Romans 9 Debate (AK Richardson vs Matt Slick)

Comments · 155

• BI

  @biblicaltheologyexegesisan9024 · 2 years ago

  Slick refuses to see ak’s very poignant points of disagreements

  4

• LA

  @lawrencestanley8989 · 5 years ago

  Wow... I just finished Slick's opening statement. On behalf of reformed individuals the world over, I apologize for his disrespect. He did not even begin to try to exegete the text, he misquoted you, he slandered your character, and he went all over scripture rather than sticking to the text. Ugh, that was simply reprehensible.

  18

• FE

  @fernandopaulus9088 · 4 years ago

  Does Matt Slick even listens?

  15

• OR

  @Orangeokie7 · 3 years ago

  AK I love that you bring out the true context of Romans 9 in this debate. Calvinist seem to forget that Paul is writing this in the first century where there is a real controversy between ethnic Jews and those who put their faith in Christ.

  8

• KE

  @kevinchoqueclaros2503 · 3 years ago (edited)

  It is so funny when Matt Slick quotes verses every time one of his beliefs is touched upon, as if it is not possible to take such isolated verses out of context. I could say that Jesus was a weeper and quote the verse from John 11:35 &quot;And Jesus wept&quot; as if that completely supports the point he wants to make. <br> <br>And the amazing thing is that Matt can&apos;t see the inconsistency between a God who decides absolutely everything (deterministic) with a God who interacts with his creation, gives it commands, warnings, advice, etc, constantly throughout the Bible. A God who has been patiently seeking to find a genuine response of love, obedience and trust from us. In his Calvinistic view: love, faith, obedience, repentance have no place. Because man does not have the capacity to do so genuinely, unless it is irresistibly produced by God. In another sort of context we would not use the term irresistible, but coerced or forced.

  9

• BR

  @briansigrest3370 · 5 years ago

  Great exegesis of Romans 9, AK! The final nail in the Calvinist’s coffin, in my opinion, is that verse 30 perfectly continues the line of reasoning followed by you, while the Calvinist makes an arbitrary shift from unconditional election and irresistible grace to righteousness attained by faith.

  15

• MI

  @mikeharris7763 · 1 year ago

  Honestly, Matt Slick is one of the worst debaters I’ve ever listened to. He constantly talks over people, dodges direct questions, and leans on tired philosophical jargon instead of engaging the actual text. Calvinism is an anachronistic framework—it’s not drawn out of Scripture, especially Romans 9, but rather imposed onto it. Paul wasn’t laying out a deterministic system of individual election; he was explaining God’s sovereign right to shape redemptive history through nations like Israel and extending mercy to the Gentiles. When you let Scripture interpret Scripture—without the filter of Augustine or Calvin—you see a very different picture.

  4

• OK

  @OkieAllDay · 1 year ago

  Slick may be the all time biggest proponent of &quot;You just don&apos;t understand Calvinism.&quot; - It&apos;s a defense mechanism when their theology gets exposed.

  1

• CO

  @Counterpoint_Apologetics · 4 years ago

  Nobody understands Calvinism per Slick and any other Calvinist. &nbsp; So yes you do understand Calvinism.

  4

• CH

  @chrscr3sp0 · 2 years ago

  Bravo @AKRichardson, Bravo!!<br><br>I know this is old, but Im just discoverying your work recently. I thank God for it. Be blessed.

  6

• DU

  @dubdat4181 · 1 month ago

  That first cross wax a ringer. Great job Matt 👏 👍

• CH

  @chadh.5004 · 5 years ago

  Always amazing to me how Calvinists act as if they can’t understand you when you don’t use their specific jargon. I work in the medical field and doctors are the same way, they are so “educated” that they have become blinded to plain language.

  4