Romans 9 and Radio Free Geneva Concluded

A mighty fortress is our God. A bulwark never failing.

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them. They're following men instead of the Word of God.

Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

On top of my feet, standing on a stump and crying out, he died for all. Those who elected were selected.

For still our ancient foe does seek to work us woe. His craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate.

Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the Reformers.

On earth is not his equal.

I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

Did we in our own strength confide? Our striving would be losing.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.

We're not the right man on our side, the man of God's own tune. Doomed before the womb? You ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he. Lord, swallow his name. Read my book. From age to age the same.

And he must win the battle.

Responding to Steve Gregg on Romans 9 and the Objector's Question

And now, from our underground bunker, hidden deep beneath Liberty University, where no one would think to look, safe from those mutter Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re-read George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say to his own eternal glory.

And welcome to Radio Free Geneva. We continue the series that we have begun. Responding to Steve Gregg on Romans Chapter 9, a fellow came into our chat channel last evening and noted that there was a lengthy discussion of Romans Chapter 9 that I had not played in the series on Calvinism.

And it was in the last MP3. And so I verified that today. And so we have more to listen to from Steve Gregg. Not a whole lot new, to be honest with you. And I must confess, finding the discussion broken up in various and sundry portions of the series makes it very difficult to respond to exegetically.

And I think it's indicative of the fact that Mr. Gregg, his exegesis is flawed because he does not see the connection between the section he's dealing with and what came before. His main argument is this isn't about personal salvation, has nothing to do with personal salvation.

Paul doesn't even raise the issue. Well, as long as you look at 9, 11 or so and following, as if it has no connection to Chapter 8 and to the question of 9, 6 and 7, then I can see why you would say that.

But that, of course, is the problem. And that is indicative of the things we're struggling with. There are a couple of folks on the forum over at Steve Gregg's board who decided to question my scholarship because I haven't bothered to listen to every single thing Steve Gregg has ever done.

I guess there's two MP3s in his Romans series on Romans 9. And though I've listened to 13 hours of this material, and I doubt many other people have, and Mr. Gregg has admitted he hasn't read a single one of my books, I'm the one lacking in scholarship because I didn't catch that one.

Obviously, with folks like that, there's nothing you could possibly say. I haven't seen anything on the forum of any responses to any of the issues I've raised. It doesn't seem anybody there does this thing called exegesis.

But what can you say? You do the best that you can possibly do. So, be that as it may, what I'm going to do is I'm going to hit this section. We're going to play it for you. And I did say we would take phone calls.

It's going to take a while to get through this, but if there are people who really want to respond today, we'll queue you up. That's how they say it in England. We'll get you in line, and we'll go as long as we need to go, or at least till no more than 20 after, if we have to, to give you an opportunity to defend what Steve Gregg has had to say.

So let's, with that, get to it. We want to play everything. I think when we add this all up, it will be like 45 or 50 minutes worth of his material we've allowed to be played. But this time, I'm going to respond to it as we're going along, because, well, we just sort of need to do it that way.

Romans 9. Romans 9. Not before you start. At least listening to this, this was after the 40-minute mark on the last one. Evidently, you know, I listened to these while I was writing, and evidently I just missed that one.

So I listened to 12 1⁄2 hours instead of 13, and now I've listened to all of it. And either that, or I fast-forwarded, or started, stopped it. I don't know what happened, but I didn't catch this part.

But listening to it did help even me to understand better what he's saying about the objector. And there's nothing new here. All he's doing is repeating what's in Forreston and Marston, the book from the 1970s promoting Arminianism.

Nothing new here at all. Unfortunately, the refutation of that material found in Piper's book does not seem to have gotten into Mr. Gregg's hands. And so I'd like to read that to you, and that will give you background to hear what he's going to be having to say here.

On page 189 of The Justification of God, 2nd edition by John Piper, has the objector in Romans 9 .19 interpreted Paul correctly? I have assumed with most commentators that the objection in Romans 9 .19 is based on a sound interpretation of Romans 9 .18.

That is, Paul agrees with the objector that no one can resist God's will, and that nevertheless God still finds fault, as God did with Pharaoh, etc. What Paul rejects is the presumptuous objection which the opponent registers to this divine action.

But there are a few scholars who do not agree that the objection of 9 .19 is based on a correct interpretation of 9 .18. In 1888, James Morrison argued that the objector fails to discriminate and thus reads into Paul's theology a meaning for hardening which Paul did not intend.

