The Potter's Freedom Part 4

Romans 9 and the Problem of Divine Sovereignty

It is the biblical passage that seemingly is missing from the evangelical canon of Scripture today. A passage that many simply skip over, either in their teaching, their preaching, or their Bible studies.

It's Romans chapter 9, and that will be the subject of our discussion today here on The Dividing Line. My name is James White. I'm glad that you're joining with us today. Before we look at that passage of Scripture, I would like to make note of the fact that, aside from our live audience here on KPXQ, we also have many hundreds of people who listen in across the United States, in fact around the world, on our website.

And in point of fact, that ability of ours is provided by a wonderful man by the name of Stephen Luker and his website at www .straightgate .com. And Stephen's a good friend of our ministry. I hope that those of you who have access to the internet would go by his site and see the many other resources that he has there.

Many of our debates are made available through Stephen's website. There are other excellent debates. For example, the single best debate on the existence of God, that the classic debate between Dr. Greg Bonson and Dr. Gordon Stein is also there on Straightgate, and information from Bill Webster, who has been on our program before, also there on that website.

We'd like you to pray for Stephen today. He has physical needs and in fact is confined to a wheelchair. He is able to do what he does in just an amazing way. But he's having a procedure done this day, and we'd ask that you would remember him in your prayers, and maybe drop him a line there at www .straightgate .com, and let him know that you're praying for him and that you're thankful for the volunteer service that he undertakes for many of us involved in ministry all across the United States.

That's www .straightgate .com. Romans chapter 9 is a passage of scripture that the Lord has used to cause many a person to see themselves in a way that they never dreamed they would. It is a passage of scripture that for many has been used by God to cause them to bow the knee before God's sovereignty and our creatureliness.

But it is also a passage of scripture that has been subject to the most incredible array of explanations, because quite simply, any of the religions of man that would attempt to find a way to deal with this ninth chapter of the book of Romans must find a way to make it say something other than what it says, if they're going to maintain the autonomy of the human will, and make God man's servant.

Make God someone who is quite simply under the control of the autonomous will of man. Romans chapter 9 is a passage of scripture that has presented all sorts of interpretations over the history of the church.

But I would submit to you that the only reason it has done so is that if we take it seriously for what it says, if we take the words in the meaning in which the apostle Paul intended them, there is only one possible conclusion, and that is a recognition of God's absolute sovereignty over the human race and in the matter of salvation.

Let's listen to what Romans chapter 9 says and then let's walk through this passage of scripture and then together discuss what this passage really means to all of us. Paul says, I speak the truth in Christ.

I am not lying. My conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit. I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart, for I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

Theirs is the adoption as sons. There's a divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised, amen.

It is not as though God's word had failed, for not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.

In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. For this was how the promise was stated, at the appointed time I will return and Sarah will have a son.

Not only that, but Rebecca's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose in election might stand, not by works, but by him who calls, she was told the older will serve the younger, just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. It does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me, then why does God still blame us for who resists his will? But who are you, oh man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, why did you make me like this?

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction?

What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory, even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles?

The Israel Question in Romans 9:1-5

Well you can see why the passage has been so controversial over the years. It's not really that it's unclear, the simple fact of the matter is, even amongst people who name the name of Christ, there still remains an element of rebellion in the heart, an unwillingness to view God as the potter, and we as the clay.

That is something that I believe takes a work of the Spirit of God in the heart, to break down that rebellion that still exists, that says, no, I am the one, I am the one who determines my life and my destiny, not God, I will not bow down before such a God, there are many who would say that.

But Romans chapter 9 was given to us by the Holy Spirit of God for our edification, and we, in reality, question the Holy Spirit's wisdom, and the Holy Spirit's guidance of his church when we, as so often takes place today, do not take the time to understand all that God has given us in Scripture.

And I'd like you to think with me as we look at this passage of Scripture, follow along if you can, in the Word of God, and let's see if there isn't some way of understanding this passage and responding to those who would present a different understanding of what Paul is saying.

In the first five verses, Paul lays out what the question is going to be, and in fact, the vast majority of interpretations that find some other meaning in Romans chapter 9, do so by cutting the text up into little pieces.

And verses 1 -6, they have their own meaning, and then verses 7 -13 have their meaning, and then the next section of verses, they're over here. But obviously, that can't be done with the Book of Romans.

Paul is presenting in the Book of Romans a thought-out argument, a thought-out presentation, and since he's doing so, then what is found in the first five verses will be related to what comes afterwards.

In the first five verses lay out for us the question, look at all the privileges that have been given to the people of Israel. Paul says that in his heart he has great sorrow and unceasing anguish for his brothers, those of his own race, the people of Israel.

