ask you when you have time to read some of my posts to you I have not seen responses on. I’m not meaning to overstep. Only if you have time. Not because I want you to hear a side of my argument. But just that i think brother you come extremely close “like here” of being “over the target” of where ways in which I am able to see things and discus on certain levels might most massively be impacted…by you. Which is pretty rare. So hopeful that does not fade or become distracted away. Your mission in life is not to see how i can best be helped and truly edified. But to the extent how God is moving in your life might move you to consider how I might most be edified here (in rare form by someone like yourself) is not something i have seen in any of my close relationships for years. But in you, there is something. And if so, I would not even be beyond however the Lord might use that even within the contours of your theological leanings.
So please hear that even though the hurdles I would assess regarding reformed doctrines are pretty daunting, I am 1000% open to how God might use you in my life (so many thousands of miles away). Even though i would see extreme problems with reformed thought, I am not opposed to the person having most impact on me to be a Calvinist. It would almost be fitting even in how God works. So there is that too. Just sayin. Blessings.
1 Like
Brother… Jesus was speaking to first-century Jews at a momentous, unique turning point in covenant history, right after the religious leaders in Matthew 12 attributed His Spirit-empowered miracles to Beelzebul. Taking that immediate setting seriously is good exegesis. Where the Reformed framework offers a different answer, however, is in showing that Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 13 was not a temporary detour or a detached national offer, but the direct continuation and fulfillment of how God has dealt with the human heart throughout the entire Old Testament.
To understand why the Parable of the Soils applies beyond a short-lived historical window, we have to look at how the Old Testament itself defines human heart inability. Long before Matthew 13, Moses addressed the entire nation of Israel after they had witnessed the plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, and the giving of the Law. In Deuteronomy 29:4, Moses makes a stunning declaration to the people: “But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.”
Moses identified that even when people are placed in the ultimate environment of visible miracles and direct divine offers, the human heart remains entirely blind and deaf unless God sovereignly gives the capacity to perceive. This is why Proverbs 20:12 explicitly states, “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the LORD has made them both.” The natural soil of the fallen human heart across every era, whether before the flood in Genesis 6:5, during the monarchy in Jeremiah 17:9, or in first-century Galilee, is universally hard, rocky, and spiritually dead.
Furthermore, the agricultural metaphor of soil, seed, and thorns was not a brand new concept invented for a first-century dispensational offer; it was drawn directly from Old Testament covenantal warnings. In Jeremiah 4:3–4, God warns the people of Judah using the exact same imagery: “Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts.”
Hosea 10:12 echoes this exact call to “break up your fallow ground.” The Old Testament prophets recognized that Israel’s fundamental problem was that their hearts were stony soil. That is precisely why God promised the New Covenant in Ezekiel 36:26, declaring, “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” David prayed for this exact same work of creative power in Psalm 51:10 when he cried, “Create in me a clean heart, O God.” A human heart only becomes “good soil” when God sovereignly takes away the stone and creates a heart of flesh through regeneration.
Your point about Matthew 12 is actually one of the strongest proofs for this continuity. When the Pharisees rejected Christ in Matthew 12, Jesus shifted to parables in Matthew 13 not to make a softer offer, but to execute judicial judgment upon hard hearts. When His disciples asked Him why He spoke in parables, Jesus directly quoted Isaiah 6:9–10, saying that the prophecy of Isaiah was being fulfilled in their hearing: “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull…” In Isaiah 6, God commissioned the prophet to preach a message that would intentionally bake the unregenerate hearts of Israel into judicial blindness. Jesus was doing the exact same thing in Matthew 13. He also echoed Isaiah 29:13, where God lamented that Israel drew near with their lips while their hearts were far from Him. Yet, amidst that judicial blinding, Isaiah 55:10–11 promises that God’s Word acts like rain and snow watering the earth, causing it to sprout and yield seed, declaring, “so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose.”
Finally, regarding the distinction between the “Gospel of the Kingdom” and the “Church Gospel,” Scripture views the core mechanism of saving faith as organically united across history. In Galatians 3:8, Paul explicitly writes that God “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham,” citing Genesis 15:6 where Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. In Hebrews 4:2, the author writes concerning Israel in the wilderness under Moses that “good news [the gospel] came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.”