Morrison counters, God, it is true, has to do with men's hardness of heart. Insofar as the hardness is penal, it is right that God should take to do with it. But if it be penal, it must come after transgression.

And if it comes after transgression, surely it is right. In other words, the objection of 9 .19 is without force because it fails to realize that he hardens whom he wills, and 9 .18 really means he punitively hardens those who first commit transgression.

Before we respond to Morrison's interpretation, let us get before us a more recent but similar explanation. In 1973, R .T. Forster and V .P. Marston published an exegetical critique of the Augustinian-Calvinistic explanation of God's strategy in human history.

Their interpretation of Romans 9 .19 goes as follows. God's strategy, page 80. Paul's critic had willfully misunderstood the gospel of grace in Romans 3. Likewise, he takes out in Romans 9 that Paul is saying that God's will for an individual is irresistible.

Paul has pictured God as moving in history. He has mercy on whom he will, and whom he will, he hardens. Yet Paul does not say here or anywhere else that God's plan or will for an individual is irresistible, and Luke in his inspired text plainly says that they are not.

By the way, that's the Luke 7 text. It actually has nothing to do with irresistible grace. But anyways, we have seen that the Exodus story to which Paul alludes is far from implying any irresistible will.

It is true that God will ultimately achieve his plan for the world in spite of those who resist it. But the individual still has his own moral choice of whether or not to reject God's plan for him. The question of Paul's critic in Romans 9 .19, why does he still find fault for who can resist his will, is based on a flagrant misunderstanding of Paul's teaching.

You will see very, very clearly, and I can't be completely critical here because maybe he did say it, but it's painfully obvious that even some of this language has been borrowed. This is exactly where Greg has gotten his material.

This is the book he's taken it from, and he's presenting it in his presentation. I go back with Piper. One would suppose that if Romans 9 .19 represented a blatant misunderstanding of Romans 9 .18, as Morrison and Forster and Marster claim, Paul would very simply have set the objector straight and removed the bogus stumbling block.

Thus, Murray, following Calvin, is right to argue that, quote, if in the matter concerned the determinative will of God were not ultimate, if the differentiation of verse 18 were not due solely to God's sovereign will, then the apostle would have had to deny the assumption on which the objection is based.

This he does not do, end quote. Forster and Marster are pressed by the weight of this argument to give a unique and wholly improbable interpretation of Paul's response in 9 .20. They argue in the following way, quote, and listen to this carefully.

Yet Paul's angry reply, nay, but oh man, who are you that replies against God, itself demonstrates the stupidity of such a misrepresentation. How could the man reply against God if, as he supposed, he could not resist God's will?

Therefore, Paul says, nay, rather, you yourself are resisting it now, end quote. That's exactly what Steve Gregg is saying. Notice that Piper identifies this as a unique and wholly improbable interpretation of Paul's response in 9 .20.

I continue with Piper. What is evident from this remarkable construction is that the objector of Romans 9 .19 understands Paul much better than Forster and Marster do. For when they ask rhetorically, how could a person reply against God without resisting God's will, the objector could very simply answer, because my reply is a fulfillment of the hardening will of God.

In other words, Forster and Marster have not grasped, as well as the objector, that Paul sees Pharaoh's resistance of God's commands as a fulfillment of God's hardening decree. They view God's will in such a way that if God says to Pharaoh, let my people go, and Pharaoh says no, then we have proof that men can and do resist God's will, and the objector has erected a bogus difficulty that does not really exist in Paul's theology.

Against this interpretation stands first, as we have seen, the fact that Paul, unlike Morrison and Forster and Marster, and I guess we can throw in Steve Gregg, does not give the slightest trace of disagreement with the objector's interpretation of Romans 9 .18.

On the contrary, his response in 9 .20 -23 not only affirms, but heightens, if that is possible, the absoluteness of God's sovereign will in disposing all things. Secondly, the conclusion of our own exegesis in chapter 9, that is the same exegesis that I gave, if it is correct, confirms that objector's interpretation of Romans 9 .18, not Forster and Marster's, or Steve Gregg's.

Accordingly, when Paul rebukes the objector, he accuses him not of misconstruing Romans 9 .18, but of presuming to question the rightness of God's dealing. It is precisely because the objection has the character of insolence rather than anguish that Paul responds so sharply.