And he talks about the fact that they have such tremendous benefits. Theirs is the adoption as sons, theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises.

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised, amen. I mean, you want to have privileges, the last mentioned privilege is the fact that it was God Himself who came into human flesh as a Jew.

And having laid all these things out, then he has to deal with the simple fact of the matter, and that is the majority of his brothers. The majority of his race, as he puts it in verse three, are not like him.

He says in verse three, for I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers. Why? Because most of them are cursed and cut off from Christ. It was the obvious experience, the Apostle Paul, that in his ministry it was not the Jewish people who with open arms as a majority embraced the message of Christ.

And so, obviously, one of the great objections that had been raised to Paul's preaching and teaching was that if the Gospel message is true, and if what was being seen around those days at that time, that it was the Gentiles primarily who were embracing the truth, not the Jewish people, then the objection is found in verse six, which sounds like God's work is to reject those systems that do not take seriously God's predestined grace, are to be rejected as unscriptural.

And so, there are going to be those who will say this passage is simply talking about nations, it's not talking about individuals, it has nothing to do with salvation, it only has to do with positions of privilege.

And yet, how is that a response to what Paul says in verse six, it is not as though God's word had failed, for not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. He points out that from the very beginning there has been a discerning purpose of election in God's dealing with his people.

And that there have always been those within what was called Israel who were not true Israelites in the sense of being heirs of the promise. Not just external benefits, but heirs of the promise, the very promise of salvation itself.

Isaac, Jacob, and Esau: Children of Promise and Purpose

And then he gives illustration beginning in verse seven, nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children, on the contrary, it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.

That is, from the beginning, even when the promises, and you trace back, Paul used this term promises back to Romans chapter four, Romans chapter five, where what are we talking about? Personal salvation, justification, not nations or national privilege.

But there, this assertion is made that even though the promise is given to Abraham, yet God restricted the benefits of those promises to the line that went through Isaac. God said it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned, not through Ishmael.

Ishmael was not a child of promise in that sense. So Paul says in verse eight, in other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it's the children of promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring and who determines who the children of promise are.

But God himself, it is not just simply that everyone who comes from the loins of Abraham is an automatic recipient. No, the children of promise is Isaac, and then even the illustration will go on to demonstrate that God's particularism, his choice in election continues to demonstrate itself even in the children of Isaac.

For, in verse nine, God says, for this was how the promise was stated at the appointed time, I'll return and Sarah will have a son. God had promised that he would give the heir of promise, and Abraham had tried to somewhat short circuit that process, as you may recall in your Old Testament history.

Verse 10, not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. So here is, here is the child of promise. Here is Isaac, and Isaac has twins, Rebekah's children. But notice what Paul says in verse 11, yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose in election might stand, not by works, but by him who calls, she was told the older will serve the younger, just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

Well, there's the first beginning. There's, there's the first section where you get real strong response. For the words are straightforward. Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad.

Now, just in passing, since I know that we do have LDS people who listen, I thought you might want to consider what that passage means. That is before we're born, we don't do anything good or bad. And yet in LDS theology in the pre-existence, everyone does things good or bad, but be it as it may before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad.

Now, why does Paul mention that? Because God's purpose in election, God's purpose in election is not based upon anything that man does. It was not God looking down the corridors of time and seeing what Jacob would do or what Esau would do.

His whole purpose is quite obvious. Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, so that there is no basis of discrimination between Jacob and Esau in themselves or in their activities.

In order that, for the purpose that, God's purpose in election might stand. Not man's purpose, but God's purpose in choosing, in discriminating so that his purpose might stand. And then it's even strengthened by the assertion, not by works, but by him who calls.

Not by anything that man does. God's purpose in election is not based upon what men do, but it's based upon him who calls. The foundation of the electing purpose of God is found only in God himself. It must be that way for salvation to be by grace and for God alone to receive glory.

In order that God's purpose in election might stand, not by works, but by him who calls, she was told, the older will serve the younger. Just as it is written, Jacob I love, but Esau I hated. There's the assertion of God's discriminating grace, God's discriminating purpose.

He has a specific purpose that he's going to work out and that purpose will be worked out through Jacob, not through Esau. And God places his love upon Jacob, but he does not place it upon Esau. Now what is the automatic response that came up in your mind when you hear that?

Maybe you're very familiar with the passage. Maybe you've worked through all this before. But for a lot of folks, the first time they're faced with this kind of an assertion, the first thing that comes across your mind is, that's not fair.