While the clarity of revelation certainly grew over time, moving from Old Testament shadows and promises to the full post-resurrection light of Christ’s cross, the object of faith has always been God’s promised Redeemer, and the entry into His Kingdom has always required spiritual rebirth. As Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:3–5, no one can see or enter the Kingdom of God without being born from above by the Holy Spirit.
Shalom.
J
I understand how you are looking at this. And not just you. For this is the reformed answer. I am going to layout where I find particular inconsistencies in using Due 29 as a blend matchup for Matt 12. Not that they are not “very similar.” They are. But I don’t believe it is for the reason of God ordaining inability to perceive. Becaue the word of God itself tells us differently. If we don’t just camp on key verses, we can see the genuine exegetical trajectory clearly spelled out in the verse vicinity. Which I will lay out.
But at the bottom of this post is a 2.5 hour video of Leighton where he asks some seriously profound questions (different observations than my takes here…some similar…but some from very different takes…very helpful to reasonably “let us reason together” to consider…amen). I know that is a long video. But if you watch it over time, it will answer a ton of questions as to where this reformed perspective you have demonstrated might be significantly less tenable then alternative consideration.
The reason I do not think Due 29 is a good verse to use to demonstrate a generic human condition (rather than a place Israelites harden themselves into) is because Deuteronomy repeatedly points out what your view of a standard human condition God ordains to actually be instead: irresponsibility on Israel’s part God is calling out/then judicially confronting. In other words, Duet clearly demonstrates Israelis blinding themselves. Not God. Yet, will we have eyes to see? lol
- Deut. 1:26–32 — they refused to believe
- they rebelled (9:7)
- Deut. 9:23–24 — they rebelled
- they were stubborn (9:24)
- “This commandment…is not too difficult for you…” (Deut. 30:11)\
- “Choose life…” (30:19)
- Deut. 31:27 — Moses says he knows they are stubborn
If we don’t overlay presumption on those above verses…maybe they are just saying what they are saying. Maybe? So I would summarize it this way:
- Israel is fully responsible for its unbelief and rebellion
- God alone grants true spiritual understanding
- Deuteronomy 29:4 affirms the second truth without negating the first
- The above 3 bullets can exist outside of compatibilism ontologically
This tension continues throughout Scripture and is reflected again in passages such as Isaiah 6 and Romans 11.
Blessings.
Leighton raises a number of objections, and honestly I can’t respond to every point in this thread since the video is quite lengthy. I’m also very familiar with his arguments, having listened to most of his debates and spent considerable time reading his website. While I appreciate the effort he’s put into his work, his articles tend to be very long and filled with extended analogies, which I don’t always find persuasive. No offense intended, of course.
Very brief summary…
Deuteronomy 29:4 is judicial hardening, not total inability.
Calvinism allegedly reads pre-faith regeneration into the text.
“No eyes to see” is a covenant curse, not an innate condition.
Romans 1 teaches people become hardened rather than being born unable.
Matthew 13 and Isaiah 6 concern only judicial hardening of Israel.
2 Corinthians 3 teaches the veil is removed simply when one turns.
Calvinism supposedly destroys moral responsibility.
Faith precedes regeneration.
However…
I also noticed several exegetical weaknesses in his argument that I would address…
He repeatedly commits the fallacy of false alternatives (“either judicial hardening or total depravity”), whereas Scripture teaches both.
He largely ignores Paul’s inspired interpretation of Deuteronomy in Romans 9–11.
He assumes every imperative implies native moral ability, a premise Scripture never states.
His treatment of Romans 1 overlooks Paul’s universal conclusion in Romans 3:9–20.
His explanation of Matthew 13 underestimates Jesus’ own statement that the mysteries are given (δέδοται, perfect passive) to some and not to others.
Leighton’s argument here rests on a false dichotomy between judicial hardening and total depravity, as though affirming one necessarily excludes the other. Historically, however, Reformed theology has always distinguished these doctrines. Romans 1 is not explaining the origin of man’s sinful condition but the revelation of God’s wrath against sinful humanity in history. Paul begins by saying, “For the wrath of God is being revealed” (ἀποκαλύπτεται, apokalyptetai, present passive indicative), indicating an ongoing manifestation of divine judgment. The chapter is describing how God judges sinners, not how they first became sinners.