To be sure, Pharaoh said no to God's command that he send the Israelites into the wilderness. This can reasonably be called resisting God. But this is so obvious to everyone that it is utterly implausible that the objector would be affirming that no one has ever resisted God in this sense.

Everyone has, but Paul's point was that even this resistance is in one sense willed, using the Greek term thellae, Romans 9 .18, by God as hardness. The objector sees clearly what Paul is saying. God wills that Pharaoh resist God's own commands.

This fact has compelled both exegetes and systematic theologians to speak of God's will in two different senses. These two senses have sometimes been designated as God's signified will and effectual will or as God's revealed will and secret will or as his will of command and his will of decree.

What is important for us here is to note that it is the second member of each of these pairs which the objector says cannot be resisted. Indeed, this is a necessary and legitimate inference from Paul's teaching, Romans 9 .14 -18.

Perhaps Paul chose the unusual word boulamai in 9 .19b, although he had used thellae in 9 .18, to stress that what cannot be resisted is precisely the effectual will or decree of God. Probably the will referred to is the prothesis of Romans 9 .11, which stands firm because it is established apart from works, 9 .12, and before Jacob and Esau were born, 9 .11.

Therefore, what the objector correctly sees is that God, not man, holds final sway even in the lives of unbelievers. But his premise is that unless man has the power of self-determination over against God, his evil acts cannot justly be faulted, i .e., he cannot be judged as a sinner.

From this premise he opposes Paul's description of how God acted with Pharaoh and by implication the way he acts with all people in all times. In all likelihood, the historical reality behind this formerly familiar objection is the same pharisaical standpoint countered by Paul in Romans 9 .11 as described and located by Gerhard Meyer, etc., etc.

I again refer you to John Piper's fine work on that, a work that is not cited to my knowledge whatsoever in any of Steve Gregg's materials.

Verses 17 -22. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, the scripture says to Pharaoh, even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you. And this showing of power in him means by judging him with the ten plagues in the days of Moses.

That's what it's referring to. God shows his power in Pharaoh by judging him. So God says, I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared in all the earth.

Therefore, Paul says, he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens. You will say to me then, why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will? But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?

Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, why have you made me like this? Does not the potter have power over the clay from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had prepared beforehand for glory?

Now this is thought, in many cases, to be one of the most powerful passages on individual, unconditional election in the Bible. I pointed that out before. The earlier verses about Jacob and Esau are thought to be among the most pointed verses toward the unconditional nature of election in the scripture.

In fact, they are said to be, as R .C. Sproul said, it was these verses that made a Calvinist out of him when he was resisting it. He was not eager to be a Calvinist, but he was won over by these verses.

It's rather sad that he was won over by a Calvinistic interpretation of these verses, since that interpretation does not fit the context and is not even the most reasonable way of understanding the passage, nor of harmonizing it with the rest of scripture.

I pointed out earlier, so I will not dwell on it now, that the discussion of Esau and Jacob is clearly not a discussion of individual election for salvation.

And, of course, I will just simply point out that we demonstrated that Mr. Gregg has ignored the fact that Paul is answering a question. And Mr. Gregg's interpretation ignores that question, ignores the reality of demonstrating that not all those who are descended from Israel are Israel.

This is the issue of the remnant. He raises the issue of the remnant later on, but does not recognize that his national privilege interpretation and remnant do not fit together. The remnant are those who are the true worshippers of Jehovah.

All of national Israel had the national privileges, but the remnant were those who are regenerate and had a relationship with Jehovah. So, to even recognize the remnant issue later on militates against the nation's only interpretation that is provided elsewhere.

God does not say, and Paul does not say, that Jacob was saved and Esau was lost. This may be true, but it doesn't say so, and that's not the issue being discussed. What is being said is that God chose Jacob over Esau when they were both in the womb.

He does not say, Paul does not say, what they were chosen for. But he quotes two scriptures in the Old Testament that tell us what his meaning is. He quotes Genesis 25, 23 and Malachi 1, 2, and 3. In both cases, a preference of Jacob over Esau is affirmed.

But in both cases, the passage has to do with the nation that came from Jacob, namely Israel.

And we saw, of course, that the context in which the apostle is using it is he is making application to the time in the womb, to the individuals, and he has no discussion anywhere. If he wants to talk about the word salvation is nowhere in here.

Well, if you go back to 9 .6, it is. If you go back to 8 .29 and following, it is. That's the context. That's the flow. Where is this stuff about national privilege? Where do you find that anywhere in Romans 9?