That's not fair. And isn't it interesting that's exactly what verse 14 says. What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all. You see, Paul knew what the objections were. He had taught this enough times that he knew how man responds to the assertion of God's absolute sovereignty.

And the natural reaction of the natural man is not simply to say, you know what? God is God. I'm not. I am but a mere creature. God is sovereign over all things and therefore what he does is good and just.

And I recognize my creatureliness. I recognize that I am but clay in his hand and how I would never even want to dare to question his wisdom. What he does is good because he does it. Well that's the result of Christian maturity, but it's not what most people think right off the bat.

So Paul knew. Paul knew when he asserted from the biblical text the fact that God's purpose and election would stand and that he had said the older will serve the younger and in fact, Jacob I love but Esau I hated.

And folks, the wonder of the phrase Jacob I love but Esau I hated is not Esau I hated, it's Jacob I loved. That's the wonder. Jacob, that deceiving, conniving, sniveling little guy. Jacob I loved, that's the wonder.

Not the Esau I hated part. We tend to focus on that instead. What then shall we say, Paul says, is God unjust? Not at all. How do you answer Paul the assertion that God is unjust in determining what's going to happen with Jacob and Esau even before they've done anything?

Paul's response is not the response a lot of people give today. For he says to Moses, verse 15, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. Those are his words, not mine.

I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. In other words, God's mercy and God's compassion must by definition be free. Or they're neither mercy nor compassion.

God is free to have mercy upon whom he desires to have mercy. God is free to have compassion on whom he has compassion. This passage comes from Exodus 33. And in that singular passage, a tremendous passage of Scripture filled with deep meaning, there in God's dealing with Moses, we see his sovereign freedom to accept men or to not accept men.

To enter into relationship with those who find favor in his sight, not because of who they are, but because of who he is, or to not do so. So he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

And what is the divine apostolic interpretation of this quotation from Exodus? Well, here it is. The dividing line of biblical soteriology, Romans 9 .16. It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

Now that's the NIV translation, but in reality, the literal translation, I think, of the passages is even more telling than the NIV's rendering, which is somewhat dynamic and somewhat easier to follow.

New American Standard says, so then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Literally, it says, therefore, not on the willing one, neither the running one, but the one mercied, the one that receives mercy.

It's the God who mercies. How's that? The mercying God. There we go. The mercying God. Now think about it for just a moment. It does not, therefore, depend on the willing one, the one willing, the one exercising his will.

Well, that just shot down the vast majority of evangelical theories of salvation, didn't it? And you might say, well, but I know there are people who say this has to do with nations. How does nations fit into this?

We're going to address the nations argument when we, after our bottom of the hour break, take a look at Dr. Geisler's comments on this passage and respond to them. But how does that fit here? How does that fit in this passage?

How do nations will or how do nations run? And why are these singulars and not plurals? Why would Paul be so unclear? You see, it does not depend. It is not based upon the action of the will of man. And it's not based upon the efforts of man, the running of man, the many things that man tries to do to try to earn something from God.

What is it that I hope every Christian heart can agree together is based totally and completely upon the mercy of God, His action of showing mercy. It's salvation itself. There is indeed the dividing line, the division between biblically-based soteriology, doctrine of salvation, and a non-biblically-based soteriology.

You want to see how that's exactly what Paul is referring to? Look at the next two verses. And this is probably the hardest part. I remember showing this to an individual many years ago through a BBS, and he described this passage of Scripture as God's two-by-four upside his head.

Verse 17 for the Scripture says to Pharaoh, Pharaoh was a person. Pharaoh was a historical individual. Pharaoh was an individual that God said in Exodus chapter 4, he would harden his heart so that his purpose might be accomplished in Pharaoh and in the Egyptians.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, verse 17, I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. That takes a sovereign God.

The heart that does not recognize who God is and who we are looks at that and says, that's not fair. But God says, my purpose of displaying my power in Pharaoh, my purpose of having my name proclaimed in all the earth is a sovereign purpose.

And it is the highest purpose. And as God, I can raise up Pharaoh in this way if I choose to do so. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, I raised you up for this very purpose. Why was Pharaoh in the position he was in?

Because God had a plan that he was going to accomplish. And that included the virtual destruction of the Egyptian nation, the destruction of the firstborn of Egypt, the delivery of the people of Israel from bondage.

So how did God work out his purpose in Pharaoh? So, verse 18, therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. I didn't write the words, folks. Unless you have a canonically challenged version of the Bible, unless in a fit you tore this page out, and by the way, if you tear out Romans 9, frequently Romans 8 will go with it.

Just thought I'd mention that in passing. It's right there. God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. There is a parallel between the two. And what determines which is which is the sovereign purpose of God, not anything else.