Before Paul ever says that God “gave them over,” he has already described mankind as actively suppressing the truth. Romans 1:18 speaks of those “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων). The participle κατεχόντων (katechontōn) is a present active participle, portraying a continual pattern of suppressing the truth. Paul assumes humanity is already in rebellion against God. The text does not suggest that people were morally neutral until God later abandoned them. Rather, their suppression of the truth precedes the judicial act of being “given over.”
The verb translated “gave them over” is παρέδωκεν (paredōken), from παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi), meaning “to hand over,” “to deliver up,” or “to abandon.” It is judicial language, not creative language. Paul does not say that God first made people sinful. Instead, God hands them over to the sinful desires they already possess. Notice the wording of Romans 1:24: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts.” The lusts are already present. God’s judgment consists of removing His restraining hand and allowing sinners to pursue the corruption they have already chosen. This is why Calvin wrote that God does not create evil affections in men but gives them over to Satan and to their own corrupt desires.
Leighton also argues that because Paul says people “became futile” (ἐματαιώθησαν, emataiōthēsan) and “their foolish heart was darkened” (ἐσκοτίσθη, eskotisthē), this disproves total depravity. Yet this does not follow. Scripture frequently describes sin as progressive. A person may already be spiritually dead and still become increasingly hardened. Pharaoh is the clearest Old Testament example. His heart was hard, yet it became progressively harder throughout the Exodus narrative. Likewise, Ephesians 4:18–19 describes unbelievers as “darkened in their understanding” and “having become callous” (ἀπηλγηκότες, apēlgēkotes). Reformed theology has never taught that total depravity means people are as wicked as they could possibly be. Rather, it teaches that every faculty of man’s nature, mind, will, affections, and conscience, has been corrupted by sin. That corruption can deepen over time through persistent rebellion.
Most importantly, Romans 1 cannot be read in isolation from Paul’s conclusion in Romans 3. After describing the downward spiral of sinful humanity, Paul concludes, “We have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin” (Romans 3:9). He then strings together Old Testament quotations to declare, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Romans 3:10–11). Paul intentionally moves from the historical manifestations of God’s judgment in Romans 1 to the universal condition of humanity in Romans 3. Leighton effectively stops the argument at Romans 1, whereas Paul continues to show that every person is under the dominion of sin.
The biblical picture, therefore, is not either total depravity or judicial hardening, but both. Total depravity explains mankind’s fallen condition in Adam (Romans 5:12–19; Ephesians 2:1–3). Judicial hardening explains God’s righteous response to persistent rebellion by giving sinners over to the consequences of the sinful desires they already possess.
I don’t find him convincing TCC, more like he is trying to “convince” himself, over and over.
Shalom.
J.
Thanks Johann. I appreciate you being very through and helpfully specific. I can answer these in chunks. So here are two. But I will post more later on the other paragraphs. Blessings in advance…
Verse 11
“There is none who understands;
there is none who seeks for God.”
Calvinists argue:
“If no one seeks God, then no one is capable of seeking God until regenerated.”
That is a theological inference.
Notice Paul does not say:
“No one is able to seek God.”
He says:
“No one seeks.”
. . . . .
If taken as an absolute statement for every moment of every person’s life, several passages become difficult.
Examples:
-
Cornelius seeks God before hearing the gospel (Acts 10).
-
The Bereans eagerly examine Scripture (Acts 17:11).
-
The Ethiopian eunuch is reading Isaiah (Acts 8).
-
Jesus repeatedly tells people,
“Seek…” (e.g., Matt. 6:33; 7:7)
I believe what is likely thought in Calvinism is that those examples of seeking God are because the spirit is moving them. Not because they in and of themselves seek God. Yet even before Paul was even converted, Jesus says “seek” because the Father is in open season of drawing. What is interesting to note is that these examples are in Acts. So that would go with my whole vibe of the book being a transitional sample of OT real believers unto NT real believers. So even though it shows them seeking, I would likely agree with your take on “no one” in general aside from God granting some to see things. Even outside of Acts. The way i believe it works is soil. So if someone is not totally into being hard core against God they may have soil to see some things "granted by God’ because ones were faithful with little – honoring what level of conscience they had as light. That does not mean that light gave them spiritual insight they could not have. No. Just that if they move toward the light of the conscience, God will likely provide insight they cannot otherwise have.