Where's the national privilege here? I can't find it. Where is it? It's just being asserted. Well, it's here. It's right there. Where? What national privilege? The national privilege of Israel over against Edom is discussed here.

I can't see it, but we keep hearing about it.

And the nation that came from Esau, namely Edom. So that in essence, the verses are talking about God's preference of the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom.

For what? Yeah, that certainly explains how all Israel is not Israel. I mean, if you ask me, well, Paul, my main objection to your entire gospel presentation just culminated in Romans 8. And if God is for us, who can be against us?

And all these people in Christ and the elect and who can bring a charge against God's elect? My objection to all that is that the majority of the Jews do not accept your message. And if my response was, yeah, but Israel had some great privileges over Edom.

Is that a response? That's the kind of apologist that Paul is being turned into here. For what reason? Because we don't want a free God whose grace actually saves. That's the whole reason.

Well, certainly God didn't choose the nation of Israel to go to heaven and the nation of Edom to go to hell in total. Because many Israelites are children of the devil, according to Jesus, and end up in hell.

To be an Israelite doesn't guarantee salvation, but it does mean you're in the chosen people. At least it did in the Old Testament times. Because God chose Israel for something, but not necessarily for inevitable salvation.

He chose them to be used as a functioning entity for his purposes on earth.

Which is nowhere discussed in Romans 9. Functioning entity. Remember where we are. Look at the center part of Romans 9. The previous part of Romans 9 and into Romans 8 is about what? Sanctification, glorification, justification, calling.

Is that about national privilege? I don't think so. Who will bring a charge against God's elect? Is that national privilege? No, not in that. Let us go after Romans 9. Let's go to all the texts that follow after, starting in verse 24.

It's about the remnant. God has left himself a remnant. And Romans 9 ends then with, the Israelites have stumbled. They haven't found what? Righteousness. Because they pursued it by what? As if it were by law rather than by faith.

So Romans 9 ends with salvation. Romans 9 begins with salvation after Romans 8. But when we get to the middle part where God's freedom is emphasized, all of a sudden we have national privilege. That's what we're getting here, folks.

Temporal use of a nation is what's being chosen here. God chooses one nation. He's going to use a nation, and he chooses this one, not that one. And he does so without any basis of merit on the part of the progenitors of that nation.

He just decides to favor this family and not that family with a special calling. But that calling is not essentially a calling to salvation because one who is not of Israel could be saved, and a person who is in Israel could be lost in terms of eternal salvation.

Many Jews are lost and in hell today, and many Gentiles are saved. Even Edomites got saved. There's a very good reason to believe that Job was an Edomite.

The evidence... Of course, none of this really has anything to do with the point because no one was trying to say that these are all just nations and that that's, you know, it's just taking up time here.

...suggests this in Scripture.

And he was certainly saved and a godly man. So in saying that God chose the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom, it is not even discussing the question of individual salvation. That is not on Paul's mind.

It is not part of his discussion. It wasn't in Romans 8 and the beginning of Romans 9. He doesn't pick it up right after this in Romans 9 and continue it and talk about righteousness and salvation and faith and law.

It's just this one part where all of a sudden Paul completely forgot what he was talking about.

The discussion, chapters 9 through 11 of Romans, is about Israel as an entity and their significance in the nature of God's choosing of Israel. He is not trying to settle Calvinistic points against Arminian points here.

He is not even discussing those issues. He is talking about the nature of God's sovereign choice of Israel, who He chose, who He did not chose, to fill the role that Israel filled. Now, he talks about Pharaoh there and, you see, sometimes Calvinists say, well, you know, you can't make this just a message of corporate election of Israel.

We've got the issue of salvation here of individuals because it says Moses, verse 15. He says to Moses, that's an individual. Or of Pharaoh, verse 17, he speaks. These are individuals. But, of course, the fact that they're individuals is irrelevant.

Jacob and Esau were individuals too. But in the context, they represent leaders of nations, heads of ethnic groups.

See how the overriding principle, the only, I would submit to you that the only reason why Mr. Gregg, Forster Marston, and Arminians in general attempt to adopt this kind of understanding of Romans 9 is obviously because they can't allow this to stand.

I mean, God can't be free to harden whom He wills and to mercy whom He wills because of free will. And so since we know free will is true, it has to be true, our entire philosophy is based on it, then we take that and we disconnect this text.