The Objection: Why Does God Still Blame Us?

There are a lot of objections to this passage, and Paul will respond to them beginning in verse 19. And that's what we'll get to right after we take this break. Looking at Romans chapter 9 here on The Dividing Line.

One of you will say to me, then, why does God still blame us for who resists his will? There is the objection provided by the Apostle Paul to his own teaching, an objection that certainly he would have heard over and over and over again as he taught this truth of God's absolute sovereignty, and is certainly a truth that we hear that same objection.

Why does God still blame us? Who resists his will? If he has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and if he has compassion on whom he wants to have compassion, if he hardens whom he wants to harden, then how can God still blame us?

Why can God still judge? For who resists his will? If he hardens Pharaoh, then how can he judge Pharaoh? This is unfair. I just want you to think for a moment that in reality, given that that's the objection raised by the imaginary objector of verse 19, that's the objection to Paul's teaching.

That's the objection raised against apostolic doctrine and teaching from the Apostles themselves. That's what the Apostle is responding to. Interestingly enough, some have even gone so far as to say that the objector didn't understand what Paul was saying, but it's quite obvious that the objection flows very naturally from verse 18.

So what's Paul's answer? Some people say that Paul's answer in verse 20 really isn't an answer. That Paul basically throws up his hands and says, well, we just can't know. We just can't figure these things out.

But I don't think that's the case at all. I think there is a fundamental answer in verse 20. I think it's a devastating answer, and it's a completely satisfying answer, at least if we'll allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves.

Paul's response to the imaginary objector is, but who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? You see, that's part of the answer. If we would just understand what the Bible says about man.

See, it's not who are you, O equal of God. It's not who are you, O autonomous-willed creature that can command God to do whatever you want God to do. It's who are you, O man, creature, creation, thing formed by God, dependent upon God for your every breath, for your every thought, your every heartbeat.

Who are you, O man, to talk back to your Creator? There is a fundamental distinction that unfortunately gets blurred in many people's thinking between God and man. That distinction is only bridged once in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who was the God-man.

But we are mere creatures, and God is God. So Paul says, shall what is formed, that's the man, say to him who formed it, that's God, why did you make me like this? It's a tremendous picture when you think about it.

I am not a coffee drinker myself. In fact, I don't even like to smell the stuff. But there are a lot of people who are absolutely addicted to that particular substance. And you may right now have a cup nearby you, or at least one that you drank this morning that you haven't gotten rid of yet.

And it would be somewhat like opening up the cupboards in your home and all those coffee mugs and glasses and things like that, and all of a sudden they're all objecting to you as to the purposes you use them for, the way you use them.

All the glasses are bouncing around the shelf going, I don't like being put in that dishwasher, it's hot, and it's stuffy, and it stinks in there, and it's dark. And so I'd like you to treat me differently.

Our cups and glasses generally do not do that, except in Disney films. And we all would recognize that it's an absurd thing to think that those things that are just servants of ours, things that we own, things that most of us haven't made, maybe you have a cup or glass around that you've actually made, maybe you took a pottery class or did one of those things like I did when I was in school and made one of those cups and had it fired and stuff, and man, mine's really ugly.

Other people would make really pretty ones. I wasn't very good at it. But the fact is that all of those things are made. They were formed by someone else. And when the potter creates a pot or a utensil or a cup or a plate or a platter or whatever, it's the potter's right to make it for whatever purpose he wants to make it for.

And it is fundamentally absurd to think of a pot, a thing formed, talking back to the potter. That's absurd, but that's what you have in most of men's religions. That's what Paul says in verse 21. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Please note, the same lump of clay, one lump of clay, and from that lump of clay he makes some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use. He doesn't sit there and look at the lump of clay and say, okay, now, that element of the lump of clay that's good enough to choose me, I'll make you this, or that element of the lump of clay that rejects me, I'll make you that.

No. The potter takes one lump of clay and he makes from that one lump some pottery for noble purposes and some for common uses. And it's God's choice, completely and totally. You see, you can see why there has to be ways around this passage because if you don't view this passage in, if you see it the way the Scripture's presented, the normal way in which the Gospel's presented is undercut.

Why? Because most of the time the Gospel's presented, well, what will you do with God? God's done everything He can do, and God really wants you to take Him up on His offer. But God's powerless past this point.

He's done everything He can for you, and now it's up to you. You determine whether God's work's going to work for you. The simple fact of the matter is, folks, the biblical presentation is your concern should be what will God do with you?

If God works upon your heart and moves upon your heart, that question will cause you to cry out for mercy. If He doesn't, it won't. It's quite that simple. The potter has the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common uses.