Here it boils down i think to the view on free will. I don’t know if you share the extreme views of James White who sees free will an assault on God’s sovereignty. I don’t know if you go that far. But to me God created man in His image. Even though free will is tainted and fallen. It still is what it is to me. To me, it is no threat to God’s sovereignty at all because God is powerful enough to do being God with radical free agents all over the place. To me that makes God more powerful and sovereign than a God who can’t handle other wills in the room. I look forward to replying to your other paragraph’s here. But I don’t see either of us budging. We may be just talking past each other (although i see you as really go out of your way not to brother). I know our discussions to a certain degree can be helpful to readers. But there comes a point…lol.
. . . . .
This is what tells me we will never resolve our differences in regards to the reformed thing. Because before this time Jesus was not speaking in parables. After the leadership rejection Jesus officially is. And explaining that Israel calling Him a demon won’t be getting the insights Moses also proclaimed in Duet 29 to have been or be withheld is due to their insane level of unbelief. Chapter 12/13…Occom’s Razor. To omit the “obvious” vaccination, to me, makes it impossible to have the eyes to see the plain simple linear progression in favor (like in some ways Israel counting on their heritage) of just how things went down (simply related to why where a child could see it). What is it about it about Leighton’s explanation of 13 “underestimates?” How does that work?
Correct @TCC
Regarding Romans 3:11, I agree that Paul does not explicitly write, “No one is able to seek God.” He writes, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν Θεόν (ouk estin ho ekzētōn ton Theon), “there is none who seeks after God.” However, I don’t think that observation weakens the Reformed reading. Paul’s statement is not an isolated proverb but the climax of his indictment beginning in Romans 1:18. More importantly, Scripture frequently explains human conduct by revealing the inability that lies behind it.
For example, Romans 8:7 states that τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς (“the mind set on the flesh”) τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται, οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται. The verb δύναται is the present middle/passive indicative of δύναμαι, denoting ability or capability. Paul does not merely say the fleshly mind does not submit to God’s law. He says it cannot submit. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 2:14, Paul writes that the natural man οὐ δέχεται (“does not receive”) the things of the Spirit because οὐ δύναται γνῶναι (“he is not able to understand them”). Again, the issue is not opportunity but ability. Romans 3 describes the universal reality that no one seeks God, while Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 2 explain why.
The examples of Cornelius, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Bereans likewise do not overturn Paul’s conclusion. In each case, Luke carefully attributes God’s prior activity to the individual. Cornelius receives angelic revelation before Peter arrives. Philip is sovereignly directed by the Spirit to intercept the Ethiopian’s chariot. Most explicitly, Luke writes concerning Lydia, ὧν ὁ Κύριος διήνοιξεν τὴν καρδίαν (“whose heart the Lord opened”) so that she paid attention to Paul’s message (Acts 16:14). The verb διήνοιξεν is the aorist active indicative of διανοίγω, meaning “to open completely.” Luke attributes the decisive action not to Lydia’s autonomous decision but to the Lord’s gracious intervention.
You suggest that those who respond faithfully to the light of conscience are then granted greater light. I appreciate the desire to uphold human responsibility, yet I struggle to find that principle in Paul’s argument. Romans 1 repeatedly describes humanity suppressing revelation. Paul says they are τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων (“those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”). The participle κατεχόντων is a present active participle, indicating continuous suppression. Paul’s conclusion is not that some respond positively while others do not, but that all stand guilty before God. That is precisely why Romans 3 culminates with πάντες ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν εἰσίν (“all are under sin”).
Regarding free will, I think we may actually agree more than we disagree. Reformed theology does not deny that man possesses a will. Rather, it asks whether that will remains morally able to come to Christ apart from grace. Jesus answers that question in John 6:44: οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με (“No one is able to come to Me”). Once again, the verb δύναται expresses ability, not permission. The infinitive ἐλθεῖν (“to come”) functions as the object of that inability. Jesus is not describing a lack of invitation but a lack of moral capacity apart from the Father’s drawing.