And so even though we're talking about Jacob and Esau in the womb, we want to extend that out to nations somewhere down the road and national privilege, which Paul never even raises the question and doesn't even use that language.

And here is the overriding utilization of a tradition, defense of a tradition, that results in the overturning the text, turning the text literally upside down.

And the things that are said of them pertain not to them as individuals because when it says the older shall serve the younger, that is Esau shall serve Jacob, that never did happen.

And this is where again, Mr. Gregg is wrong, he is completely wrong. Genesis 27 40 even makes the reference that he will serve him, but the point is that once he sold his birthright, that he becomes the servant of Jacob.

And so when he tries to make, well, false prophecy, can't have anything to do, no. And realize all this is an argument against Paul's own interpretation of these texts. The applications that Paul makes is the argument that he's actually making, he's actually going against Paul.

He saw the man never, ever, ever serve Jacob, the man. And if that's what God is predicting, God missed it. Way off.

Of course, I would argue that given Steve Gregg's position, where I see him not really having any means of defending his position against open theism, maybe God did get it wrong. Maybe, you know, Esau was supposed to serve, but he just chose not to.

Because remember, if you weren't listening before, Mr. Gregg made it plain that even Paul could have said no. And I think if you listen really closely here, he's going to basically say that Pharaoh could have as well.

So if Pharaoh, if the hardening of Pharaoh was based upon Pharaoh's previously hardening himself, which is what he says, then God could not deliver the people the time he desired to deliver the people, even though he had prophesied beforehand that he would deliver the people to certain time.

If, in point of fact, Pharaoh's will is supreme over God's will, then he might have had to try two, three, four, five times before he could find a good enough Moses and a good enough Pharaoh to make this thing work.

And so the whole foundation of biblical prophecy is simply wiped away. You cannot even begin to trust it. And that's why I really, I've said many, many times, his position cannot defend itself against the attacks of open theism.

But if God was saying the nation of Edom would serve the nation of Israel, then that historically came true. And therefore, obviously, that's what he did mean. There is no statement here speaking of individual election.

Now, as far as Moses is concerned, Moses was the leader of Israel. Pharaoh was the leader of Egypt. We're still talking about a tension between two peoples, two nations.

Even though, and he's going to mention, he recognizes that the Moses quotation is from Exodus 33. He's going to go back to Moses and say, oh, see, he was going to make a people out of Moses. So it's all this people, people, people stuff.

But the problem is the I will show mercy and have compassion, whom I have compassion. That section is where God says that he has known Moses. He has known his name. He has chosen to reveal himself to him in a way he did not reveal himself to the people of Israel.

The section that's quoted is actually in reference to the personal, singular revelation of God's glory to Moses and not the people of Israel at all.

God did not choose Egypt to bless. He chose Israel to bless. He revealed this fact to the man Moses, who is their leader. In fact, in the context, when God said to Moses, I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion, if one would look at the context of that, it was in the context that God said in Exodus 33 that he's going to wipe out Israel because of their worshiping the golden calf and make a new nation out of Moses.

In which context did I will have mercy and whom I will have mercy?

In other words, the context was of the personal revelation of God's glory to Moses, which was not revealed to the people of Israel.

Just completely blew it there. In the context of saying, Moses, I can replace them with your family and your people make a great nation out of you. I can, in other words, have mercy on your people, your nation, instead of on them if I want to.

He's still talking about choosing a people group. In the sense they chose the nation of Israel to accomplish certain purposes that God was working out in history. And is now working out through the church.

But it was a choice of people that God was going to use to accomplish his purposes. The discussion is not about election for salvation. Likewise, the business about Pharaoh. God hardened Pharaoh. True.

But I discussed this in an earlier lecture. I won't go as deep into it as I would like. Again, I don't really too often get tired of talking about these things. But I just don't want to use up my time.

The fact of the matter is the judgment on Pharaoh was not about a man being reprobated by God to go to hell. I'm not denying that Pharaoh went to hell, but that's a separate issue. The judgment on Pharaoh was a judgment on his nation, Egypt.

True. However, again, why was it that he lifted that man up? And could Pharaoh have avoided God's decree? Could God have been frustrated in the demonstration of his power and his might and the proclamation of his name at that point in time in history?

It sounds to me like Greg would say, yeah. You know, if Pharaoh had just chosen to be, you know, if he had just not hardened his heart at first, then God would have had to demonstrate his power in a different way or at a different time with a different Pharaoh, etc., etc.

