Short video with Dr. Sproul about sovereign grace

Here is the text that Dr. Sproul referenced in this video interview with his son. It is the YLT version. 

“The Bible text designated YLT is from the 1898 Young’s Literal Translation by Robert Young. . . This is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.” ~

Romans 9

Young’s Literal TRANSLATION

9 Truth I say in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing testimony with me in the Holy Spirit,

2 that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart —

3 for I was wishing, I myself, to be anathema from the Christ — for my brethren, my kindred, according to the flesh,

4 who are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises,

5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.

6 And it is not possible that the word of God hath failed; for not all who [are] of Israel are these Israel;

7 nor because they are seed of Abraham [are] all children, but — ‘in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee;’

8 that is, the children of the flesh — these [are] not children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed;

9 for the word of promise [is] this; ‘According to this time I will come, and there shall be to Sarah a son.’

10 And not only [so], but also Rebecca, having conceived by one — Isaac our father —

11 (for they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to choice, might remain; not of works, but of Him who is calling,) it was said to her —

12 ‘The greater shall serve the less;’

13 according as it hath been written, ‘Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.’

14 What, then, shall we say? unrighteousness [is] with God? let it not be!

15 for to Moses He saith, ‘I will do kindness to whom I do kindness, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion;’

16 so, then — not of him who is willing, nor of him who is running, but of God who is doing kindness:

17 for the Writing saith to Pharaoh — ‘For this very thing I did raise thee up, that I might shew in thee My power, and that My name might be declared in all the land;’

18 so, then, to whom He willeth, He doth kindness, and to whom He willeth, He doth harden.

19 Thou wilt say, then, to me, ‘Why yet doth He find fault? for His counsel who hath resisted?’

20 nay, but, O man, who art thou that art answering again to God? shall the thing formed say to Him who did form [it], Why me didst thou make thus?

21 hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honour, and the one to dishonour?

22 And if God, willing to shew the wrath and to make known His power, did endure, in much long suffering, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,

23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on vessels of kindness, that He before prepared for glory, whom also He did call — us —

24 not only out of Jews, but also out of nations,

25 as also in Hosea He saith, ‘I will call what [is] not My people — My people; and her not beloved — Beloved,

26 and it shall be — in the place where it was said to them, Ye [are] not My people; there they shall be called sons of the living God.’

27 And Isaiah doth cry concerning Israel, ‘If the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved;

28 for a matter He is finishing, and is cutting short in righteousness, because a matter cut short will the Lord do upon the land.

29 and according as Isaiah saith before, ‘Except the Lord of Sabaoth did leave to us a seed, as Sodom we had become, and as Gomorrah we had been made like.’

30 What, then, shall we say? that nations who are not pursuing righteousness did attain to righteousness, and righteousness that [is] of faith,

31 and Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, at a law of righteousness did not arrive;

32 wherefore? because — not by faith, but as by works of law; for they did stumble at the stone of stumbling,

33 according as it hath been written, ‘Lo, I place in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; and every one who is believing thereon shall not be ashamed.’


25 thoughts on “Short video with Dr. Sproul about sovereign grace

  1. Good mornin sister.
    I don’t know if you’re aware of it or not, but the YLT completely omits “hell” from scripture.
    Would God remove these warnings from His text? who would benefit from removing these warnings? Thus is this text from God?
    Those are points worth thinking about my friend.
    I have still been praying for your friend too.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lee, good morning, brother!
      May I ask where you’re getting information about the YLT? This is important.

      From what I’ve learned (see the quote about the YLT in my post) YLT is a literal translation and therefore uses “Hades” and “Gehenna”, the actual words the Lord Jesus Christ used.

      As to “Hell”, it is the same word now but here is the origin of this word from Online Etymological Dictionary:

      …The English word may be in part from Old Norse mythological Hel (from Proto-Germanic *halija “one who covers up or hides something”), in Norse mythology the name of Loki’s daughter who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl “mist”). A pagan concept and word fitted to a Christian idiom. In Middle English, also of the Limbus Patrum, place where the Patriarchs, Prophets, etc. awaited the Atonement. Used in the KJV for Old Testament Hebrew Sheol and New Testament Greek Hades, Gehenna.

      Here are links to “Hades” in YLT, to “Gehenna”, and to the “lake of fire”:

      The YLT doesn’t really omit Hell, does it?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hi sister, and good mornin to you, Tom, and Greta.

        There’s a man who’ve I’ve read his writings online who is an annihilationist, and endorses the YLT because of it’s wording that I suppose supports his views. He even publishes that “hell” is omitted from its text.
        So with such an endorsement…that’s enough reason for me back away. (Besides, I’m not looking for another translation). 😃

        Here’s an opposing viewpoint of the YLT from someone that I know nothing about, but it’s interesting to read anyway

        Look it over if you want.
        And as always, I thank you for your kindness. ☺

        Liked by 1 person

        • Hi! Yes, I will take the link and read more about the YLT. Thanks, brother! I posted a comment on your Hebrews 1 blog asking if you’d seen my reply before finding your latest comment in my spam folder.

          Anyone can misuse a Bible, so there is no reason that this foolish man who believes in annihilation should influence our understanding of any translation. I know you aren’t looking for a version and neither am I. I love and respect the Geneva and the AKJV which are both founded upon William Tyndale’s work in translating the Received Text. I’m nowhere CLOSE to being an expert about translations, but I hope you will agree that Hell is not omitted from Young’s Literal Translation, as I’ve shown. This would only be just. Let me read what you’ve sent to learn more.

          Liked by 2 people

          • I’m not a translation expert either on bible translations, and I’m sorry for my causing all the fuss about the YLT. Please forgive me also for making an issue about the YLT. I’m sorry.
            Let’s just forget about this topic.
            Whatcha say?

            And I appreciate your niceness sister.

            Liked by 1 person

          • You know, I was just now thinking…
            Is our discussion about YLT here going to benefit the reader? Or will it engender confusion?
            It would be fine with me if you delete our whole dialogue here on this post.
            But whether you do or not, I’m so sorry for my being needlessly argumentative and debative here, please forgive me.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Lee, his article is huge. Yikes! I tried then bookmarked it.
          Hey, usually I have a difficult time on blogs that are about persuading others that we should only use the Authorized Version. I used to follow a good godly KJV Only blog but couldn’t handle the debates. You’re not really debating. The tone is different.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks, Maria. I’m missing R.C.! As we’ve discussed a few times, I personally stand “somewhere” in the middle of the Calvinist-Arminian debate, although I probably lean a bit more to the Calvinist side in some regards. I thought it might be helpful to provide a link to a short article showing the Wesleyan view of Romans 9. I don’t necessarily subscribe to the viewpoint that’s offered, but I wanted to show that Arminians aren’t necessarily “stumped” by Romans 9.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Tom, I understand that you are somewhere in the middle on this, brother. Thank you again for directing me to the article linked above. True! For sure, Arminians aren’t stumped by Romans 9. It was helpful for me to read this but difficult. Man must be incredibly tough to save if the Almighty God can only save a remnant after all He has done. Not very comforting. The author said more than once that “Calvinists” give Romans 9 a kind of shallow reading. Is this fair? Have a good day, bruder-ski!

      Liked by 1 person

Please share your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.