Concerning Matthew 13, I completely agree that the immediate historical context is Israel’s rejection of her Messiah and the transition to parabolic teaching following the blasphemy of chapter 12. I do not think any careful interpreter should ignore that context. Where I think Leighton underestimates the passage is in Jesus’ own explanation of why understanding differs among His hearers.
Jesus says, Ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom,” ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται, “but to them it has not been given” (Matt. 13:11).
The verb δέδοται is the perfect passive indicative of δίδωμι. The perfect tense emphasizes a completed action with continuing results. The passive voice is what grammarians often call a divine passive, where God is the implied agent. Jesus therefore grounds the disciples’ understanding not in superior perception or wiser use of free will but in a gracious gift already bestowed by God that continues to bear fruit.
This becomes even clearer in verse 13, where Jesus says, βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐκ ἀκούουσιν οὐδὲ συνίουσιν (“seeing they do not see, hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand”). The repeated present tense verbs portray an ongoing state of spiritual blindness. That blindness certainly includes judicial hardening, as Isaiah 6 demonstrates, but Jesus simultaneously explains why the disciples differ from the crowds: to you it has been given.
For that reason, I do not deny judicial hardening. I affirm it. My concern is that Leighton often presents judicial hardening as though it excludes God’s sovereign bestowal of spiritual understanding. Yet Matthew 13 teaches both. Israel is genuinely responsible for her unbelief, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy, while the disciples understand because God has graciously granted them insight into the mysteries of the kingdom. Those truths are not contradictory. They are complementary.
So my point is not that Matthew 13 ignores Israel’s historical rejection. Quite the opposite. It explains that rejection while simultaneously revealing the deeper theological reality that the difference between the disciples and the crowds ultimately rests in God’s gracious gift: Ὑμῖν δέδοται… ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται. I think that is the feature of the passage Leighton consistently underestimates.
Leighton should study the grammar of both the Hebrew, Greek and the LXX brother.
J.
This is really no problem for me TCC. https://www.freebiblecommentary.org/
Dr. Utley has provided his Bible study material in several media formats.
Most of the videos were done when Dr. Utley has been pastor or interim pastor.
The audio lessons are longer and more detailed. Most of them were done at Trinity Baptist Church in Lubbock, Texas between 1976-1985.
The written commentaries were mostly done while Dr. Utley was Professor of Hermeneutics at East Texas Baptist University between 1987-2003. He finished the whole Bible in 2019. They represent his latest theological thoughts.
Written Bible Commentaries (Bob’s latest theological thoughts)
Audio Bible Commentaries (MP3 has many more, longer and detailed lessons.)
Video Bible Commentaries (YouTube)
Special Topics (listed in alphabetical order)
New Testament Survey (written, video)
Charts
New Testament Timeline
Theories of the Second Coming
Written Commentary PDF Files
I use his material quite a bit. It’s freely available, completely free of charge. One thing I really appreciate is that he teaches people how to study Scripture, focusing on genre, sound hermeneutics, historical context, and proper interpretation, rather than simply telling me what to believe.
I have to admit, though, that I’ve noticed a growing anti-intellectual streak on this forum. Serious theology, careful exegesis, and thoughtful interaction with the biblical text are too often dismissed as unnecessary or even viewed with suspicion. That’s a sad state of affairs. Scripture repeatedly calls us to love God not only with our hearts, but also with our minds (Matt. 22:37), and the Bereans were commended because they carefully examined the Scriptures to test what they heard (Acts 17:11). Sound theology isn’t the enemy of faith, it should deepen and strengthen it.
It is a vocation, not a vacation from epignosis eis Messiah Yeshua.
Hence, I often find myself traversing this forum alone. It reminds me of A. W. Tozer’s observation that “the saint must walk alone.” I used to wonder why he said that. I think I’m beginning to understand.
Shalom bro.
Johann.
Peter, I haven’t read the thread in it’s entirety…but I do recommend you focus on Augustine for truth. Saint Augustine if I may be so bold.
I think this is the issue you and I also have, brother @Johann. This is not an attack—just an observation. When someone insists on “letting the text speak for itself” in one breath, but then argues that a passage must be reinterpreted through an Old Testament lens to make sense in the next, they are shifting hermeneutical rules depending on which side of the argument they are on.