That's an incoherent and unbiblical view of the knowledge of God and the decree of God and God's purposes in this world.

God judged Egypt by hardening Pharaoh. God judges a nation many times by giving them corruption in their leadership. Now, this doesn't mean and it certainly doesn't say that God picked Pharaoh, a neutral individual, and foreordained that he would be a bad guy.

There is no such thing as a neutral individual. In Romans chapter 5, we're all in Adam. We fell in him. The biblical description is enemies of God, not neutral individuals.

And therefore, from birth, he hardened him against God to make sure that he'd be a bad guy.

Didn't have to because we're already spiritually dead in Adam.

No, the hardening of Pharaoh occurred late in life. After he'd made many moral decisions, he picked a path. He had become a tyrant, an oppressor, a murderer before God ever hardened his heart.

And it sounds to me like Mr. Gregg has a rather Pelagian view of the nature of man at that point.

The hardening of God's heart, Pharaoh's heart by God, that in the Bible, the word hardened in Hebrew means strengthened. Pharaoh chose his course and God strengthened him in that course, basically made him frozen in that state.

If Pharaoh had never made that decision himself, God couldn't have frozen him in his position. God couldn't have?

Again, difficult to say at this point. Just listening to this doesn't sound like Doctrine of Original Sin even comes into play here. Or maybe even is believed.

Hard to say, don't know. It's like when I was a little kid, my kind of... Yeah, now listen to this.

This sort of illustrates it for me because here you have the illustration of what it means that God couldn't have hardened Pharaoh in this way.

I make funny faces and my mother would say, what if your face froze in that condition? The implication is, if your face froze in that position and you had to live with the consequences of having an ugly distorted face, it'd be your fault.

And this is intended as a motivator not to make such faces. Of course, no one ever suggested the face would freeze that way. It's kind of a silly thing to say. But the implication was this. You make a funny face.

If your face froze in that condition, you had to look like that for the rest of your life. Whose fault is it but your own? Your face can't freeze in that position if it never is put in that position by you.

Pharaoh's heart could never have been strengthened or hardened in the position it was in if he had not previously postured his heart in that position. And God found him in that state and hardened him in that state as an act of judgment.

God found him in that state? What, had God gone on vacation and came back and said, wow, look at this guy. He's hardened his heart. I guess I can use him now. Again, it sounds to me like we've got some Pelagian open theism running around here.

And I'm not sure how you put this together with those clear texts that talk about God is the creator of all things and knowing all things future and past. And not just passively, but because he is the creator.

It does not say that God picks people to damn or to make sinners out of. He does not foreordain that they sin, but he does foreordain that sinners will experience certain judgments. And the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was not a reprobating of Pharaoh from birth.

It was a judgment of Pharaoh for acts he had already committed.

So evidently, God does, he makes decisions in time based upon what people do. And so he changes. And again, it sounds like we're dealing with a proto-open theist here.

And more than that, it was a judgment on his nation. As the leader of the nation, what Paul is pointing out is that God chose the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom. Later, he chose the nation of Israel over the nation of Egypt.

And he even almost chose the people of Moses' descent over the people of Israel. But Moses interceded and God didn't do that. Which also raises questions about the unconditionalness of choice, since Moses' intercession is the only thing that kept God from doing what he said he was going to do.

That's open theism. I'm sorry, but that, as far as I can tell, that's a promotion of open theism. See, I mean, God won't do it, and Moses interceded, and so, you know. And people go, well, yeah, it sort of sounds like that.

And you go, excuse me, hello, are you seriously suggesting that the biblical presentation, taking all the Bible and everything it teaches, is that God just got all upset, and Moses was much more calm than God.

And God got talked out of what he was going to do by a much more merciful and level-headed Moses. Or might it just be that maybe all this stuff that God keeps putting Moses through is to change Moses rather than God?

You know, when you stand up for someone, when you intercede for someone, it sort of changes your viewpoint of that someone. You know, maybe that's what's going on there. Amazing.

Destroy Israel and make a new nation out of Moses. Obviously intercession changed it. But the point here is, this is not a scripture that teaches that God makes people into sinners.

God makes people into sinners. Well, you know, if you believed what the Bible teaches about being an Adam and falling in Him, you wouldn't have to worry about that part, because then God doesn't have to do that.

Look at the rest of the scriptures that we read here in Romans 9. Romans 9. He has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens. Okay, God does harden who he wants to, but who does he want to harden?