And so Paul applies it and says, what if God, in verse 22, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, which is what's going on in Egypt, that's what's going on with Pharaoh, that's what's going on throughout the history of the world, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath prepared for destruction, for perdition?

What if? Have you ever been asked to think about that? It's right there. What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath prepared for destruction?

What if He did this, verse 23, to make the riches of His glory known to whom? The objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory. Who are they? Even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles.

Responding to Norman Geisler's Objections

You can see why people try to get around these passages. You can see why every suggestion in the world has been offered. And three weeks ago, we began reviewing the new book by Dr. Norman Geisler entitled Chosen but Free, A Balanced View of Divine Election.

And we have pointed out that Dr. Geisler's book is not a balanced view of divine election. That it is an Arminian view of divine election. That it is thoroughly anti-reformed. It identifies the Reformed faith as a dangerous error.

In fact, I was just noticing last evening that in looking at the view of God presented in the Reformed view, it says,. Thus extreme Calvinism has at its heart an incoherent view of God. Remember, extreme Calvinism, in Dr. Geisler's vocabulary, is simply what history knows as Calvinism, the Reformed perspective.

He goes on to say, Extreme Calvinism stands or falls with voluntarism. It is at the root of both its biblical interpretation and theological expressions. But as we have seen, Calvinistic voluntarism is biblically unfounded, theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

Thus extreme Calvinism is subject to the same criticisms. That is, extreme Calvinism is morally repugnant from Dr. Geisler's viewpoint, and I believe I have pointed out that I don't recall in Dr. Geisler's work on Roman Catholicism the level of language used in regards to Rome that is used in regards to the Reformers in this particular work and the perspective that they presented.

Obviously, Dr. Geisler has to respond to Romans chapter 9 in his book, and he does somewhat in sections. He does it in the way that I mentioned earlier, and that is in an atomistic way. He breaks it up into sections and attempts to respond to it point by point.

The first section that he deals with is Romans chapter 9, verses 11 through 13. That is a section we've already read, and he comments that ends with the phrase, Esau I hated, and he comments,. This is a favorite passage of extreme Calvinists, especially those who believe in double predestination.

For it appears to say that God not only loves just the elect, but also that he even hates the non-elect. Now how does he respond to this particular passage of scripture? Primarily by doing what most individuals who respond to it do, who come from an Arminian perspective, and that is present the concept that in point of fact what Paul is talking about here are two nations, not two individuals.

He will quote favorably in his book any Arminian work and unfavorably any Reformed work, and he quotes a number of Arminian verses here that specifically address this issue. I will explain exactly where he's coming from when we come back from this break.

Stay with us. There are few scriptural texts more misused by extreme Calvinists than this one, Dr. Geisler says. First of all, God is not speaking here about the individual Jacob, but about the nation of Jacob, Israel.

In Genesis, when the prediction was made, Genesis 25 -23, Rebekah was told, two nations are in your womb, two peoples will be separated from your body, and the older shall serve the younger. So the reference here is not to individual election, but to corporate election of a nation, the chosen nation of Israel.

Second, regardless of the corporate election of Israel as a nation, each individual had to accept the Messiah in order to be saved. Then he goes through Paul's discussion in Romans chapter 9. Thirdly, God's love for Jacob and hate for Esau is not speaking of those men before they were born, but long after they lived.

The citation in Romans 9 -13 is not from Genesis when they were alive, but from Malachi chapter 1 verses 2 -3, long after they died. The evil deeds done by the Edomites, the Israelites, are well documented in the Old Testament, and it is for these that God is said to have hated them as a country.

Here again, this did not mean that no individuals from that country would be saved. In fact, there were believers from both Edom and the neighboring country of Moab, just as there will be people in heaven from every tribe, kindred, nation, and tongue.

Fourth, the Hebrew word for hated really means loved less. Indication of this comes from the life of Jacob himself. For the Bible says, Jacob loved also Rachel more than Leah. The Lord saw that Leah was hated, Genesis 29 -31.

The former implies strong positive attachment, and the latter not positive hatred, but merely a less love. The same is true in the New Testament, as when Jesus said, If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, he cannot be my disciple.

A parallel idea is expressed in Matthew. So even while the strongest verses used by extreme Calvinists does not prove that God hates the non-elect, or even that He does not love them, it simply means that God's love for those who receive salvation looks so much greater than His love for those who reject it that the latter looks like hatred by comparison.

And then there are various examples that are provided, stories that are told to illustrate this type of a concept. You'll notice that the response provided by Dr. Geisler in Chosen but Free, that's on pages 82 and 83, does not take into account the context of Romans chapter 9.