The core issue here is selective contextualization. When it suits your framework: You demand a strict, immediate reading of a verse, calling any outside context or distinctions “adding to the text” or “not letting Scripture speak for itself.”
However, when a passage challenges your framework: Suddenly, the immediate plain meaning of Romans 1 (general revelation, clear human accountability, suppressed truth) or Matthew 12–13 (national rejection of Messiah, parables revealing kingdom mysteries) is treated as incomplete. You insist you must import Old Testament covenant background to make the passage fit his overarching system.
If a method requires using broad Old Testament background to reframe the clear surface meaning of a New Testament text, you cannot logically condemn others for using contextual, dispensational, or historical frameworks on other passages.
There is a massive difference between using the Old Testament to illuminate a New Testament quote and using it to override the immediate narrative or argument. Paul or Matthew explicitly quotes an OT passage to show fulfillment, typology, or continuity. The New Testament author invites the reader back to the OT text.
Taking a straightforward NT passage (like the progressive moral fall in Romans 1 or the shift to parabolic teaching in Matthew 13) and asserting that its plain meaning is secondary to a pre-existing Old Testament covenant category, specifically to protect a theological view of unconditional election.
When you claim Romans 1 or Matthew 12–13 can only be understood by forcing an Old Testament grid onto them, you are doing the exact thing he accuses opponents of: refusing to let the New Testament author’s immediate argument stand on its own terms.
As TCC pointed out, sometimes what it says is what it means. Romans 1;
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
God gives us all the evidence we need to know the truth. He is real. If we reject that, then we reject Him. Choice.
" For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
Although they knew the truth, they CHOSE to reject it, so?
“Therefore” Stop. What is the “Therefore,” there, for? Because they chose.
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” Romans 1:19-25
It is pretty clear and needs no Old Testament additions. Again, not an attack, my brother. Just a point of discussion.
Shalom,
Peter
1 Like
Pretty clear you weren’t aware of this, @PeterC. Also, for the record, you seem so fixated on “choicemeats” that you’ve overlooked the fact that I actually affirm it.
And I definitely read the OT as Paul was Rabbi.
Romans is a complex logical argument, and much of the logic is derived from the OT. In a sense this is a research document, with its primary source being the OT. In addition to a great many allusions to the OT, Paul directly quotes it 63 times. And at least 14 OT books are quoted by Paul (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Nahum, Habakkuk, Malachi), with Isaiah and Psalms being the most frequent.
In all the NT, there are approximately 319 quotations from the OT; so Romans accounts for almost 20% of those quotations. There are more quotations in Romans than in any other NT book (Matthew is next with 54, Acts with 40, and Hebrews with 37). In fact, Paul quotes the OT more in Romans than in the remainder of his 12 other letters combined (44x),and he quotes the OT more in Romans than the General Epistles combined (54x). [Interestingly, six of his letters contain no OT quotations: Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, Titus, and Philemon. Five other letters contain no OT quotations: 1-3 John, Jude, and Revelation.]
It is also interesting to note in what sections Paul uses the OT most heavily in this letter. Here is a breakdown by chapter of the OT quotations in Romans (a complete chart of the exact quotations is available here):
Chapter 1 = 1x
Chapter 2 = 2x
Chapter 3 = 7x
Chapter 4 = 6x
Chapter 5 = 0x
Chapter 6 = 0x
Chapter 7 = 1x
Chapter 8 = 1x
Chapter 9 = 12x
Chapter 10 = 12x
Chapter 11 = 9x
Chapter 12 = 2x
Chapter 13 = 2x
Chapter 14 = 2x
Chapter 15 = 6x
Chapter 16 = 0x
So in the section on the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ and eternal plan of God (chs. 9-11), Paul uses more than half of the OT quotations in the book (33x). And in the heart of the book in the section on the sanctifying work of the gospel (chs. 5-8) he uses only two OT quotations.
Further, “more than half of the Pauline examples of [‘it is written’] are found in Romans. It was a valuable asset to be able to say, when dealing with doctrinal truth, it stands written.” [Harrison, 306]
Schreiner relates the use of the OT in this letter to Paul’s purpose of reconciling the Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church:
**The New Testament is in the Old concealed; the Old Testament is in the New revealed." Commonly attributed to Augustine of Hippo
“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” (Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet.)
How do you study the Scriptures brother?
Shalom.
J.